Vatican City, Mar 28, 2018 / 12:00 pm (CNA).- If Vatican-brokered agreements negotiated under his leadership are any indication, it seems clear that when a deal is on the table, Pope Francis usually tries to take it.
In Colombia, with the U.S. and Cuba, and in China, it seems that Francis generally prefers to take an imperfect patch job that might at least begin to restore broken ties, even if it faces opposition, rather than waiting for perfect diplomatic agreement to arise.
A clear example of this is the Vatican’s pending agreement with China on the appointment of bishops, which many sources, including the Vatican’s own Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, have said is “imminent.”
In negotiations with China, the Vatican is reportedly using an approach similar to the one that led to a 1996 accord Parolin brokered with Vietnam. In China, the Holy See would apparently have the final say in appointing bishops, choosing from a selection of candidates put forward by the government-backed Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, the legally recognized Catholic body in the nation.
The proposal has been harshly criticized by some, including Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen. However, many, including Zen’s successor Cardinal John Tong Hon, himself also Emeritus Bishop of Hong Kong, have supported an accord, saying the situation for religion in China has generally improved, and that while there might be problems in some areas, China is a large nation, and incidents of arrest or imprisonment are generally rare and limited to certain regions.
Similar conversations happened when the Vatican helped the Colombian government and leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) reach a peace agreement in September 2016, intended to an end five decades of violent armed conflict that left some 260,000 people dead and millions displaced.
The Vatican helped to broker the agreement, which allowed the incorporation of some FARC leaders into the government, in exchange for the group’s disarmament and renunciation of kidnapping and drug trafficking.
The deal marked a breakthrough in what had been a long-time stalemate in which neither side was willing to budge.
However, it was met with mixed reactions from Colombian citizens and Church leaders, with some priests, bishops, and cardinals voicing dissatisfaction, arguing that the deal’s stipulations were too lenient on the guerrilla fighters.
Though voters rejected the deal in an October 2016 referendum, the Colombian government and FARC renegotiated its terms, implementing a plan in November 2016. Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos Calderón was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the peace process.
Despite debate on the ground, Cardinal Parolin traveled to Colombia for the official signing of the accord in a show of support, and in September 2017 Pope Francis visited Colombia himself, making a 6-day trip to the South American nation to recognize steps made in the peace process.
The peace deal remains controversial, and critics note that 250 activists and political leaders have been murdered in Colombia since the agreement was struck. But there remain opportunities to build on the groundwork laid by the accord.
Francis was also an active player in helping broker the 2015 restoration of ties between the United States and Cuba, bringing an end to a freeze in diplomatic relations severed in 1961.
Secret talks between diplomats from each side began in 2013, and were aided by support from the Vatican.
The Vatican’s role was largely unknown until the process had already been mostly formalized, but the Vatican’s role in helping broker the deal was significant.
Francis showed just how invested the Holy See was in restoring relations between the two nations that he added a stop in Cuba ahead of his visit to the United States in September 2015.
For the China deal currently being discussed, the biggest concern is how much religious freedom Catholics will actually have if it’s signed and implemented.
Opponents such as Cardinal Zen have questioned whether it’s possible to have genuine dialogue with the Chinese government, and whether Beijing will in fact allow Catholics to have a longer leash should a deal come to fruition.
However, others, such as Cardinal Tong, have argued that China is a large country where incidents of arrests or imprisonments are largely isolated to certain areas.
Cardinal Zen has often said that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” and in a recent blog-post called the proposal an act of “suicide” and a “shameless surrender” to the communist government.
On the other hand, in an interview with CNA last week, Cardinal Tong said opposing the deal was “unreasonable.” He argued that the Chinese government has generally become more tolerant, and called the deal “far-sighted,” saying that at times, sacrifice is necessary in order for Catholics to become “members of one family.”
Compounding the debate is yesterday’s arrest of Bishop Vincent Guo Xijin of Mindong, who is recognized by the Vatican but not the government, and who was taken into custody by police alongside the diocesan chancellor. He was held overnight but was later released, and was barred from celebrating any Mass as a bishop, including Holy Week liturgies.
According to Asia News, Guo was detained for refusing to concelebrate this week’s Chrism Mass with Bishop Vincent Zhan Silu, one of seven illicit bishops backed by the Chinese government.
Asia News reports that after refusing to concelebrate the Chrism Mass with Zhan, Guo organized a separate, earlier Chrism Mass for the “underground” faithful in Mindong, who form the majority of the local Church, and was seized in order to prevent him from moving forward with the liturgy.
In January, Asia News reported that a Vatican delegation asked Bishop Guo voluntarily to accept a position as auxiliary bishop, serving under Bishop Zhan. The request was made as one of the conditions of an eventual agreement between the Vatican and the Chinese government.
Details or an official timeline for a deal in China have not been made public, and no declaration has been made on the seven illicit bishop, meaning that for the moment, they are still excommunicated. Under the terms of the proposed deal, the Vatican would reportedly regularize each of the seven illicit bishops, bringing them into communion with Rome.
Though it is unknown what impact, if any, Guo’s overnight detainment will have on an agreement between China and the Vatican, many who are close to the situation, including Cardinal Parolin, have in recent weeks said things are moving forward, and it may only be a matter of months before a deal is made.
Cardinal Zen recently met with Pope Francis during a last-minute trip to Rome in January, after Guo and another bishop were asked to step down in favor of bishops backed by the Chinese government.
Francis’ willingness to meet with Cardinal Zen, just as he met with many Colombian prelates ahead of the 2016 peace deal, some of whom shared reservations, indicates that he is willing to hear out other perspectives on these matters, and talk things through, even if he chooses to move forward anyway.
So while a deal with China, if it is made, will certainly be met with mixed reactions, one thing is certain: there is likely not much that will stop Francis from going after it, so long as he sees the potential of real change for the better.
For Francis, something is always better than nothing, and if there’s a shot, even with problems unresolved, he prefers to try. Whether this approach bears good fruit or not, we can probably expect to Francis to have a similar approach moving forward.
[…]
Themis Vatican makes a laughingstock out of justice for victims of sexual abuse.
It’s just a good thing that Rupnik doesn’t say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. If he did, he’d have been dismissed, defrocked, and defenestrated overnight.
1. It might be noted that secular media in Italy have recently turned the heat up on the foot-dragging in the Rupnik case, e.g., Rupnik dogged by a reporter through Fiumicino Airport.
2. Somebody might also ask what Cardinal De Donatis is up to (Francis’s former Vicar General for Rome, now Major Penitentiary) since it’s alleged he is allowing the Centro ALetti crowd to move into a monastery northeast of Rome from which the elderly traditional sisters are being relocated.
It takes time to confirm not just a mountain of evidence, rather mountains of evidence. Perhaps the Vatican has discovered a new range.
It’s beyond me why, if he did indeed commit these crimes, he hasn’t been tried in a civil court found guilty and sentenced. Once defrocked he should be handed over to the civil authorities for consideration. Why has he been allowed to slip through civil loopholes? It seems that “ there is something rotten in the State of Denmark “!!!
That occurred to me also. But there might not have been sufficient evidence and coraboration to try him in a criminal court.
Answering both of your posts here,. The offenses that have been the focus of attention, where religious sisters came forth and testified against Marko Rupnik, occurred in Slovenia back in the early 1990s, not in Rome or Italy. Other offenses may have taken place in Italy later, but the Jesuit internal investigation that provided the substantive information about Rupnik’s actions focused on events during the early years of the Loyola Center, co-founded by Rupnik and Ivanka Hosta who are both Slovenian. Slovenia also declared independence arounds the same time, so one can imagine that the legal system was still a work in progress. The three women who have gone public, Gloria Branciani, Mirjam Kovacs and Sister Samuelle, have an excellent, thoroughly experienced lawyer, Laura Sgro, who would presumably file civil charges if she figured out a way to do it. Also, keep in mind that many more women have told their stories to investigators but have not gone public. There are dozens.
The thing is, when we wonder why these acts of sexual abuse and violence don’t seem to have been reported to the police, we can ask the same question about the offenses by Theodore McCarrick, which included seminarians as well as legal minors such as James Grein. We can ask the same about most of the abuse by priests, until relatively recently. It just seems to have been very rare to report abuse by priests to law enforcement, until tbe abuse scandal broke open twenty years ago. Especially within religious communities, seminaries and other religious institutions. People in those institutions may have genuinely believed that if they reported the incidents to their superiors, as they had been guided to do, the offenses would be dealt with in time. Their trust was abused as well.
A lot of the information about the accusations about Rupnik, followup actions, background details, etc. are, already out there and accessible to anyone who wants to learn more. For instance, The Pillar and the National Catholic Register have both published several detailed timelines beginning around two or three years ago.
Did any of the alleged crimes take place within the walls of Vatican City? If not, isn’t he subject to other civil authorities?
The handling of the Rupnik case so far has been appalling. Should he be found not guilty it will be the final nail in the coffin of Vatican credibility.
A fact that so many are glossing over in the Rupnik affair is the fact that he was already found guilty! It was the punishment that was lifted, but as far as can be seen the trial itself was not vacated, the evidence not deemed false. As a canonist I can note that the DDF could have simply had the penalty reinstated but that would have meant getting Francis’ permission. Even if the first trial had been vacated, there is a procedural norm that allows it to be given another hearing if it can be shown that a gross violation of justice occurred. Even with a new trial, one can import all the evidence from the first one, and either go just with that, or add a little bit of the supposedly new cases. This would have significantly expedited matters. Even more, the cases that bought upon the new trial are not of a different kind, but rather additional instances of the same crimes. This makes the claim that they needed a whole new trial, taking years to gather new evidence, a crock. The notion that they need to come up with new categories of crimes, as though there’s nothing already existent to try Rupnik on is also false. There’s also no reason for the length of time except by deliberate delay. Such cases- and in fact ones dealing with much lesser matters that they could be set aside for now to address Rupnik- are often handled in less time than has transpired. So, this is all a bunch of baloney and there should be no doubt that ultimately Francis is protecting him.
Thank you for this in-indepth information. It helps to make sense of some of what I have read… well, maybe “sense” isn’t the word because nothing with the handling of the Marko Rupnic case makes sense. But it provides much insight.
Francis is at the top of the heap of Rupnic’s network of protectors and enablers who have run interference for him and helped him escape consequences for years– beginning with the group of women who came with him from the Loyola Center when he left and moved to Rome, and who then became ensconced in the Aletti Center and in positions in the Vatican organization. I hope that one day, some diligent investigator untangles that network, but that person will have to be tough and fearless, and hopefully, driven by faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.