The Vindication of Cardinal Zen
This article first appeared in the Remnant on April 3, 2023
“If you don’t do stupid things, you won’t end up in tragedy.”
~Chinese Proverb
Before the ink was dry on the secret pact, tragedy unfolded. It was inevitable and totally predictable. Bergoglio was repeatedly warned by Hong Kong Cardinal Zen that the CCP could not be trusted to uphold their end of the secret pact. Zen begged the Vatican not to enter into an agreement with the Chinese Communists. Zen predicted, “it would be a suicide pact.” Indeed, it was.
Instead of listening to Cardinal Zen, the homegrown Chinese prelate, Bergoglio chose to listen to a serial sexual predator, Cardinal Ted McCarrick. Accordingly, Bergoglio dispatched Ted McCarrick to China in June of 2013 to restart the negotiations.
The ancient Chinese proverb captures the executed and twice renewed Sino-Vatican secret pact. Both parties are determined to carry out this diabolic deception on the world. Hence, the agreement still remains secret after 2 renewals over 5 years. Nevertheless, the world remains united in its condemnation of this nefarious agreement as the triggering event for ongoing religious persecution at the hands of the CCP. Here Here Here Here Here
This demand for freedom of speech on life and family, which Benedict XVI regarded as “non-negotiable,” also seems to have been dropped by his successor. Francis and his China team sold the secret deal as a continuation and formalization of the Benedict/CCP negotiations.
Not surprisingly, after 5 years of Vatican happy talk about the China deal, the Vatican Foreign Minister Archbishop Paul Gallagher conceded in an interview with EWTN on Mar 14, 2023 “not the best deal possible” and that negotiations are underway to make the deal “work better.” Gallagher stated that Holy See diplomats are “negotiating improvements” to the Sino/Vatican pact—quite a concession by the Vatican which dug its heels in over China. What is really going on?
“Obviously, the objective is to get the best deal possible, which certainly this agreement is not the best deal possible because of the other party: They were only prepared to go so far and to agree to certain things. But that was what was possible at the time. “It wasn’t really a great time to sign the deal, for various reasons. It was always going to be difficult; it was always going to be used by the Chinese party to bring greater pressure on the Catholic community, particularly on the so-called underground Church. So we just go forward.”
So, in other words, Cardinal Zen was dead right when he repeatedly, warned Francis that the Chinese could not be trusted and would violate their end of the agreement. Five years later, Francis and his flunkies are waking up to the obvious.
It turns out Cardinal Zen was right. He is owed a public apology by the Vatican, not only about the secret deal, but also about the myth that this deal was essentially a deal originating from Pope Benedict.
One gets the impression that it is amateurville in the Vatican as they get spun by the wily Chinese.
If it wasn’t “a great time to sign the deal” then why in God’s name did the Vatican sign it?
Isn’t that Diplomacy 101?
Then, with jaw-dropping gullibility, Ambassador Gallagher admits that “this agreement is not the best deal possible because of the other party.” Duh.
Why would the Vatican sign an agreement “that isn’t the best deal possible” especially when the deal immediately triggered a tsunami of religious persecution and destruction upon Chinese Catholics and Christians.
Obviously, Pope Bergoglio should have listened to the pleas of the knowledgeable, experienced, and faith-filled Hong Kong Emeritus Cardinal Joseph Zen. It’s time that Bergoglio man up and apologize for his merciless treatment of Cardinal Zen and the millions of devout underground Catholics and millions of persecuted Christians and other religious minorities who are suffering as a direct result of the covert deal.
Suddenly, the Vatican just admitted to bone-chilling incompetence and negligence.
The only steadfast truthteller and adult in the room is the 90-year-old Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen. Cardinal Zen’s condemnation of the catastrophic pact accurately reflects the stone-cold reality of the covert deal. Despite an unrelenting assault by the Vatican PR machine against Cardinal Zen, he remains steadfast in his withering condemnation. At every step of the process, Zen has repeatedly attacked the Vatican’s credibility and strategy to appease the CCP. He is proven right about the Communists and right about Pope Benedict’s approach to the CCP.
Re: ”I desire first of all to emphasize that, in their approach to the situation of the Catholic Church in China, there is a profound symphony of the thought and of the action of the last three Pontificates, which -- out of respect for the truth -- have favored dialogue between the two parties and not contrariety," Cardinal Re wrote.
"Cardinal Zen has affirmed several times that it would be better to have no Accord than a 'bad Accord'. The three last Popes did not share this position and supported and accompanied the drafting of the Accord that, at the present moment, seemed to be the only one possible," he stated.
Cardinal Parolin stated that there is continuity with Benedict’s dialogue with China in a speech in Milan. Benedict had approved the agreement:
Vatican News reported that Parolin reiterated a statement by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, in February that Benedict XVI had approved the draft agreement on bishops' appointments "which could only be signed in 2018.”
The battle lines over the viability and morality of China-Vatican secret pact have hardened in this pontificate. On one side, the Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin and Pope Bergoglio consistently argue that there is complete continuity between the previous Pope Benedict’s approach with the CCP and the present pontificate. The Vatican’s party line throughout this Sino-Vatican negotiation and execution are just continuing the China policy of Pope Benedict. In fact, the Vatican asserts that Pope Benedict approved of the 2018 Vatican Agreement. The Vatican invoked the pontificate of Benedict as evidence that this agreement is the logical extension of Benedict-Sino diplomacy.
Not so fast.
Fortunately, the official diplomatic position of the Benedict papacy on China is clearly articulated in a very detailed diplomatic cable from the U.S. Vatican Embassy to the U.S. Department of State released in 2010 and published by Wikileaks. This cable was sent to the U.S. State Department nearly 7 months after Pope Benedict’s Letter to the Church in China where he articulated the issues and obstacles with the China negotiations.
The December 2007 diplomatic cable describes with great specificity that U.S. Vatican Ambassador Francis Rooney spoke to the Vatican/China negotiator, Msgr. Rota-Graziosi about the 2007 Vatican/China negotiations. Rota-Graziosi’s assessment of diplomatic relations between the Benedict Vatican and China does not reflect the warm and trusting portrayed by Cardinals Re and Parolin. No deal was imminent. In fact, Pope Benedict walked away from the negotiation table with the CCP.
See the classified December 21, 2007 cable from U.S. Vatican Ambassador Francis Rooney to the U.S. State Department. here.
Ambassador Francis Rooney states that according to the Holy See’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Country Director for China Rota-Grziosi,
“the Holy See and the Government of China did not reach an agreement on episcopal ordinations, nor on the normalization of relations, during their November 2007 talks in Beijing. Rota-Graziosi is pessimistic about the chances for such an agreement in the near or mid-term and suggested that any rumors about the existence of such an agreement can probably be traced to the GoC (Government of China) disinformation.”
The Rooney cable details the Ambassador’s discussion with Msgr. Rota Graziosi who was deeply involved in the negotiations with China, on behalf of the Holy See. Rooney described the tenor of the negotiations and the main obstacle to an agreement:
“Monsignor Gianfranco Rota-Graziosi told us December 17 that the Holy See and the Government of China had not reached an agreement or even an informal understanding on the issue of episcopal ordinations during the recently held Holy See/China talks in Beijing. Rota-Graziosi, who accompanied Deputy Foreign Minister equivalent Msgr. Pietro Parolin to the talks at the GoC MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), said that GoC had not changed its long-standing demand that the Holy See agree to refrain from exercising dominion over episcopal ordinations.”
So according to the U.S. diplomatic cable, Msgr. Rota-Graziosi, along with the present Secretary of State Parolin both saw no hope for normalization of relations between China and Vatican. Rota-Gaziosi paints a very dismal assessment of relations for Ambassador Rooney:
“I see no hope for a breakthrough on the issue of episcopal ordinations or on the normalization of relations between the GoC and the Holy See in the near or mid-term, ” adding “that any reports indicating otherwise are probably disinformation from the GoC designed to create goodwill for the regime in the lead-up to the 2008 Summer Olympics and to encourage the underground church to come out in the open where it can be better controlled by the Catholic Patriotic Association.”
A number of various proposals were explored and rejected by the parties. The diplomatic cable further explicates the negotiations:
4. “Asked whether a Vietnamese-style episcopal nomination model might serve as a compromise position, Rota-Graziosi said that the GoC had explicitly rejected the Vietnamese model. (Note: In Vietnam, the Holy See informally proposes three bishop candidates and the Government of Vietnam approves one). The Chinese are none too happy with their Vietnamese colleagues, said Rota-Graziosi. In fact, the Holy See heard from a reliable source that the Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung was chided by a senior GoC official regarding Vietnamese dealings with the Holy See on the margins of a recently held Asian Forum. The GoC official apparently suggested to Dung that Vietnam go very slowly in their relations with the Holy See.”
The overall tense tenor of the negotiations and the position of the Government of China was described by the Benedict Vatican official as:
“the regime has remained concisely rigid on the issue of Holy See Authority over Catholic Church matters in China, he had observed increased flexibility in the GoC’s approach on certain other matters. For example, “the GoC would never have allowed us to publish the obituaries of Chinese priests and bishops, or the names of recently ordained bishops and priests, in the “Osservatore Romano’ (the Vatican newspaper) without risking a strong reaction. Nowadays, we can do such things without fear of retaliation.”
Rooney provided the State Department with a final summary of the relationship between the Vatican and China:
“We believe Rota-Graziosi’s assertion that there is no agreement in principle or otherwise between the Holy See and the GoC on episcopal nominations or on the normalization of relations. That said, the Holy See clearly has taken steps to ensure that it does not ruffle the GoC’s feathers needlessly. The “cancellation” of a reported papal meeting with the Dalai Lama in early December 2007, taken together with the Holy See’s apparent muzzling of normally outspoken GoC critic Cardinal Joseph Zen, demonstrates the Holy See’s desire not to give the GoC an excuse to retaliate against the Holy See or the faithful in China.”
Based on this conversation with the Vatican’s diplomats who provided a first hand account of the negotiations, it is evident that Benedict refused to cede ecclesial power for the appointment of Bishops to the Communist Chinese. That bold usurpation of ecclesial power and insistent demand by the Chinese was a non-starter for Pope Benedict XVI.
It is also interesting to note that Cardinal Zen’s criticism of the GoC was an unwelcome irritant for the Chinese. Communists never tolerate the truth-it hurts.
This diplomatic cable clearly delineates the strong and unflappable position of Pope Benedict vis a vis China. He refused to turn over power to the Communist Chinese to appoint Catholic Bishops. Benedict walked away from the negotiation table insistent that the Catholic Church could and would not delegate its episcopal authority to a communist government. This communiqué raises some curious questions about the Chinese and Jorge Bergoglio and their secret pact.
Did Bergoglio agree to terms which were previously non-negotiable in the Benedict papacy?
To what extent did Bergoglio concede power and authority of Bishop appointments to the Chinese Communist Party?
Did Bergoglio agree to secret terms to remain silent in the face of ongoing genocide and human rights and religious freedom violations by the CCP?
What did the Bergoglio Vatican receive in return for its concessions with the Chinese?
Was the alleged $2 billion a year Chinese grant a payment for an executed agreement and subsequent renewal?
Did the CCP play a role in the abdication of Pope Benedict for his refusal to accommodate them?
Even more troubling, did the CCP play a role in the elevation of Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy?
Contrary to Bergoglio’s foreign minister, Gallagher, the Bergoglio 2018 secret agreement was not simply a matter of “dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s of the Benedict proposal.” Rather, Bergoglio and his minions created a myth that the 2018 secret pact was a “hermeneutic continuity” of Benedict’s negotiations with the Chinese. The truth is that Benedict abandoned the negotiations and refused to capitulate to the CCP outrageous demands. As Zen forcefully argues: “there is no continuity between Benedict who said ‘No’ to Ostpolitik and Francis who said ‘yes’ to Ostpolitik.
After 5 long years of unrelenting and caustic attacks by the Vatican, Cardinal Zen is vindicated. Zen:
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/cardinal-parolin-accused-lying-61070
Zen concludes: “There is no continuity between Benedict who said ‘No’ to Ostpolitik and Francis who said ‘yes’ to Ostpolitik. There is the continuity of Parolin’s Ostpolitik: before he did not follow Benedict and now Francis follows him.”
Zen steadfastly maintains that Benedict abandoned negotiations with the Chinese. The diplomatic cables confirm Zen’s positions in no uncertain terms. Bergoglio tries to bootstrap Benedict into any unpopular or uncatholic decisions. The facts expose Bergoglio.
Zen’s insistent truth telling exposes the tragic nature of Bergoglio’s wheeling and dealing with the Chinese:
“More disastrous and more cruel was the last act of this tragedy: the document at the end of June, last year. The Pastoral Guidelines of the Holy See Concerning the Civil Registration of the Clergy in China was issued by ‘the Holy See,’ without specification of the department and without signatures (but it is known that it is Parolin’s creation). Everyone is invited to join the Patriotic Association, that is, the schismatic Church. It is the coup de grace!”
On the ground, it is desolation: “many who have resisted the regime all through their lives and persevered in the true faith (with many martyrs in their families) are now invited by the same “Holy” See to surrender!? Bewilderment, disappointment and (no one should be scandalized) even resentment for being betrayed.”
It is true that the document says that the Holy See “respects” their conscience if they do not feel like doing that act. But the practical effect will be the same: they will no longer have their churches, they will no longer be able to say Masses for the faithful in private homes, they will no longer have bishops. It remains for them to live the faith only in the catacombs, waiting for better days.”
The verbal bombs The Bergoglio Vatican sold its secret deal with the Chinese Communist Party by arguing that it was an extension of the Pope Benedict negotiations with the Chinese. change: In fact, as long as Benedict XVI was the Pope, an agreement was never reached because the Chinese authorities demanded that they choose the bishops, whom the Pope would only have to consecrate, and that all Catholics should join the Patriotic Catholic Church, preserving its structures and principles, including those elements that Pope Ratzinger had declared “incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” Francis accepted these conditions, believing that the end of the schism and of the decade-long separation between the Patriotic Church and the underground church loyal to the Vatican was an achievement important enough to authorize those compromises that his predecessor had rejected.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-asia/2020/03/vatican-china-deal-conceived-under-jpii-expert-says
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/46131/zen-challenges-parolin-over-china-deal-claims
There is also another element of discontinuity between Benedict XVI and Francis that is often overlooked. In his 2007 “Letter,” Pope Ratzinger recalled that the Church cannot give up anywhere in the world to proclaim “God’s plan for marriage and the family.” There would be no religious freedom, Benedict XVI wrote, if in China the Church were left free to preach about purely religious matters but could not denounce in a “keener and more urgent” way the “forces that influence the family negatively.”
Cardinal Joseph Zen is totally vindicated about his repeated warnings about the disastrous Vatican/CCP deal. The Vatican’s Top diplomat Archbishop Paul Gallaher admits. He, and he alone, is responsible.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05VATICAN543_a.html
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05VATICAN543_a.html
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09VATICAN61_a.html
Vatican Pessimistic on China Relations
Important:
http://www.retreathousebandra.in/archbishop-mccarrick’s-unofficial-role-vatican-china-relations
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/pressrelease/
The Lies the Vatican told us about China
The Lies the Vatican told us about China
https://bitterwinter.org/benedict-xvis-dialogue-with-china/
The Francis Vatican has repeatedly said that there was complete continuity between Pope Benedict’s agreement with China and the final executed secret pact between the Francis Vatican and the CCP. The significant US diplomatic cable confirms the position of Cardinal Zen that Pope Benedict had significant disagreements with the Chinese Government and ceased further negotiations. Furthermore, based on the cable, it appears that Cardinal Parolin was aware of the obstacles and breakdown of the negotiations.
Cardinal Re stated so:
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/cardinal-parolin-accused-lying-61070
Read: https://bitterwinter.org/benedict-xvis-dialogue-with-china/
This is the context in which to view the Provisional Agreement, which is the result of a lengthy and complex institutional dialogue between the Holy See and the Chinese authorities initiated by Saint John Paul II and continued by Pope Benedict XVI. Through this process, the Holy See has desired – and continues to desire – only to attain the Church’s specific spiritual and pastoral aims, namely, to support and advance the preaching of the Gospel, and to reestablish and preserve the full and visible unity of the Catholic community in China.
No one can judge or ascertain the accuracy of this statement because it is a secret deal:
The present contacts between the Holy See and the Chinese government are proving useful for overcoming past differences, even those of the more recent past, and for opening a new chapter of more serene and practical cooperation, in the shared conviction that “incomprehension [serves] the interests of neither the Chinese people nor the Catholic Church in China” (BENEDICT XVI, Letter to Chinese Catholics, 27 May 2007, 4).
Benedict approved the draft agreement. https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-beijing-rome-china-pope-francis-b10737e72ca4c62cfc5955afc7d8f941
Not so good after all.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253860/vatican-china-deal-not-the-best-deal-possible-top-holy-see-diplomat-says
And finally, the admission, Not so good after all:
Rome Newsroom, Mar 14, 2023 / 08:54 am
The Vatican’s foreign minister has said that the Vatican-China deal was “not the best deal possible” and that negotiations are underway to make the deal “work better.”
In an interview with Colm Flynn for EWTN News, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican secretary for Relations with States, said that Holy See diplomats are “negotiating improvements” to the Holy See’s provisional agreement with Beijing on the appointment of bishops, first signed in 2018.
“Obviously, the objective is to get the best deal possible, which certainly this agreement is not the best deal possible because of the other party: They were only prepared to go so far and to agree to certain things. But that was what was possible at the time,” Gallagher said.
“It wasn’t really a great time to sign the deal, for various reasons. It was always going to be difficult; it was always going to be used by the Chinese party to bring greater pressure on the Catholic community, particularly on the so-called underground Church. So we just go forward.”
Cardinal Re’s letter, however, is its claim that the 2018 Vatican-China agreement is in continuity with the diplomacy of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05VATICAN543_a.html Vatican looks to China without Compromise.