Bush and Cardinal Zen

One usually does not associate "Zen" with "President Bush," but . . . .   A friend and MOJ-reader passes on this Robert Novak column describing the recent meeting between the President and Hong Kong's Cardinal Zen.

In Hong Kong, Zen enjoys more freedom to speak out than do his fellow bishops in China proper and has become known as the spiritual voice of China's beleaguered democracy movement. Increasingly since Hong Kong was handed over to Beijing by the British government in 1997, he has been a voice calling for both religious freedom and democracy in China. Consequently, the China desk at the State Department in Washington and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing contended that, for the sake of Sino-American relations, it would be a bad idea for the president to invite the cardinal. So did some of Zen's fellow cardinals.

So, why did the president invite the cardinal? The fact that no news of the session leaked out for two weeks indicates this was no political stunt to revive Bush's anemic poll ratings. The president got divided counsel from his advisers regarding its impact on China's rulers. As he nears the end of a troubled presidency, Bush as a man of faith places the plight of the religious in unfree countries at the top of his agenda. . . .

Bush asked Zen whether he was the "bishop of all China." Replying that his diocese was just Hong Kong, Zen told Bush of the plight of Catholics in China, including five imprisoned bishops. The cardinal is reported by sources close to him to have left the White House energized and inspired. George W. Bush is at a low point among his fellow citizens, but he is still a major figure for Catholics in China who look to him as a clarion of freedom.

For more on the Church in China, here is Adam Minter's recent profile, in Atlantic Monthly, on China's Bishop Jin Luxian, who is aligned with the "Chinese Patriotic Association."  And, here is a recent op-ed of mine, from USA Today -- about which Mr. Minter expressed strong disapproval in private correspondence, on the ground that it was too critical of, and unfair to, the "Chinese Patriotic Association" and those who are involved with it -- about religious freedom in China.  And, here are Melissa Rogers' thoughts about my essay.