A good friend of mine recently told me that “separation of church and state” is a misnomer, especially in a democracy. Why? Pretty simple; he explained that whenever there is a group of people coming together, they will want their interests protected. That desire is politics. Whenever a group of religious people congregate, they will want to impose their views or desires on the rest of society.
What are we to make of the Vatican then? It is obviously both a religious and political entity. It wants power over citizens on this planet. It wants to protect its interests. In dealing with the child molestation scandals in the U.S., here is a snippet from a CNN article earlier this year describing the Vatican’s legal strategies in the U.S.:
Responding to a Louisville, Kentucky, lawsuit that seeks to depose top Vatican officials — including Pope Benedict XVI — the Holy See plans to file a motion Monday denying that the church issued a document mandating secrecy in the face of abuse allegations, as many victims allege, according to a Vatican attorney.
The Vatican’s motion also will argue that bishops are not employees of the Holy See, exempting the Vatican from legal culpability in cases of alleged abuse in the U.S., said Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican’s U.S.-based attorney.
Some of you astute readers will immediately ask, what about repent? What about taking responsibility? If the Vatican wants more followers around the world, shouldn’t it take responsibility for their members conducts? That is a very simple logic, no?
This leads me to the recent criticism by Pope Benedict XVI (as reported by the Straits Times) of China:
‘May the birth of the Saviour strengthen the spirit of faith, patience and courage of the faithful of the Church in mainland China, that they may not lose heart through the limitations imposed on their freedom of religion and conscience but, persevering in fidelity to Christ and his Church, may keep alive the flame of hope,’ he said.
Pope Benedict XVI accused China of violating religious freedom, on the heels of the December 7th through 9th elections of the heads and other senior members of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) and the Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC) without official approval by Vatican. China Daily’s article, “China rejects Vatican’s criticism as very imprudent,” explains below:
The spokesperson said the congress, which is held every five years to amend the CCPA’s and BCCCC’s constitutions, elect a new leadership and set future agenda, does not deal with Catholic doctrines or violate the fundamental Catholic faith, and “there is no question of getting recognition by any foreign organization or state.”
The spokesperson said China’s religious freedom was protected by the Chinese Constitution, and it was a misinterpretation by the Vatican to declare the incompatibility of Catholic doctrine and the Chinese Catholic church’s principle of independent self-governance.
China’s Constitution grants Chinese citizens freedom of religious beliefs, but requires independence of religious organizations and affairs in China from foreign influence.
The fundamental question is who’s priority should take precedence? China’s constitution or the Vatican’s will?
Do you think Pope Benedict XVI is dishonest for not recognizing China’s constitution stipulating independence of religious organizations and affairs in China from foreign influence? Are Chinese believers of Christianity not “true” believers even though they elect their own religious leadership without Vatican influence?
How does Vatican selection of religious leaders in China make Chinese believers any truer? What “holier” criteria would the Vatican employ instead?
Some may misconstrue this post to mean China thinks everyone is against her. This is absolutely not that. The Vatican will want as many followers around the world as possible. The politics it employs around the world will be towards that end. Even the mighty powerful U.S. is not completely “free” from that.
Editors’s choice of supplementary comments:
tc says
The last thing Chinese people need is organized religion.
If China doesn’t address poverty quick enough, organized religions will take root. A weak body is susceptible to disease. A poor society to religions. Which are more dangerous than viruses.
This is the best blog in the U.S. — http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
whooper says
yinyang,
I wanted to say I think it is worse than this. Christianity, and especially Catholicism, is in many ways the yin to Chinese yang. Of course the yin and yang are perspectives, and both are correct. But the dogmatic insistence on the yin path by Judeo-Christian moralists is a great and terrible threat to China which needs more attention.
From the article: http://www.theoligarch.com/democracy-authoritarianism.htm
In the West it is widely believed that all religions are essentially the same under the hood, that all religions believe in sacred individual human life, free will, faith, emotional warmth etc. Although Christianity is in decline, Westerners have not started rejecting the sanctity of human life and championing cold rational power instead of warm emotional love. In fact, most people would say that today the West is closer to the true essence of Christian goodness than it was fifty years ago. Even though many politicians have abandoned Christianity, they maintain its spirit, and progressive human rights are the most advanced expression of that loving Christian spirit. Again we have the idea that liberal democracy is the end of history, the most perfect expression of the divine goodness which underlies all religion, morality, and philosophy.
Yet philosophical truth is always bifurcated, for every archetype there is an opposite, and both positions are arguable. This is not the Jungian idea of the shadow, which is the perverted version of a personality. It is the idea of the yin and yang duality, the idea that truth can be approached from alternate perspectives, or truth is composed of alternate essences. So God can not be love or beauty, God must be power & love, or good & beauty. What are the two forms of religious philosophy? The Western and Eastern, or Semitic and Aryan. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all primarily Semitic perspectives. Pythagoreanism, Taoism, Buddhism are all primarily Aryan perspectives.
Imagine a father and a mother caring for their children. The mother nurtures her children, she protects them from harm, she treats them as equals, she lets them play freely. The father, on the other hand, encourages his children to climb trees even though they may hurt themselves, he is concerned with the evolution of his children, he doesn’t see them as equals, he makes them work. In one case we have the Christian model of God – the loving shepherd who tends to his flock. In the other case we have the Eastern model of God – the Philosopher King who cares about the evolutionary advancement of humanity not individual suffering. Maternal religions typically have a utopian paradise which every worthy individual achieves at death, paternal religions typically have a cycle of reincarnation in which individuals are gradually perfected by painful challenge.
Notice that to the mother the father is a tyrant who does not care about freedom and suffering. But to the father the mother is a materialist who does not care about truth or growth. In the maternal model we have contentment, freedom, egalitarianism, individualism, emotion, subjectivity. In the paternal model we have suffering, responsibility, elitism, collectivism, rationality, objectivity.
…
So at the heart of modern Christianity, Humanism and Liberal Democracy we have two key moral concepts:
(Moral X) Individual contentment – e.g. socialism, wealth redistribution
(Moral Y) Individual freedom – e.g. capitalism, private property
(XY commonality) Individual worth – human rights
…
At the heart of traditional Chinese morality we have two principles:
(Moral A) Respect – e.g. piety, obedience
(Moral B) Responsibility – e.g. elitism, benevolence
(Moral A + B) Collective worth – human responsibility
YinYang says
Great comments and thanks for your links.
Charles Liu says
Didn’t the Bible say “obey the law of the land”? Anyways Christians breaking from the Vatacan isn’t unprecedented – how did Church of England come about?
raventhorn2000 says
It used to be that the Chinese were the 1st ones to complain about the Jesuit priests’ abuses of children.
And now, we find out from US and Europe that the priests were doing it all over the world.
Hmm…. Maybe, the Pope should be praying a little more for the child victims of his “faithful”.
Otto Kerner says
Your basic premise is flawed. “Wanting my interests protected” is only a small subset of “wanting to impose my views or desires on the rest of society”. I, in agreement with my neighbors, set aside a certain set of basic rights as “my protectible interests”, and we agree to refrain from bossing each around with regard to everything else — that is the whole basis of a free society, or civilisation in general. Liu Bang only made three laws. Not only do you not understand about separation of church and state, I’m not sure you understand separation of state and anything.
“China’s Constitution grants Chinese citizens freedom of religious beliefs, but requires independence of religious organizations and affairs in China from foreign influence.”
That’s BS. A lot of people’s religious beliefs include beliefs about what their form of religious organisation should be. You can’t ban their organisations and then claim to be respecting their freedom of belief. There are a lot of examples, but Roman Catholics are the example par excellence. They believe that their church was instituted by Christ and is basically one of his relics. They believe that the Pope was ordained by God to organise the community of believers, irrespective of their country of residence. If accepting the supremacy of the Pope is against the law, then Roman Catholicism is against the law.
“The fundamental question is who’s priority should take precedence? China’s constitution or the Vatican’s will?”
If China’s constitution is unjust, as it seems to be in this case, then obviously it should not take precedence.
Questions like, “Are Chinese believers of Christianity not ‘true’ believers even though they elect their own religious leadership without Vatican influence?” or “What ‘holier’ criteria would the Vatican employ instead?” are pointless unless they are part of a discussion between Roman Catholics. I am not one of those, and apparently you aren’t either. From our perspective, the Vatican is totally irrelevant. I believe a Roman Catholic would say that the “holier” criteria used by the Vatican is the command of the spirit of God (i.e., holiness itself) via Christ’s vicar, the Pope, along with his cardinals.
I don’t have anything personally against Chinese Catholics who choose not to accept the Vatican’s influence. From the Pope’s perspective, they are not fulfilling their duties as Christians, but the same could be said of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians. There are, in fact, a number of churches that have split with the Vatican in the last few hundred years that still use the name Catholic (e.g. the Old Catholics of Utrecht, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Catholic group of which Sinéad O’Connor is a member, etc.), and that seems fair to me. The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association is one of those to the extent that it does not overlap with the Pope’s church.
YinYang says
Jesus, talking about arrogance!
After reading Hooper’s essay (link from comment #2 above), I think I have a good idea where that arrogance comes from. Below are passages from the essay I think aptly describe that retarded mind behind that arrogance:
raventhorn2000 says
“A lot of people’s religious beliefs include beliefs about what their form of religious organisation should be. You can’t ban their organisations and then claim to be respecting their freedom of belief. There are a lot of examples, but Roman Catholics are the example par excellence. They believe that their church was instituted by Christ and is basically one of his relics. They believe that the Pope was ordained by God to organise the community of believers, irrespective of their country of residence. If accepting the supremacy of the Pope is against the law, then Roman Catholicism is against the law.”
That’s BS.
England dealt with Roman Catholicism and does not recognize the supremacy of the Pope. Neither does US or any other rational political legal system of governance.
Incidentally, Vatican is a Sovereign nation, and the Pope is its political leader. Swearing allegiance to the political leader of another sovereign nation is OBVIOUSLY against the laws of MOST nations, as TREASON.
That is simply political and legal reality, BEYOND any “belief” system.
The Chinese Catholics can believe in whatever they want, but TREASON is still against the law.
The difference is Roman Catholicism as a BELIEF is in the believers’ head, So who cares. But Roman Catholicism as in the appointment of a Bishop by a Pope, who is a foreign sovereign, is an ACT, which may be treason.
Clearly, here, there was an OVERT ACT.
“If China’s constitution is unjust, as it seems to be in this case, then obviously it should not take precedence.”
If you think a foreign sovereign has the right to appoint leaders in your country, (under the guise of “religious freedom”), then I’m a Pope, and I appoint Allen and yinyang to be leaders in your country, where they shall recruit followers to swear allegiance to me, and of course, MY ONE TRUE CHURCH!
I await the day your fantasy takes precedence in the world. LOL.
Otto Kerner says
raventhorn2,
Are you under the impression that the Roman Catholic church is not allowed to operate in the UK or the U.S. … or almost any country in the world besides China? You’re trying to make it sound normal, but China’s relationship with the Catholic Church is anything but. It does resemble the situation in England for a long time after Henry VIII, although that was a more barbaric time — the Roman Catholic Church has operated normally there since the 19th century.
YinYang says
@raventhorn2000
I will make sure no molestation is involved.
@Otto
Tell us which country the Vatican’s relationship is “normal” and why.
raventhorn2000 says
Otto,
Obviously, in UK, Catholics don’t pay taxes to the Pope, do they?
Afterall, if the Pope is Supreme, Why are English Catholics deferring to English law, and NOT to the Pope?
Who said anything about a “normal” relationship with a church? if there is such a thing.
It’s a FACT that SOVEREIGN states do not recognize the Supremacy of the Pope outside of Vatican. End of story.
You live under your country’s laws, NOT the Pope’s.
If you want to live under the Pope’s laws, go live in the Vatican, PERIOD!
raventhorn2000 says
Furthermore,
In recent child abuse cases, Vatican has already denies its liability by asserting that local bishops and priests are not its employees or agents, and thus the Vatican and the Pope cannot be held liable as employer or principle for the actions of individual priests/bishops.
So, let’s see, does the Pope claim supremacy over his followers?
If he does and he claims the right to control the bishop/priest selection process, then he is personally liable for all child abuses done by his priests/bishops. (i.e., he personally, on numerous occasions, willfully made selection choices that led to child abuses all over US and Europe.)
But since he has already denied his right to control, by asserting local “autonomy”, then he has no rights whatsoever in the selection process of Chinese bishops.
He can’t have it both ways. Simple as that.
He claims “supremacy”? Let him go face the consequences of his supreme actions in courts.
No? It seems like the Pope has already relinquished his duties as the “Supreme” in courts.
Charlie Siebert says
If everyone ignored the Pope, he would just go away. Try it and see.
Charlie Siebert says
@whooper
“Imagine a father and a mother caring for their children. The mother nurtures her children, she protects them from harm, she treats them as equals, she lets them play freely. The father, on the other hand, encourages his children to climb trees even though they may hurt themselves, he is concerned with the evolution of his children, he doesn’t see them as equals, he makes them work. In one case we have the Christian model of God – the loving shepherd who tends to his flock.”
Christians use the word shepherd, but not in the way you suggest. Nurturing comes until you piss him off. Than he shaves off your wool, bites your balls off and uses your flesh for shish kebab. The Christians believe that this imaginary being called God is a vengeful and rather ill-tempered character with little resemblance to the cute image of a mother that you portray. The devil is in the details, mate. Read the bible. I never understood why they call it the ‘Good Book’. It’s the worst one I’ve ever read.
PL123 says
I agreed with you. The best way is just ignore Vatican, should not have any official contact. Vatican is not a country, it is a religion organization, they can´t be above any nations. The Pope was a “Nazi Jung” and he did not regret that..
You can see how a excommunicated Priusbrotherhood come back into the church, (this extreme right church organization that they did not reconized a Nazi killed Jewish in the history. They are Nazi!!) and you will see the NAZI live in Vatican. Then and now.
YinYang says
@PL123
I think Christians who believe in Vatican need to see them for what they are. If they want to unfairly demonize China or anyone else, they deserve to be exposed.
Allen says
Thanks yinyang for writing a courageous post. IT’s not easy.
Two quick points (I’ll follow up with a more comprehensive post when I get more time to devote to blogging again):
1. the Catholic Church – whatever it might think of itself – is an organization of men, and as a worldly organization have done many evil and political things around the world (not just in China, but throughout the world); freedom of religion does not mean freedom to do anything one wants in the name of religion.
2. freedom of religion is ultimately a political, not religious, concept. It is most forceful when used to check governments from sponsoring a religion at the expense of other religions; it is less forceful when used as a ploy to play politics, when religion is used as a check on enforcement of secular, societal norms.
As a political concept, every society necessarily will draw the line dividing politics and relgion differently; thus Christian values that might be apolitical in a Western society may appear political in a non-Western one (and vice versa – consider, e.g., the French ban of head scarf); even in Christian societies, the lines between politics and religion keep shifting – consider: should the state prescribe minimum standards on how parents raise children (medical treatments, education, work hours, etc.) or leave it to parents to decide based on their religious and cultural norms, should the state define marriage based on specific religious notions of marriage (same sex marriage, polygamy, etc.) or some other societal norms, should the state define life based on specific religious notions of life (contraception, abortion, etc.) or some secular norms … and more recently in California: should the state prohibit circumcison on ground it constitutes physical mutilation or leave it to parents to decide based on cultural and religious beliefs?
Thus I find the pope’s Xmas comments ironic and even hypocritical. I have many close and kind-hearted friends who are catholics and my mom actually grew up going to Catholic schools. But the Vatican, by its exercise of power, play of diplomacy, use of money is a political, a worldly, organization.
And let’s not forget history, so many throughout the world over the last 1000 or more years have suffered in the Church’s name. I don’t blame that on Christianity, but on the group of men doing evil in the name of Christianity.
In view of world history, there is nothing wrong for China to have patriotic churches. To the extent church is about conscience, Catholics can exercise their conscience freely in China. But to the extent the Church is about blind loyalty to an organization and group of men – who have in the past acted against the interest of the Chinese people – their idolation will not be protected under the guise of freedom of religion.
We’ve had many discussions about this some time ago, with Buxi, Oli, and many other good people. I’ll incorporate their comments / links in a future post.
YinYang says
Well said, Allen. Looking forward to that post.
I have good friends who are Christians too. Piety to the Pope also makes politics of the Pope unthinkable for them.
Otto Kerner says
@YinYang
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Look at the way that the Roman Catholic church is treated in almost every country in the world: as a private entity which has rights to control its own property and set its own internal rules, and is not allowed to demand obedience from non-believers
@raventhorn2000
I don’t understand what you’re getting at, either. English Catholics defer to the Pope in religious matters and to their own government in secular legal matters. They pay taxes to their government because that is not a religious matter.
Regarding the Catholic Church’s sex abuse issues and attempted legal defenses, I have never claimed that they are above reproach or even at all reputable in particulars. I am defending the broader principle of their right conduct their legitimate functions freely. If the Chinese policies against Catholicism were specifically targeted toward the Church’s irresponsible attitude toward sex abuse, that would make a lot more sense, but, obviously, it is not.
Otto Kerner says
@Allen
“freedom of religion does not mean freedom to do anything one wants in the name of religion.”
Total strawman and irrelevant argument which no one would disagree with.
“In view of world history, there is nothing wrong for China to have patriotic churches. ”
Also a strawman argument. As I said specifically, I don’t have any problem with Chinese patriotic churches (I do think they should be disestablished, i.e. stop receiving tax revenues), I just think Chinese people should have a choice about whether to attend a Patriotic Catholic Association church, or a Roman Catholic church (or neither).
Otto Kerner says
Look, neither of those people sounds like a very good parent. Both of them are, at best, giving their children only part of what they need to grow up into healthy adults. Moreover, I reject the model by which the government is supposed to be like my parents. I would say that it’s supposed to be more like an employee.
Hooper writes in these broad abstractions that could be used to prove anything. To take an obvious example, what’s with this “Aryan” vs. “Semitic” religion business? Who says these are the two types of religious beliefs? Clearly, the God described in the purely Semitic Old Testament is much harsher and more demanding and therefore more “Aryan” than the Greek-influenced New Testament. Buddhism is supposedly classed as an Aryan perspective, but Hooper has very little to say about it and it’s not clear why he thinks that.
Charlie Siebert says
[Deleted by Allen, low quality comment]
Charlie Siebert says
@raventhorn2000
And yet, raventhon…China recognizes Catholicism. In the words of Dr. Dre, ‘chickety check yourself before your wreck yourself’. China officially supports the Vatican. Deal with that.
Charlie Siebert says
[Deleted by Allen, low quality comment]
pug_ster says
Charlie Siebert,
The problem with your analogy is that you believe the Catholic Church is a rotten organization because of a few pedophiles in its flock.
YinYang says
Right, pug_ster.
Also, China recognizes the importance of religion and freedom to worship – of Christianity included.
What China opposes is organized religion as a political force. Separation of church and state.
@Otto
But this comment also speaks about you – the fact that you have much more to read and comprehend as compared to him. Go back to this blog’s main page, and at the top is “Individualism vs. Collectivism” – you will be able to find the other more lengthy article from Hooper.
raventhorn2000 says
Charlie,
Recognizing the Existence of Catholicism is a recognition of a fact of life, not the recognition of the religion’s version of truth.
Just as I recognize that you exist, but I don’t have to recognize your arguments as anything but illogical.
Allen says
@YinYang,
Hooper is neither pro nor anti China. He stands by himself. If some like Otto doesn’t understand what he writes, thinking it’s too abstract, or perhaps maybe even too detailed, let it be. We are not here to defend nor deny Hooper.
In fact we are not here to prove anything. We just want to write about the world as we see it – as it ought to be. Some may persist that their views are superior – that they have more right to existence. Let that be. That’s their prerogative.
We stand by the truth. And if we are wrong, time will let us know. If we are right, time will let them know.
YinYang says
@Allen,
Agreed.
raventhorn2000 says
Otto,
Let me help you understand.
“I don’t understand what you’re getting at, either. English Catholics defer to the Pope in religious matters and to their own government in secular legal matters. They pay taxes to their government because that is not a religious matter.”
Appointment of bishop is now a secular matter, since the Pope and the Vatican won’t take secular responsibility for secular crimes committed by any and all bishops/priests.
“Regarding the Catholic Church’s sex abuse issues and attempted legal defenses, I have never claimed that they are above reproach or even at all reputable in particulars. I am defending the broader principle of their right conduct their legitimate functions freely. If the Chinese policies against Catholicism were specifically targeted toward the Church’s irresponsible attitude toward sex abuse, that would make a lot more sense, but, obviously, it is not.”
See Above, regarding SECULAR responsibilities that comes with appointment of Bishops.
NO, it’s not merely “irresponsible attitude toward sex abuse”. It’s GENERAL IRRESPONSIBILITY toward all secular matters of the priests, AS demonstrated by Vatican’s LEGAL position in Western courts.
HENCE, appointment of bishops/priests is OBVIOUSLY now the responsibility of the secular governments, to ensure such appointments are done responsibly!!
Josef says
What is China so afraid of? The Catholics are such a small minority. I think everyone agrees that for example Google, or better BBC in China has the right to select their own local management team. I wonder if some of you ever visited Rome and the so-called “Vatican state”.
Now think about other side-effects: China’s reputation is getting worse day by day – America spends a lots of effort to get rid of the “ugly American” picture while China, it seems, puts in now all effort to make herself looking bad. What remains on the surface is that there is no freedom of religion in China – is it that worth? And on top, countries like the Philippines will not become a close friend to China.
Otto Kerner says
Har , har, raventhorn2. You really think the Chinese government would take responsibility if there were a sex abuse scandal among its “Patriotic” Catholic priests?
Actually, the Roman Catholic Church and the Chinese government are very similar entities. Both are regarded as irreplaceable by their many millions of loyal supporters because they represent a higher principle, even if the actual leadership is seen as being barely worthy of the responsibility.
YinYang says
Nah, if China is afraid of the Vatican, she would let Vatican run amok in the country. China does not care for the Vatican’s politics and simply blocked it.
Are you an ardent supporter of the FLG too? 😉
And I thought you are a Taiwan separatist.
Funny mixed bag.
YinYang says
@Otto
Are you kidding me? The latest PEW survey show the Chinese government and hence their leadership enjoy tremendous popularity in China – in fact, much more popular than Western leaders.
It’s bizarre you make this accusation. Could you show us some facts of such priests molesting children? Could you show us some facts of the Chinese government not prosecuting anyone responsible for such crimes in China?
Charlie Siebert says
@pug_ster
“Charlie Siebert,
The problem with your analogy is that you believe the Catholic Church is a rotten organization because of a few pedophiles in its flock.”
Hey, pug_ster. I said ntoting of the sort. And my objections to the Catholic church began when I was about 11 years old sitting in church long before I knew what pedophilia was. Again, as I mentioned in one comment, it’s more based on the waking on water, turning water in to wine, parting a sea full of water. At a very young age I just could not believe that reasonable people could possibly believe in such things.
And regarding raventhorn’s comment:
“Charlie,
Recognizing the Existence of Catholicism is a recognition of a fact of life, not the recognition of the religion’s version of truth.
Just as I recognize that you exist, but I don’t have to recognize your arguments as anything but illogical.”
My mother grew up in Richardton, North Dakota where there were by and large three career choices: Become a farmer; become a merchant that catered to the farmers; or join the local Franciscan Monastery and Nunnery. I have many priests and nuns in my family. To suggest that I somehow don’t recognize the existence of Catholicism is off the mark.
I am all too aware of the existence of this belief system My opinions on Catholicism are informed by a very personal connection to the religion. I again suggest that personal experience is indispensable in forming accurate world views. I am not Catholic, because I discussed the religion with priests and nuns in my family and found their arguments in favor of such as belief system as unconvincing.
My priest and nun relatives are and were by and large educated and good people. I only objected to their telling me about how they spoke to their imaginary friend, God, and suggested that I ought to do the same. When I read about Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism they were mystified that I couldn’t find everything I needed with their pal Jesus.
PL123 says
China is not afraid of Vatican when Vatican is under chinese government control which Vatican don´t want. Vatican think they are sent from god. God is the highest level of all kinds. And CCP think they are the highest of all mankind–Chinese.
SilentChinese says
One has to remember Vatican is both a religious organization and a political state. Vatican’s foreign policy is closely meshed with its religious goals.
this dispute has nothing to do religious faith.
raventhorn2000 says
Regardless of what you think, the Chinese government will inevitably bear the consequences, ie. secular consequences, such as social discontent.
The Pope? He just washes his hands clean as if he never had anything to do with it, and runs away.
Well. I think it’s obvious that you have conceded to his irresponsibility in the SECULAR LEGAL aspects of his CHURCH.
Similar or NOT, It’s obvious that Pope doesn’t want the SECULAR consequences of his appointment power.
He abandoned it, Chinese government picked it up. End of story.
raventhorn2000 says
Charlie,
Don’t really care what you personal background is, your comment is rather irrelevant.
Frankly, your continual drawing attention to yourself in your comments is a classic sign of online obsessive compulsive behavior.
raventhorn2000 says
I have visited the Vatican State, and attended the touristy Sunday Mass by the previous Pope.
Frankly, it’s not fear. It’s geopolitical tit-for-tat. Vatican still officially recognizes ROC and NOT PRC. Hence, No recognition for Vatican in PRC.
End of story.
YinYang says
“THE VATICAN IN WORLD POLITICS”
by Avro Manhattan
Written shortly after the end of WW2. Link here is to the full text.
http://www.archive.org/stream/TheVaticanInWorldPolitics/VWP_djvu.txt
Below is Chapter 20, CONCLUSION:
Allen says
@YinYang,
I think this is one of the references I was thinking about, too. I am sure we referenced to something like it before but I can’t find it. I need to keep better track of things or else things just get buried under our heap of archive.
One very relevant point to take up, alluded to in the excerpt above: a lesson of WWII – of “never again” – is not that a group of “enlightened” nations must always be on the vilelance against “evils” of the world (I find it funny that the West has made Hitler such a demogague when every nation in Europe at the time – for complex historical reasons – had a gripe against the Jews, the U.S. and U.K. explicitly refusing to give Jews a safe haven when Hitler offered to give them safe passage). No nation (or groups of nations) is such a saint.
The key lesson is to learn humility – compassion – to be aware – to no be so sure, as Hitler was, of one way, one approach.
The Catholic Church is blind – we know that – but what troubles me is that so are so many others, as we can see even in our own blog microcosm.
The moral decrepitness that led to WWII’s holocaust is very much alive and well… Sad, but unfortunately true…
Otto Kerner says
@raventhorn2000
Okay, then, you would agree that the Roman Catholic Church originally had the right to appoint its own bishops but lost that right due to egregious irresponsibility, right? And I suppose you agree with what follows logically from that, which is that the Chinese government could lose the right to appoint its own Catholics bishops if it mismanages that responsibility.
wwww1234 says
The Chinese church has the right to elect its own clergy/bishops by law, and Vatican has the power to excommunicate all the Chinese church members and then treat the patriotic Chinese church as religious equals. The Chinese government wouldn’t be in any position to interfere with and perhaps would welcome that.
YinYang says
@wwww1234
That’s a novel idea.
Charlie Siebert says
[Comment deleted by yinyang]
Charlie Siebert says
[Comment deleted by yinyang]
justrecently says
“separation of church and state” is a misnomer, especially in a democracy.
*snickers*
SilentChinese says
@justrecently
Well, if one look at this from the angle of chinese history, religion was always part of state. but not in sense of “state-religion” in a western sense.
you have the manchurian emperor having no quarrels following Ming emperor’s tradition worshipping confucian, but at same time performing traditional shaman rites in their household while at same time consulting and patronizing tibetan lamaists while tomorrow holding ceremonies for worshipping heaven/earth. while their soldiers holding shrines for GuanDi!
even emperor themselves became objects of religious veneration. Ming emperors are supposily worshipped by Chinese dispora in malaysia!
The modern inisistence of seperation of church and state came about in the west because church was such grossly powerful force historically. religion caused endless wars between states and within states, by its very nature western religion is partisan. ( I am the one and only truth, and rest is fake) . no such thing from China. you have confucist statue sit next to a taoist statue set next to a buddha statue on the same platform in some places! Inherently people accept that they may be different angles looking at the same issue.
the emperors were pragmatists. so are the commnunists. because they were and they still are chinese!
SilentChinese says
@wwww1234
a new church of england.
let the new 30 years war begin!
SilentChinese says
@Otto Kerner “Okay, then, you would agree that the Roman Catholic Church originally had the right to appoint its own bishops ”
no, why would they automatically have such right in the beginning?
SilentChinese says
“Okay, then, you would agree that the Roman Catholic Church originally had the right to appoint its own bishops ”
no, why would they (Vatican) automatically have such right in the beginning?
even today a foreign bank wishing to set up a branch and have agents in US has to follow some pretty strict federal regulations and oversight from SEC.
why should catholic church have more free-dom in this regard than a bank? after all vatican is a soverign state. and I assume the vatican appointed bishops are by their own definition the agent of foreign states. why shouldn’t the agent of foreign political state be restricted and regulated?
SilentChinese says
Let’s do an tought experiment:
Suppose that in height of 60s cultural revolution china declare that its ideologies is in fact a religion, and any one who believes in its “religion” is entitled to be treated as a religious follower. and it declares the right to appoint bishops ( or people’s commissars) for its religious followers, any where in the world.
what do you think will happen? as far as treatment of this religion goes in the West?
well,
we don’t have to guess. just look at how communism was treated in west for the past 80 years.
this is a factual history record.
question is: why should Vatican be treated any different? especially it itself declares itself to be a political state as well as a religious entity.
Charles Liu says
Here’re some facts about Chinese Catholic Bishop Conference:
http://www.chinacath.org/article/other/Legal/fagui/2008-01-25/1580.html
http://www.mzb.com.cn/html/report/99723-7.htm
– Non-profit NGO established in 1992 by church leaders throughout China, replacing the Chinese Catholic Committee as the church’s highest governing body.
– Bishops are elected by members of the conference and consecrated by divine provenance thru prayer, not appointed by the government.
raventhorn2000 says
That’s frankly ridiculous. You are wrong on your supposition and your conclusion.
(1) The Pope has stated his legal position as IRRESPONSIBLE from the very beginning, ie. he never presumed that he took any legal responsibility, “Bishops/priests are NOT his employees”. That’s NOT a change of policy in the Vatican.
No legal responsibility, No legal right to appoint bishops, FROM the very beginning (His own admission).
(2) If a government fails its responsibilities, the people should form a new government, not turn responsibilities back to a failed Pope. (And before you jump another conclusion, let’s just say, you are not one to judge when that “if” happens.)
raventhorn2000 says
There is a growing movement in the Roman Catholic church, especially in US and Europe, to “reform” and increase “local church autonomy”, especially relating to Bishop selections process.
Many Catholic bishops complain that the process is not transparent and arbitrary.
The Vatican is simply behind the times.
Seems like the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church is ahead of the times. Other countries may soon model China’s Catholic Church, and refuse to endorse Vatican choices.
Otto Kerner says
The Patriotic Catholic Association is the opposite of “local church autonomy”. It puts the church in China under the control of a giant bureaucratic organisation even bigger than and with an equally checkered history as the Vatican, and one that is composed overwhelmingly of non-Christians. Is there anyone outside of China (plus a handful of Chinese nationalists who happen to be overseas) who thinks that the CPCA is ahead of the times?
Otto Kerner says
Charlie Siebert says
@SilentChinese
Silent Chinese. Your comment about “different angles looking at the same issue” is quite a good observation. It fits nicely with the concept of yin yang. With that said, there was a time when Christians, Jews and Muslims all coexisted peacefully in the Middle East. Sadly, that time seems to be long gone and shows no sign of returning any time soon, so what you said about endless wars seems inevitable for the foreseeable future. Can’t you just send some Shao lin monks down to open up a can of Buddhist and Taoist whoop-ass on those quarreling cousins? I’ve always wanted to see the ultimate battle for Earth take place. It’s like wanting to see the Mafia take on the Hong triads in a fight to the finish. Or the L.A. Crips or Bloods against the LAPD in a tournament style slap down.
Charlie Siebert says
By the way…all churches and religion suck, no matter where they come from. Listening to theological arguments are like watching people bang their heads against walls. Stick to issues that affect life on earth in a real and tangible way. Imaginary beings that you can’t see or prove exist? Man, I made up my mind about Santa and the gods when I was in primary school. Faith? Science! Crawl out of your caves and be all that a homo sapien can be. Lightening bolts are not hurled by Zeus in anger and nobody in China renounces their worldly possessions to follow Buddha’s example these days. As I mentioned earlier, people pray to Buddha for money and success. Faith indeed. Religion is residual superstition from when humankind’s ancestors clambered down from the trees to walk the Earth upright, but not necessarily upstanding. Atheism rules. Creationism fools.
SilentChinese says
@Otto Kerner
“The Patriotic Catholic Association is the opposite of “local church autonomy”. It puts the church in China under the control of a giant bureaucratic organisation even bigger than and with an equally checkered history as the Vatican, and one that is composed overwhelmingly of non-Christians. Is there anyone outside of China (plus a handful of Chinese nationalists who happen to be overseas) who thinks that the CPCA is ahead of the times?”
At least it is Chinese.
Otto Kerner says
@SilentChinese
Exactly, that’s what it all comes down to. Very well said, SilentChinese.
Allen says
@Otto Kerner #62,
Yes – it is very well said, even if you might not appreciate it.
The division of religion and politics is a political process, and as such, needs to be drawn by the sovereign in China – not some far away, backward organization that has no interest of the Chinese people in mind – judging by their philosophy, beliefs, past acts, and current rhetoric.
Josef says
raventhorn2 @ #56
The increase for “local church autonomy” in Europe has absolutely nothing to do with the government. According to Charles Liu in #54, officially the Chinese Catholic Bishop Conference, at least in his constitutes, is not influenced by the government. There is no reference how the government influences, the Patriotic Catholic Association, but I guess everyone here agrees that it is influenced.
The catholic church will not excommunicate any normal members – they are already punished enough by the the CCP, standing for their faith. But the church can ask more from her bishops. The escalation mainly happened because the bishops were forced to attend the ceremony for a new CCPA elected bishop. All in all it is a very sad story of a dictatorship breaking fundamental rights of their people. There are many examples in Europe, where religions are given second priority against constitutions, but what is happening in China is a very different story.
Thanks for your answer in #40 – I agree, it meets the point.
I am scared of what silentchinese and Allen is so proud of: “At least it is Chinese.” – that is pure nationalism in its worst from.
r v says
DECLINED? No, his legal position is that he never had the responsibility to start with.
(If he had the responsibility and he DECLINED, he would still be liable for PAST irresponsible acts. You can’t do a waiver AFTER the fact.)
(2) you can have whatever opinion you want, Doesn’t matter to me.
Still the fact, NOT your judgment.
Who said any thing about overthrowing a government on 1 issue? (Only shows that your “opinions” tend to make red herring suppositions all over the place, which I didn’t make.)
Again, NOT your call on how many issues would it take.
r v says
“Influenced” only the matter of appointment of Bishop, in that “influence” it is Chinese and not Vatican. (And that’s LOCAL autonomy, not Nationalism).
And let’s get this straight, what the Chinese government has is “approval” of the Bishops. The application of the candidates are still done through the Patriotic Church organization.
This is the same selection process for Chinese Buddhist and Daoists.
The Government does not, frankly, manage hardly any aspects of determining which candidate has the best merits.
So I don’t know what “government influence” you are specifically referring to.
raffiaflower says
China is wise to reject the Vatican’s attempted meddling, given the trader-missionary-gunboat trinity that undermined its sovereignty in the 19th century.
Religion as an accomplice/handmaiden of Western imperialism is very much alive; witness events in Sudan. Eric Margolis writes:Southern Sudan’s Christian secessionist movement has longbeen guided and financed by British and US Christian missionaries and aid groups.
American evangelical groups, who now form the voter core of the Republican party, have been playing a key role in promoting (the) independence movement.
China has become a major customer of Sudanese oil. Washington intends to elbow China out of the way i f the south breaks away.
YinYang says
@raffiaflower
That’s an excellent point. Sudan is and excellent case in point in modern times where external religious political forces wreck havoc on a country’s unity.