I. IS THE CHINESE CATHOLIC
PATRIOTIC ASSOCIATION A SCHISMATIC CHURCH?
II. WHY ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC
BISHOPS AND RELIGIOUS ORDERS EDUCATING SEMINARIANS OF THE SCHISMATIC CPA?
IV. IS IT TRUE THAT THE VATICAN
HAS RECOGNIZED SOME PATRIOTIC BISHOPS?
VI. CATHOLIC VISITORS IN CHINA
ATTENDING RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN OR BY THE CPA CHURCH
(For a follow-up to this letter, see our June 2000 Newsletter)
His Eminence Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger
His Eminence Angelo Cardinal
Sodano
His Eminence Jozef Cardinal Tomko
His Excellency Most Rev.
Stanislaw Dswisz
His Excellency Most Rev.
Giovanni Battista Re
Vatican City
Your Eminences and
Excellencies:
We write this letter because we do not understand
many actions by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church towards the Chinese
Catholic Patriotic Association. These actions
appear to have been so one sided in favor of the Catholic Patriotic Association
(CPA) that
the underground Roman Catholic Church, which has gone through five decades of
severe persecutions in China in defense of the Magisterium, appears to have been
greatly neglected by the Vatican. Inasmuch as we and a vast number of
concerned Catholics in and out of China do not understand these actions, we
present to you the following issues in the hope that you will clarify and explain
to the world your position.
This
letter is written in the spirit of genuine concern for the Church and in the
interest of reconciliation between the Roman Catholic underground Church and
the CPA in China. On many occasions,
His Holiness Pope John Paul II called for reconciliation and for unification of
the Church in China so that it will return to the one fold and one
Shepherd. How can the Holy See expect
us to carry out this policy of the Holy Father while there is such confusion on
the issues cited below?
1.
Founding: The Chinese government
established its own “Catholic Patriotic Association” in 1957 as a substitute
for the Roman Catholic Church in order to sever Roman Catholics in China from fidelity
to the Successor of Peter and from any teaching of the Roman Catholic Church
that the Chinese government considers to be contrary to its own interests. Its basic principle is autonomy from the
Pope’s administrative, legislative and judicial authority.
2.
Pope Pius XII’s position –
No Longer Catholic: Approximately three years before the establishment of the CPA, Pope
Pius XII wrote with great foresight on the subject of autonomy in his
encyclical Ad Sinarum Gentem in October
1954:
“22. The promoters of such movements (Three Autonomies) with the
greatest cunning seek to deceive the simple or the timid, or to draw them away
from the right path. For this purpose
they falsely affirm that the only true patriots are those who adhere to the
church thought up by them, that is, to that which has the “Three
Autonomies.” But in reality they seek,
in a word, 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.”
3.
Ordination of CPA Bishops
and Pope Pius XII’s declaration – Invalid and Illicit: The first CPA bishop was
ordained in 1958 without a mandate from the Holy See. On June 29, 1958, after condemning the CPA, Pope Pius XII
declared the election of CPA bishops invalid and their consecrations illicit,
that is, “criminal and sacrilegious,” in his Ad Apostolorum Principis:
“41. Acts requiring the power
of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind [“bishops who
have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See” cf. n. 39] , though
they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet
gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.
47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever,
save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical
appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests
or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can
lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of
the Apostolic See.
48. Consequently, if consecration
of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the
unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved
specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is
automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received
consecration irresponsibly conferred.”
4.
Pope John XXIII’s
Confirmation – Condemned Once Again: One year
later on June 29, 1959, in his encyclical Ad
Petram Cathedri, Pope John XXIII recalled and renewed his predecessor’s
condemnations:
“131. All, therefore, who wish to remain Christians
must be aware of their serious obligation to avoid those false principles,
which Our predecessors--especially Popes Pius XI and Pius XII--have condemned
in the past, and which We condemn once again.”
5.
Continuous Ordination of CPA Bishops Without Mandate: To this day, however, the
Chinese government continues to carry out its own independent appointment and
ordination of bishops for the CPA. In
fact, the CPA has ordained approximately 90 bishops in the past 42 years
without the mandate from the Holy See.
6.
What is Schism?: According to The Code of Canon Law of the Roman
Catholic Church, Canon 751 states that schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the
members of the Church subject to him.”
7.
Is the CPA Catholic? In September 1988, the Holy
See, through the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, issued
a China Advisory (Prot. 3314/88) to
the world’s bishops concerning contacts with the Catholic Church in China.
(Hereafter, the Holy See 1988 directive). The prologue of this document states:
“As the contacts among members of the Episcopate, priests and faithful, with exponents
of the Catholic Church in China are becoming ever more frequent, this
Dicastery, in accord with the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church,
considers it opportune to give the Episcopal Conferences the following
indications:
1. The contacts in question could be a good occasion to reaffirm with
clarity the Catholic Doctrine on the communion which must unite the Bishops
with the Successor of Peter and, through him, among themselves (Lumen Gentium,
14 and 18). In this regard, one could have recourse to the doctrinal principles
of the Vatican Councils I and II.”
Pope John Paul II repeated this position in a letter
to the Chinese faithful in September 1994:
“I am especially close to
those who have remained faithful to Jesus Christ and to His Church in the midst
of difficulties of all kinds, and continue to testify, even at the cost of deep
and prolonged suffering, that 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.”
In January 1995 Pope John Paul II had insisted that:
“A Catholic who wishes to remain such and to be recognized as such
cannot reject the principle of communion with the Successor of Peter.”
On December 3, 1996, during a Mass for China marking
the feast of St. Francis Xavier, the Pope called on Catholics in China
“All Chinese Catholics are called to remain loyal to the faith received
and passed on, and not to yield to models of a Church which do not correspond
to the will of the Lord Jesus, to the Catholic faith, or to the feelings and
convictions of the great majority of Chinese Catholics.”
Pope John Paul II was clearly referring the “models”
to the CPA.
In
essence, the Pontiff was saying that as long as the CPA
denied the supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial authority
of the Successor of Peter, it could not be considered as belonging to the Roman
Catholic Church. The CPA is not and cannot be Catholic because it
continues to deny the above-mentioned supreme authority of the Successor of
Peter. This is also in line with Pope Pius XII’s position as stated in the
second paragraph of this section above.
8.
Observations by Members of
the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy: Having been notified about the ordination of five
bishops by China’s CPA on January 6, 2000,
Cardinal Ignatius Kung, the exiled Bishop of Shanghai, reacted immediately in
the United States: “The Patriotic Association is a schismatic Church.”
On
Jan. 7, 2000, Cardinal Vincenzo Fagiolo, honorary president of the Pontifical
Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, at a conference in
Palermo, Italy, described China’s move to ordain the five bishops as a “de
facto schism.”
9.
Conclusion: In the light of the
overwhelming evidence reflected above, we believe that the CPA is not Catholic
and is indeed in schism.
10.
Holy See’s Position: The Holy See has never formally declared that 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.
11. We do not understand
your silence on this issue and need your
unequivocal answer: Why has the Holy See not
declared the CPA to be in schism? Recently, in response to questions about
Maryknoll’s support of the CPA, Maryknoll Father Leo B. Shea wrote: “Catholics
are united. There is no schismatic Church in China.” Why are so many Roman Catholic leaders advocating that the CPA and the underground Roman Catholic Church in China
are the same Church - and without any explanation
from the Holy See to attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction?
1. The Program: In recent years, there have been approximately fifty CPA seminarians and priests studying in Roman Catholic
seminaries each year across the United States. This program was organized by
the Maryknoll Fathers on behalf of the CPA. The CPA seminarians
and priests were given full scholarships covering tuition, room and board from
various dioceses. Upon completion of
their studies, the CPA seminarians return to
China to be ordained, not by the underground Roman Catholic bishops, but by their
schismatic CPA bishops. They will serve under these same
bishops who are not in communion with the Holy Father.
Apparently,
this practice has been going on for some time. In an article entitled “Quietly,
U.S. Seminaries Train Chinese Priests” which appeared May 29, 1994, in Our Sunday Visitor, Jesuit Father Denis
Como, at the time heading the Chinese Apostolate of the Archdiocese of Boston,
is quoted as saying: “The diocese wouldn’t be accepting these students if Rome
weren’t in favor of this. The Vatican recognizes that we need to be preparing
for that day when the situation opens up in China.”
2. The Participating Seminaries
in the United States According to Maryknoll (may not be all inclusive) are:
1) Catholic University of
America, Washington, D.C.
2) Holy Name College, W. T. U., Silver Springs, Maryland
3) Maryknoll Seminary, Maryknoll, New York
4) Mundelein Seminary, Chicago, Illinois
5) Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio
6) Pope John XXIII Seminary, Weston, Massachusetts
7) Sacred Heart Seminary,
Detroit, Michigan
8) Saint Charles Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
9) Saint John’s Seminary, Boston, Massachusetts
10) Saint John’s Seminary,
Collegeville, Minnesota
11) Saint John’s Seminary,
Los Angeles, California
12) Saint Joseph’s Seminary,
Dunwoodie, Yonkers, New York (apparently the program is temporarily suspended
there)
13) Saint Mary’s Seminary,
Baltimore, Maryland
14) Saint Vincent’s
Seminary, Latrobe, Pennsylvania
15) The Saint Paul Seminary,
Saint Thomas University, Saint Paul, Minnesota
3. Cooperating Sponsors in the United States of America According to
Maryknoll (may not be all inclusive):
1) His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Bernadine,
Archbishop of Chicago, IL (Deceased)
2) His
Eminence Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia, PA
3) His
Eminence James Cardinal Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, DC
4) His
Eminence William Cardinal Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, MD
5) His
Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, MA
6) His Eminence
Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, CA
7) His
Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop of Detroit, MI
8) His
Eminence John Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, NY
9) His
Excellency Most Rev. Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Newark, NJ
10) His Excellency Most Rev. John Roach, Archbishop
of Minneapolis, MN
11) His Excellency Most Rev. Rembert Weakland,
Archbishop of Milwaukee, WI
12) Right Rev. Timothy Kelly, Archabbot of St.
Vincent’s Archabbey, PA
13) Right Rev. Matthew Leavy, Abbot of St. Anselm’s
Abbey, NH
14) Right Rev. Augustine Roberts, Abbot of St.
Joseph’s Abbey, MA
15) Right Rev. Douglas Nowicki, Archabbot of St. Vincent’s Archabbey, PA
16) Rev. Ray Finch, Superior General of Maryknoll,
NY
17) Msgr. John W. Flesey, Rector of Immaculate
Conception Seminary, NJ
18) Dr. Marc A. van der Heyden, President of St.
Michael’s College, VT
19) Rev. Howard Bleichner, Rector of Theological
College, DC
20) Rev. Thomas McCreesh, O.P., President of Dominican
House of Studies, DC
21) Rectors of all the above listed seminaries
22) Bishops of all the dioceses where the above
listed seminaries are located
4. Our Understanding: Through Maryknoll’s
correspondence to our supporters, we have been informed that Vatican
officials, in keeping with its policy of reconciliation, have encouraged
Maryknoll to get any seminarians out of China and into the United States
seminaries. Their purpose was (and is) to provide for them a proper Roman
Catholic education, and to expose them to the universal Church.
5. What We Do Not Know: We do not know - and Maryknoll has not
divulged the information - the names, occasions and
dates of these “Vatican officials” who have encouraged Maryknoll to sponsor
“any seminarians” out of China to the United States. We are led to believe that such an action is being undertaken
under the direction of certain unnamed Vatican
dicasteries. If these Vatican
dicasteries are proud of their actions, why the secrecy? If Maryknoll and others are relying on
so-called Vatican documents authorizing such actions, where may such documents
be found?
6. Accessibility of Underground
Seminarians in China: We all know that through careful planning, many underground seminarians
and priests are accessible to anyone (especially to religious communities such
as Maryknoll) who wishes to contact them. There is no reason for Maryknoll not
to include the underground seminarians and priests in its program because of
any inaccessibility.
There
are approximately 1000 underground seminarians in China. These dedicated young
men have chosen to follow the footsteps of the Chinese martyrs, their
underground bishops and His Holiness Pope John Paul II to serve the Church
during the most difficult years. Pope
John Paul II was also an underground seminarian, and is well aware of the
hardships to be endured in studying under a tyrannical regime.
7. Only for the CPA Seminarians: All the seminarians sponsored by Maryknoll are CPA seminarians.
There are no underground seminarians included in the Maryknoll
program. According to item 6 of the Holy See 1988 directive, “fraternal charity” should govern these
relations. Should not fraternal charity
extend also, if not first, to the Roman Catholic underground Church in
China? Should we not be more concerned
about bringing into contact with the universal Church those seminarians whose
bishops are in communion with, and not in schism from, the Holy Father? The fact that only the CPA seminarians are
being provided with these educational opportunities without at least the same
opportunities being extended to the underground Roman Catholic seminarians in
China is unjust, discriminatory and a violation of the rights of the faithful
in China.
8. Item 7 of the Holy See 1988 directive
states:
“Care must be taken that
those who are responsible for the organization of the visits [between Roman Catholic
hierarchy and members of the CPA] ….be
persons of sound doctrine, faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and
capable of acting with great prudence.”
We must ask
whether the Holy See has determined that:
Those who are organizing efforts to bring the CPA seminarians to Roman Catholic seminaries and to
educational institutions, and those actually responsible in Roman Catholic seminaries
for the education and formation of the CPA seminarians,
are presumably persons, “of sound doctrine, faithful to the
Magisterium of the Church, and capable of acting with great prudence.”
9. Underground Seminarians overseas: The Cardinal Kung Foundation, with extremely
limited resources, was able to bring out three underground priests a few years
ago. In the meantime, there are about
20 underground seminarians and priests scattered around the world with just a
bare subsistence. With no official program from the Vatican to
assist them, one underground priest is suffering from hepatitis
in Europe without proper medical care.
In fact, the Cardinal Kung Foundation is supporting these underground
religious overseas whenever they are in need and whenever the Foundation has
the resources to do so. In fact, it is
the Cardinal Kung Foundation who makes sure that
all the underground priests overseas have Mass stipends to provide them with
some support.
Sad
to say, the 20 or so underground seminarians and priests outside of China do
not even have a “home” to go to during such traditional holidays as Easter and
Christmas, while all the CPA seminarians can
always go to Maryknoll’s headquarters in Ossining, New York. When the Cardinal Kung Foundation took care
of three underground priests for several years, not even one offer came from
Catholic dioceses or religious institutions to take care of any of them. They
all had to share one small room in my house for a prolonged period to study
English before they started studying in a seminary.
10.
Misrepresentation: By sponsoring only the CPA seminarians in the United States, Maryknoll, which
claims to have encouragement from the Vatican,
has the appearance of abandoning the suffering underground Roman Catholic Church
in China. This could be easily and
conveniently interpreted by the Chinese government that Maryknoll supports the
Chinese government’s repressive religious policy and condones the government’s
50-year persecution of the Roman Catholic Church. Worse, it could also encourage the Chinese government to continue
its persecution of the underground Roman Catholic Church without fear of
reprisal from the outside world. It is
too convenient for the Chinese government to make an excuse for anything
detrimental to the underground Church by citing Maryknoll’s program. The negative impact and the damage which
could have already been done resulting from Maryknoll’s program is
incalculable.
11. Wounding the Sensibility: According to the fourth item of the Holy See
1998 directive:
“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.”
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. Of course, this particular
directive is applicable to all the issues covered in this letter.
12.
Conclusion: In the light of the
overwhelming evidence shown above, we believe that this program is wrong and
should be immediately terminated.
Instead, the Vatican should have a comprehensive program to educate the
underground seminarians both overseas and inside China.
13.
Holy See’s Position: The Vatican has never
explained to the public the merits of this program and its own position.
14.
The “Run-Around”: We have a supporter who asked Cardinal O’Connor of New York few
years ago the rationale of this program.
That person was told to write to Cardinal Tomko for an answer. He wrote.
In his reply to this person, Cardinal Tomko wrote: “For information on
this matter, I suggest that you contact either Cardinal Law or Cardinal
O’Connor, both of whom may be able to give you information on this matter”!
15.
We do not understand and
need your unequivocal answer: We do not understand why the Vatican has so far declined
to comment in public on this issue and why is there no program for the
underground priests and seminarians to study overseas.
1.
Background: In the United States, such as in the New York and San Francisco
archdioceses, Ordinaries have granted priestly faculties to priests of the
schismatic CPA. These priests were allowed to offer Holy Mass publicly in Roman
Catholic Churches and to administer other sacraments openly in parishes. No specific mention was made in parish
bulletins that the priest in question belonged to the CPA and no explanation
was made about the schismatic nature of the CPA.
2.
Responses to our Inquiries: In response to our inquiry about this practice of granting
priestly faculties to CPA priests:
Archbishop
William Levada of San Francisco, wrote: “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 [CPA priests’] formation and of their
apostolic ministry is being carried out according to directives received from
the Holy See.” The archbishop does not
specify to which directives he refers.
Bishop
Patrick Sheridan of New York City wrote: “Your letter ….has saddened us to the
point of deep personal distress to assume that someone like Cardinal O’Connor or
any of his staff would act in relationship to priests of the so called
Patriotic Church …..without the necessary consultations and guidance from the
Holy See, is highly offensive and without any foundation in fact….Am I being
overly sensitive perhaps when I wonder what grounds or even what right you have
to offer such advice to the Cardinal Archbishop of New York that he step out
beyond his own jurisdiction and responsibility of call upon priests of Brooklyn
or other Chinese 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.
3.
All “Communicatio in Sacris”
Is To Be Avoided: According to item five of
the Holy See 1988 directive:
“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 that, given the above very clear guideline, how this program of
giving faculties to CPA priests and allowing
them to administer the sacraments in public could be approved by the Ordinaries
in the United States.
4.
Profession of Faith: We understand that the only
requirement for granting the aforementioned faculty to CPA priests in the
United States was that each priest had only to recite once and in private the
Profession of Faith as proof of his allegiance to the Pope. We have the following observations.
5.1) What is the Difference: In their
Masses in China, the CPA priests also profess
the same Profession of Faith while they publicly renounce the Holy Father’s
authority. On the feast of the
Epiphany, 2000, as it has been the Pope’s custom, the Holy Father consecrated
twelve new bishops in St. Peter’s Basilica.
It was not a mere coincidence that in China on the same day, the
government controlled CPA sponsored the consecration of five bishops who had
received no papal mandate as required by Canon 1013, in defiance of the Pope’s
authority. As a further mockery, these
five new bishops, together with the consecrating bishop, recited the same
Profession of Faith. Does the mere
recital of the Profession of faith mean anything when it is accompanied by a
spirit of defiance? This reminds us of
the words of Our Lord quoting the prophet Isaiah: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far
from me. And in vain do they worship
me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” (Matt. 15:8-9)
5.2) Is It a True Profession of
Faith: For CPA priests’ being granted diocesan faculties after making a
“private” Profession of Faith, how do they make reparation for the scandal of
public schism? How then, do such
priests escape the condemnation of our Lord, when He said: “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him
shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. But he that shall deny me before men, shall
be denied before the angels of God.”
(Lk. 12:8-9) Considering where
they come from and to which they are destined to return to serve a schismatic
Church in China, is the mere recital of a private Profession of Faith is
sufficient to be a true Profession of Faith?
5.3) Supreme Authority of the Pope: By reciting the Profession of Faith, the CPA priests
regard the Holy Father as only the “spiritual leader” of the Church. They do
not necessarily recognize that the Pope has supreme legislative, executive, and
judicial authority to appoint and govern the Catholic bishops of the whole
world, which naturally includes China.
They also do not necessarily recognize the Pope as the supreme pastor of
the universal Church, possessing the immediate, full, supreme, universal and
ordinary power over all Catholic faithful. In this way, the CPA priests
reconcile their recitation of the Profession of Faith with their profession of
independence from the Holy Father. So,
Should not the Holy See revise the approach to reconciling CPA priests with the
Roman Catholic Church?
5.4) Pope’s Principle: Reciting the Profession of Faith once by the CPA priests in private
without 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.” (Pope’s speech
in Manila to China on February 14, 1994.)
5.
If This Scenario were to
happen, would it cause a shock among the faithful in the United States?
5.1) Validly ordained priests
belonging to Churches that are in schism from the Roman Catholic Church are not
normally allowed priestly faculties in Roman Catholic dioceses. How, therefore,
can one justify granting priestly faculties to CPA priests?
5.2) How would the faithful react
should the priests from a schismatic Church such
as the Society of St. Pius X be given faculties to
function as priests in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States?
5.3) In the light of the national
and international significance of the Roman Catholic Church in the United
States, should not the granting of priestly
faculties to CPA priests be accompanied by an
explanatory statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Instead we find an unwillingness to
disclose from which alleged Vatican dicasteries
this authorization emanates.
6.
Wrong Signal: CPA priests functioning in
the Roman Catholic Church in the United States at present cause much scandal in
the Universal Church and deep pain to the loyal underground Roman Catholic
Church in China. It also 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).
7.
Violation of Canon Law: Even if these priests have
made a truthful Profession of Faith, why is it that these priests have not been
required to sever their ties with the CPA in
China, and more specifically, with their government-approved bishops in China?
Is this not a violation of Canon 265 of the Church, according to which every
cleric must be incardinated into some particular church, prelature, institute
or society that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Is this not also a violation of the living communion of the Body of Christ with the
Successor of Peter?
8.
We Do Not Understand and
Need Your Unequivocal Answer: In the light of all the matters discussed above, we
do not understand why the Vatican should approve this program, because no
member of the Church hierarchy has offered any reasons for justifying such actions,
nor has the Vatican ever explained to the public the rationale and
justification of this program.
“It will be necessary,
therefore, to foresee how to assist the means of social communication,
utilizing the orientations mentioned above [the previous seven items of the directive as
referred to throughout this Open Letter], which clarify the position of the Church and may
foster the comprehension of the diverse and complex problems closely connected
with this position.”
In addition to cash, there are free services
given to the CPA . Scores of religious personnel
worked in China for the CPA as teachers and social workers. Moreover, as explained above, dozens of CPA seminarians and nuns are studying free with full
tuition, room and board scholarships in United States Catholic seminaries and
elsewhere in the West.