ONLINE NEWSLETTER
(請點此中文板 )

December 2005   

Dear Friends:

For Catholics around the world, the celebration of Christmas this year would be incomplete without our expression of gratitude to God for His great gift to the Church of the Pontificate of His late Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  In connection with our expression of gratitude, we at the Cardinal Kung Foundation want to express our complete, unambiguous, and enthusiastic fidelity to the whole of the Magisterium of the late Pope John Paul II as well as to the current Magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI, which is an enormous gift and blessing to the universal Church.

As we celebrate the beautiful Christmas season, let us ask the Lord for the gift of a renewed spiritual life so that Mary may give birth to her Son in each of us. As there was no room in the inn for the Holy Family, Jesus was born in a stable among the poor and outcasts: a source of hope for the neediest. In a way, the underground Roman Catholic Church in China is the “stable” within the universal Church. Thus, while Christmas is also a source of hope for the underground Church, it is also a time for us to be in prayerful solidarity with these brothers and sisters of ours, that they may one day soon be welcomed with the respect and charity that they deserve in the “inn” of the universal Church.

This past November we celebrated the Feasts of All Saints and All Souls — two great opportunities for praying that some day the Church will proclaim the sainthood of the late Cardinal Kung. For us, Cardinal Kung is indeed a saint, and so until the Church elevates Cardinal Kung to sainthood, the Feast of All Saints is our feast day also. As of the writing of this newsletter, there is no indication from Bishop Lori that the cause for Cardinal Kung’s beatification will come anytime soon. However, Bishop Lori did kindly advise me that the testimonial letters should be spontaneous, not prompted. Although he did not explain the difference, he in fact hinted that the testimonial letters that I urged you to write in my previous letters may be regarded as prompted and may not be counted. In view of Bishop Lori’s advice, please do not let me prompt you to do anything. Inasmuch as holiness is the main reason for opening the cause for canonization for any candidate, please join me in praying that Bishop Lori and our Church will recognize Cardinal Kung’s holiness in his decades of witness to the Roman Catholic Church, his unyielding obedience and loyalty to our Popes, his accepting the responsibility as Bishop of Shanghai in a communist regime, and his refusing to join and lead the national Patriotic Church for which he was imprisoned for more than thirty years, many of them in isolation. Aware of the nasty anger displayed by the Chinese government when the late Pope John Paul II canonized 120 Chinese martyr saints on October 1, 2000, I sincerely hope that the opening of the cause of Cardinal Kung is not delayed because of the political reason of avoiding offending China and the Patriotic Association, who still consider Cardinal Kung a criminal. If this were true, it would be indeed frightening to think that Cardinal Kung, together with many other Chinese martyrs, both real and “dry,” have to go through two persecutions – one by the Chinese communist regime, and the other by their own Church hierarchy to withhold, even though perhaps temporarily, a timely opening of their well deserved cause for canonization. If you wish to write a testimonial letter for Cardinal Kung’s sanctity and for his cause, the letter should be sent to Most Reverend William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, 238 Jewett Avenue, Bridgeport, CT 06606-2892. Please also send a copy to the Cardinal Kung Foundation so that we can compile the documents for the future postulator.

Readers of our July and Christmas 2001 newsletters will recall my extensive analysis of Cardinal Jozef Tomko’s statement, made earlier that year to the bishops of the United States — 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”. I pointed out at the time that Cardinal Tomko’s statement, which is erroneous, contradicts both the Church’s canon law and her basic doctrine. The Patriotic Association’s claim to autonomy since its formation in 1957 conflicts with the doctrinal principle repeated again and again by the late Pope John Paul II in September 1994: “the principle of communion with the Successor of Peter…cannot be renounced by a Catholic who desires to remain such and to be recognized as such.” This clearly invalidates Cardinal Tomko’s statement.

Furthermore, I examined in 2001 the consequences and implications of Cardinal Tomko’s statement. I pointed out that Cardinal Tomko’s statement effectively notifies the suffering underground Roman Catholic Church that there is nothing wrong in joining the Patriotic Association since “these groups …are all one Church.” Such a merger of the underground Church into the Patriotic Association, I explained, would play right into the hands of the communist Chinese government’s plan to eliminate the Roman Catholic Church in China.

As recently as this past October, Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong essentially repeated Cardinal Tomko’s statement when he told the synod of bishops at the Vatican that “the Church in China, which appears to be divided in two —an official one recognized by the government, and an underground one which refuses to be independent from Rome — is actually a single Church, as everyone wants to stay united with Pope.”

Is any Church’s desire “to stay united with the pope” the deciding factor and the litmus test for being qualified as a true One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church as Bishop Zen has proclaimed? I do not believe that it requires a Ph.D. in theology to realize it is not so. Rather, it is full communion with the Pope, and with the universal Church that decides whether one is the true One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church. It is loyalty and obedience to the Pope that constitute the main ingredients of being in full communion with the Pope; certainly not simply the desire “to stay united with the Pope.” One’s desire to remain in communion with the Church without the willingness to pay the price is not putting into practice the Gospel’s words: “No servant can serve two masters” (Luke 16:13). What, then, did Bishop Zen mean when he announced to hundreds of bishops in the October 2005 synod that the official Church — also known as the Patriotic Association’s Church, which still has an article in its constitution since 1957 to be autonomous from the pope — by virtue of its “desire” “to stay united with the Pope,” is the same Church as the underground Church? The underground Church has no need of such a “desire” because it has in fact always been united with the Pope, and for this has gone through 56 years of persecutions by the Chinese regime.

It boggles the mind to fathom how Bishop Zen, the Bishop of Hong Kong, could repeat Cardinal Tomko’s erroneous statement after Msgr. Eugene Nugent, the Vatican representative in Hong Kong in charge of the See of China, in July 2004, issued a series of guidelines in which he bluntly states: “Obviously, the Patriotic Association has the characteristic of being in schism.”  Moreover, in these 2004 guidelines, widely circulated in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, Msgr.  Nugent reaffirms the validity and binding character of the Vatican’s guidelines issued in 1988 and authored, ironically, by none other than Cardinal Tomko.  Like the 2004 guidelines, the 1988 guidelines clearly refute and reject the notion that the two Churches in China are the same Church.

Tens of thousands of faithful, priests, bishops and nuns suffered and died in Chinese jails because they refused to denounce the Pope and refused to join the official Church for the last 56 years.  In these 56 years, the official Church has not changed in that the most important article in the constitution of the official Church — to be autonomous from the Pope — did not change. The Roman Catholic Church’s canon law clearly states that refusal to submit to the authority of the Successor of Peter is nothing short of schism from the universal Church. This is the same official Church or the same Patriotic Church 56 years ago when Pope Pius XII wrote with great foresight on the subject of autonomy in his encyclical Ad Sinarum Gentem in October 1954: “…They (the Chinese Communist government) seek….to establish finally among you a “national” Church, which no longer could be Catholic because it would be the negation of that universality or rather ‘catholicity’ by which the society truly founded by Jesus Christ is above all nations and embraces them one and all…”

When Bishop Zen, Cardinal Tomko, and many other bishops, cardinals, and other people declare that these two Churches are the same Church, they are in effect declaring, in an attempt to legitimize the official Church, that the official Church or the Patriotic Association Church is also the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, regardless of its autonomy from the Pope.  As I said before, this is contrary to the basic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.  Just for the sake of argument, if they were correct, why should the faithful in the underground Church continue to suffer and lay down their lives for their fidelity to the Successor of Peter and for the Church?  All they would have to do is to join the official Church since, as Bishop Zen and Cardinal Tomko said, it is the same Church as the underground Church. If they were correct, all those numerous faithful, including Cardinal Kung and many other martyrs who suffered and died in the last 56 years since the communists took over China for refusing to join the official Church or for refusing to be independent from the Pope, would have done so in vain because if they were the same Church now, they would have been the same Church then.  Therefore there would be no apostasy involved in joining the official Church during the past 56 years – a sin for which they died or suffered rather than commit.  Their sufferings and martyrdom would have no merit for the cause of their beatification or canonization.  Pope Pius XII would have been very wrong when he said what I quoted above in his encyclical.  The late Pope John Paul II would have been also very wrong in his statement of December 3, 1996 in which he apparently referred to the official Church or the Patriotic Association as “a Church which does not respond either to the will of the Lord Jesus, or to the Catholic faith.”  The current Pope Benedict XVI would also be very wrong in that he has not recognized the official Church or the Patriotic Association’s Church as the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.  If the two Churches were indeed the same Church, it is only logical to conclude that the Church is willing to legitimize the official Patriotic Church in spite of its position of autonomy from the Holy See and that the Pope would have declared his recognition of the official Church. However, no Pope in the last 56 years has declared so.  It appears that the Popes have not been willing to legitimize the official Patriotic Church as long as it is autonomous from the Pope.  Therefore, the official Patriotic Church cannot possibly be, as Bishop Zen and many other members of the Church's hierarchy said, the same church as the underground Roman Catholic Church.

China therefore has two Churches that call themselves Catholic.  One Church was founded by Christ 2005 years ago.  The other Church is established by atheist communists 48 years ago in 1957.  One Church has been under severe persecution for 56 years since 1949. The other one is under the protection of the Chinese communist government and has not been persecuted.  One Church is in full communion with the Pope and with the universal Church. The other one, as claimed by Bishop Zen, Cardinal Tomko and other members of the Church hierarchy, “desires” to be with the Pope, but continues serving the atheist Chinese government-founded official Patriotic Church, which is not in full communion with the Pope.  One Church, of course, is the underground Roman Catholic Church.  The other one is the Patriotic Association or official Church.  Don’t let anyone mislead you, even if he is a bishop or a cardinal, into thinking that these two Churches are the same Church. They are not the same Church.  Your faith and the gospel will tell you that it is wrong to abandon a primary article of faith, the communion with the successor of St. Peter, even under the most difficult situation.

The fact that a number of official Church or the Patriotic Association Church’s bishops (some say as many as 75 percent), as reported by the media but never substantiated by the official spokesperson of the Vatican, may have confessed, repented, and requested recognition from the Pope and that the Pope may have accepted them does not make the entire official Church the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. This is a fact because the constitution — specifically its ruling that the Patriotic Church is not subject to the authority of the Pope — that governs the official Patriotic Church as a whole is contrary to the canon law and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore, as Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said in his interview with 30 Days (No. 4 – 2005): “the part of the Church recognized by the (Chinese) government is without doubt linked to and controlled by the Patriotic Association….” When these bishops accepted the appointment from the Chinese government and were consecrated bishops without the approval of the Pope, they did it publicly and pledged their loyalty also publicly, not to the Pope, but to the Chinese government. However, when they supposedly repented and requested recognition from the Pope, they did it secretly, not publicly.  They did not profess their faith publicly, but secretly. How could this secret arrangement be justified in view of the damage they have done publicly to the Church and to its faithful?  Moreover, the word “profession” comes from Latin and means “PUBLIC PROMISE”.  When Christians profess their faith, BY DEFINITION they do so PUBLICLY.  There is no such thing as a private or secret PROFESSION of faith. It is a contradiction in terms.  Therefore, if those official Patriotic bishops have indeed repented, such repentance, in my opinion and in generally accepted procedures and courtesy, should have been done publicly and their reciting of the Creed for professing their faith, as defined above according to the Latin meaning, should also have been recited publicly for the whole world to hear and for the Pope to judge, regardless of the risk they might have faced.  That is what martyrs do.  These Patriotic bishops have not done so.  The late Pope John Paul II, in his message to China on December 3, 1996, said: “The bishop must be the first witness of the faith which he professes and preaches, to the point of ‘shedding his blood’ as the apostles did and as so many other pastors have done down the centuries, in many nations and also in China.”  Besides, these bishops, who have supposedly repented and been recognized by the Pope, still serve on the Board of the official Church and defend its constitution that advocates autonomy from the Pope!

In addition, numerous Vatican documents and public statements from members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Vatican and elsewhere urge unity between the official and unofficial (underground) Churches. In the meantime, the Chinese authority is doing all its best to force the unofficial Church to register with the authority, thereby de facto unifying the two Churches into the one official Church that is independent from the Pope.  Many unofficial or underground faithful resisted registering themselves with the official Church and thereby risked three years in the hard labor camp.  By actively urging “unity” between the two Churches and by actively proclaiming that these two Churches are the same church, before the Pope recognizes the official Church, is the Vatican actually putting the cart in front of the horse by urging for unity into a Church that the Pope has not even recognized ?  Is the Vatican, unwittingly perhaps, trying to help the Chinese authority to accomplish its goal to wipe out the Roman Catholic Church under the glorified name of “unity” so that the two Churches can be combined into One Patriotic and Independent Church?

When one talks about the unity of the Church, it is only logical to think that the schismatic Church should combine with the true Church to become a new unified true church, in full communion with the Pope.  The current events described else where in this letter give the impression that the official and unofficial (underground) Churches are to be combined into one official (schismatic Patriotic) Church.  Why is the Vatican not saying in public that unity should be achieved by the official (schismatic) Church’s uniting with the underground (true) Church and submitting to the authority of the Pope in order to become one (true) Church, and that the one (true) Church, in communion with the Pope, must become legal in China?  By not saying this clearly and forcibly in public, the Vatican may be sending the wrong signal — unintentionally of course — to the Chinese government that the continuous persecution of the underground Church is tolerable because the underground Church is not cooperating to unite with the official Church. Unfortunately, the Vatican does not speak out publicly to protest each time the Chinese authority arrests the underground bishops and other religious. They only do it sporadically with very little public follow up.  If the Vatican really wants the underground Church to be merged with the official Church in order to achieve so called “unity,” why doesn’t the Pope openly and officially recognize the official Patriotic (schismatic) Church, regardless of its autonomy, so that, in obedience to the Magisterium, the underground Church’s faithful and bishops can simply cross the line and register with the official Church and thereby prevent much suffering of the ten million underground faithful? However, even the Pope does not have the authority to compromise this fundamental Catholic dogma of communion with the Successor of Peter.  The current situation, according to which the Pope, on the one hand, does not officially recognize the official (schismatic) Church but, on the other hand, the members of his hierarchy issue proclamations or slogans such as “two Churches are the same Church” and “unity,” stop appointing underground bishops (see below), recognize the official Church’s bishops, approve new official Church bishops, and approve many other official Church projects.  The result is the appearance that the Pope has de-facto recognized the official Patriotic Church, and is thereby nudging the underground (true) Church to merge with the official Patriotic (schismatic) Church under the glorified name of “unity.” This is beyond the comprehension of many faithful, but this is what, I am afraid, is happening.

Within the last 5 or 6 years or perhaps longer, many elderly underground bishops died from natural causes or died in jail.  One would have thought that the Vatican would approve new bishops to replace them.  Not so.  Not even one new underground bishop has been appointed by the Vatican in this period, regardless of the fact that many Patriotic bishops have been consecrated.  Some of them are reportedly consecrated with Vatican approval.  One has to ponder why the Vatican has not appointed new underground bishops for the last few years while in the meantime advocating “unity” by combining the official (schismatic) Church and the underground (true) Church into one official (schismatic) Church and propagating that these two Churches are the same Church.  It is frightening just to think about this complicated situation.  In the meantime, a Jesuit journal published in Italy, Civita Cattolica, whose articles are generally understood to have the prior approval of the Vatican Secretariat of State, published an article, according to Catholic World News, reporting: “The Vatican no longer needs to appoint bishops to serve the underground Catholic Church in China…”  This all adds up to a scenario according to which the Vatican appears to be forsaking the 10 million proven faithful, loyal and obedient underground Roman Catholics in order to appease the four million “catholics” belonging to the official “Patriotic” Church in China.  St. Michael, pray for us.

There are many underground faithful without a bishop.  Otherwise, some underground faithful have bishops who are likely very elderly and ill, well beyond the retirement age, or in jail, or in house arrest, or under severe surveillance or in hiding.  The underground Church is therefore under such severe pressure from our own Church.  The underground Church is desperately in need of new bishops, but the Vatican is not appointing them.  It does not take much imagination to visualize that, under such pressure, any of the underground faithful might be compelled to do something in order to preserve their Catholic faith, which is certainly in conflict with the official Church that still advocates independence from the Pope in its constitution.  Prayers are therefore urgently needed for the survival of the underground Church, which is the only real Roman Catholic Church in China.  We also need to pray very hard that, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the underground Church will have the wisdom to remain faithful to the Pope and to do what they have to do in order to preserve this faith and the courage to say no to the Chinese or any other authority.

Recently, AsiaNews and many other Catholic news media have announced that the recent consecration of three official Patriotic Church’s bishops has been approved by the Pope, while the Vatican’s official spokesperson failed to speak one single word about this approval!  The Foundation grieves when the media reports, with the glorified phrase “from our reliable source in the Vatican” or something similar, that the Holy See has recognized certain appointment of Patriotic bishops, while the Holy See remains silent, leaving the faithful, especially those in China, confused and demoralized as they continue to suffer for their fidelity to the Successor of Peter.  Why is this so?  We faithful can only look to the Vatican’s official spokesperson for the truth of any religious matter of significance, and the consecration of three official Church’s bishops is certainly a matter of extreme importance, because it relates to the basic dogma of the Church.  Christ gave the authority to the Church to help us find and hold the truth about our salvation.  Appointing a bishop certainly has much to do with our salvation.  Therefore, why should we be kept in the dark by our own Church and be forced to believe or not to believe the writings or the gossip of the media about such an important matter?  By keeping us in the dark, does that mean the Vatican is not doing what Christ has commanded the Church to do, politics notwithstanding?  I am not sure.  Only God knows.  If it is the Vatican’s policy to leave people in the dark and guessing, then the Church should never blame the faithful for believing or for not believing whatever is written in the press about other matters, even though it may be detrimental. How is the public supposed to know which report is true or false about any important matter regarding the Church if the Vatican fails to take a stand?  How can this be justified?  Why is this kind of treatment of our suffering brothers and sisters of the underground Church — the “stable” in the universal Church — allowed by the Holy See?

We also have the news of the invitation by the Pope of three of the Chinese official Church’s bishops and one underground bishop to the synod in October and the refusal of the Chinese government to let them join the Synod plastered all over the world’s headlines.  Since the Cardinal Kung Foundation is strictly obedient and loyal to the Pope, we respect the Holy Father’s decision of inviting not only the official Church’s bishops, but also more of them to the synod than from the underground Church — one bishop —although we do not understand. However, allow me to share with you a similar event.  In 1998, there was a special assembly for Asia of the synod of Bishops in Rome.  As the late Cardinal Kung was the acknowledged symbol of both the suffering of the underground Roman Catholic Church in China and of his loyalty, love, and obedience to the Popes, we, together with many Chinese Catholics, expected that Cardinal Kung, who was not retired and was still the reigning Bishop of Shanghai, would be invited and welcomed to the synod with enthusiasm no less than what the Vatican has shown to the four Chinese bishops at present, although it was not very certain that Cardinal Kung would be physically able to travel, just as a number of the invited Chinese bishops to the recent October Synod are known to be very elderly, ill and unable to travel.  Anyway, it is still beyond words to describe how disappointed and sad we were that Cardinal Kung was not only never invited to join that 1998 synod, but also never received the program, related materials and conclusions of that synod.  Needless to say, Cardinal Kung could not understand why he was not invited, but he accepted the fact.  All he had received was a three-sentence letter from Cardinal Schotte, the general secretary of the synod, and a copy of the “Message to the People of God coming from this synodal assembly.”  It’s history now.

There have been many times in the past when the media buzzed with speculations that the Vatican and China would soon establish diplomatic relations, only to see that this was not so. However, in my opinion, as long as the Chinese government does not allow the Patriotic Association or the official Church to recognize the authority of the Pope, as long as the Chinese government does not allow the Patriotic Association or the official Church to be obedient to the Pope, and as long as the official Church consecrates its bishops without an explicit approval from the Pope, there is very little likelihood that these two countries could establish diplomatic relations. Unfortunately, the Chinese government has failed on all counts.  The Taiwan issue is only a smokescreen.

In order that the Vatican be able to establish diplomatic relationships with the Chinese government, the underground Church and the Patriotic Association must become one Church, recognized by and theologically in full communion with the Pope.  Moreover, this one Church would have to be legal in China. This has not happened.

For the Vatican to establish diplomatic relationships with China, which the Pope earnestly desires, the Patriotic Association would have to change its constitution so that it would acknowledge the Pope’s supreme administrative, legislative and judicial authority.  It would have to pledge boldly and publicly its loyalty and obedience to the Pope, not merely secretly.  There is no evidence that such a change of the Patriotic Association’s constitution is in the making.

Moreover, there are too many bishops, priests, and faithful of the Roman Catholic Church who are still in jail in China.  These imprisoned bishops are not only Chinese, but also by definition the citizens of the Vatican.  They are also the soldiers of the Church. Any country defends its citizens and soldiers.  Therefore, how could the Vatican establish diplomatic relations with China while so many of its citizens and soldiers are still in captivity there?  Holy Mother Church, a moral compass of the world, cannot do less than a secular government.

All these issues were published in my op-ed article published by the Asian Wall Street Journal on April 7 this year shortly after the death of Pope John Paul II.

News has just reached us from the Los Angeles Times, November 5, 2005, that Cardinal Roger Mahony publicly celebrated Mass in Shanghai at St. Peter’s Parish church belonging to the official Patriotic Association Church.  The China guidelines issued by the Vatican in 1988 and authored by Cardinal Tomko said clearly that all “communication in sacris” is to be avoided with the Patriotic Association Church.  A Cardinal, who is the prince of the Church, is supposed to set an example to follow and support the guidelines of the Church, not to publicly contradict them.  Cardinal Mahony’s offering the Mass in public at an official Patriotic church in China is an act of public display of contradicting and confusing the Church’s official guidelines. In addition, by his public presence in an official Patriotic church, Cardinal Mahony, even if unwittingly, encourages and condones the Chinese government’s continuing its more than 50 years of persecution of the Roman Catholic underground Church without fear of reprisal from the outside world, and gives the false impression that the Cardinal supports the Chinese government’s repressive religious policy.  In addition, the Cardinal is also, unintentionally and unlikely as it may sound, indirectly supporting the pastoral letter issued by the official Patriotic Church’s Bishops’ Conference more than ten years ago calling for all Chinese Catholics to support China’s “Platform for the Development of Women” that we all know well includes birth control, sterilization and the one family-one child policy whereby women who are pregnant after having one child are forced by the Chinese government to abort their unborn babies.  We are of the opinion that Cardinal Mahony, with our due respect, is not doing justice to the Roman Catholic Church in China by publicly offering a Mass in an official Patriotic church.  I have written the above to Cardinal Mahony. I have not so far received his response.

We tried to be thorough, fair, honest and factual in reporting the information and analysis above. We do so with sorrow and grief.  I hope that in doing so I am able to convince those persons in authority in the Vatican or in a position of influence with a different perspective that unity in the Church in China can indeed be possibly achieved after the Vatican is able to negotiate with the Chinese authority to rescind its autonomy clause in the constitution of the Patriotic Association. The Vatican needs to understand that its policy for China is very unclear to the public and consequently causes great confusion.  The Vatican urgently needs to replace the deceased, elderly, and sick bishops of the underground Church, and those replacing them should and must come from the same underground Church, not from the official Patriotic Church as it is now happening.  We also want our readers to know that we are strictly obedient to the Magisterium.  In his article “Beware Communists Bearing Gifts” published by the Tablet, the Catholic newsweekly of London, on August 6, 2005, Mr. Michael Sheridan of the Sunday Times in London concluded the article by saying, “I do hope, from their undoubted places in heaven, Cardinal Kung and Father Kavanagh (a Vincentian missionary who had suffered much at communist hands in China) will inspire the Pope and his diplomats to realize that the Vatican can afford to wait (to recognize the government in Beijing).”  I share the sentiment with Mr. Sheridan.

Last July, I wrote about the work and living conditions of our nuns in China and requested your special help by adopting a novice for US 55 cents a day or $100 for 6 months or $200 for one year (over and above your normal donation, we hope) in order to help feed one novice. In return, the novice will pray for your intentions every day for the period you adopted her. At the press time of this newsletter, we have 191 novices from eleven convents across China registered with us and waiting for your adoption.  The number is increasing every day.  Thanks to your generosity, you have adopted 91 novices so far.  During this Christmas season, may I appeal to you to continue your generosity by adopting the other 100 novices?  If you are looking for a Christmas present for someone who has everything, why not consider sponsoring a novice in his/her name so that his/her intentions will be remembered by the adopted novice during the period of adoption?  The novice nuns need your help.  You may need their prayers.  It should work very well.

We are also sending many professed nuns to the universities in China to improve their language and professional skills.  It is quite expensive.  It costs an average of US$1,500 per school year per person including tuition, books, room, board, and pocket money.  We are sponsoring 15 nuns now, and expect to send 10 more soon. For those seminarians studying in China, the cost is US$600 per seminarian for each year.  In addition, we need Mass stipends to support our underground priests, and need funding for other activities such as information dissemination, administration and others.  But our funding has stretched so thin and we are incurring significant deficits.  May we request your special help in this Christmas season? This is the 56^th Christmas that the underground Church is under persecution. Please remember them in your prayers when you attend your Christmas Mass.  Thank you.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

Joseph Kung
President

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