Yesterday, June 30, the Holy Father issued his Letter to the Church in China that he signed on Pentecost Sunday, May 27 of this year. While containing some careful nuance, the letter is straightforward on vital matters covering two principal issues: (1) the present situation of the Church in China and it the relevant theological issues involving the proper, respective roles of the Church and the state; and, (2) guidelines for pastoral matters in China that have been affected by the parallel existence of the “underground” Church and the “patriotic” Church. The text of the Pope’s letter is [HERE] along with the accompanying Explanatory Note [HERE].
Throughout his letter, Pope Benedict expresses the need for respectful and constructive dialogue with all concerned in the issues involving the existence of the Church in China. In particular, the Holy Father stresses the need for this type of rapport between the political organs of the People’s Republic of China and the Holy See. But he is also clear about his distinct role as Successor of Peter, which he mentions throughout his letter, and his accompanying authority as the Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter. I believe that the Holy Father’s emphasis of these two points has far greater application than the Church in China since these remarks appear to have universal application.
Since our Mirror of Justice project addresses the development of Catholic legal theory which is often applied in the context of the pressing political, social, economic, and cultural issues of the day (especially within the United States), I would like to offer a few brief thoughts on why I think the Pope’s letter relates to our work within MOJ.
First of all, Pope Benedict relies on his encyclical Deus Caritas Est when he addresses the proper and respective roles of the state and the Church and the relationship that ensues between them. In doing so, he reiterates that it is not the role of the Church by itself to engage in political causes to bring about the “most just society possible.” Benedict acknowledges that this is the proper role of the state; however, the Church cannot remain idle as the state pursuits this objective. The Church in this regard is a teacher who must exercise her maternal and educational responsibility by unceasingly presenting rational argument and spiritual guidance essential to achieving a just society in all parts of the world. A just society, in short, is not achieved solely through political movement but with the continued and complementary assistance of intellectual understanding and caritas that will always remain the proper contributions of the Church.
In light of this initial statement, the Pope raises a second important point that bears on the work of the contributors of MOJ—indeed, on the work of all Americans. The attainment of the most just society, and surely the achievement of a more just society, cannot be expected if there remains constant conflict between the Church and civil authorities. However, while respecting this important principle about respective roles and interchange, the Church neither can remain passive to any situation where any state or official attempts to interfere in the educational and spiritual missions of the Church that pertain to achieving justice for all members of the human family. While the Church must respect that its faithful must be good citizens who are active contributors to of the political community and to the society in which the state is present, the State must respect and guarantee the freedom of the Church, who is both teaching mother and faithful members of the Body of Christ. This is the plea that Pope Paul VI made to all civil leaders when he commented on the adoption of the Declaration of Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae Personae, when he stated that all the Church asks for from governments is freedom. In light of this appeal made at the Second Vatican Council and following the example of Thomas More, the faithful are to be their society’s loyal subjects and God’s first. This mandates both freedom from control by the state and freedom for Christ and His Church.
This brings me to a third important point made by Benedict having global application beyond China. The Pope speaks several times of the universal Church that is present in China. He understands that there is the existence of the local Church—be it in China, France, Italy, the United States, or elsewhere—but there is one Church of Christ which Catholics acknowledge in the Creed, the fundamental articles of faith, when they speak of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that is the universal community of the disciples of Jesus Christ who are led by the Successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff. And it is in his office of Peter’s successor that Benedict serves as the “perpetual and visible source and foundation” of this essential unity. So, when our fellow citizens in the United States speak of the American Church, they would be more accurate in referring to the Church in the United States that is a component of the Church universal united with and through Peter and his successors. As Benedict says in his letter to the Church in China, “It is therefore indispensable, for the unity of the Church in individual nations, that every Bishop should be in communion with the other Bishops, and that all should be in visible and concrete communion with the Pope.”
A fourth point made by Benedict has clear relevance to recent developments in the United States regarding Catholic politicians who, while stating that they remain privately faithful to the Church’s teachings, must remain unencumbered to exercise their conscience so as not to impose their faith on constituents who are not Catholic. In this context, the Holy Father reminds all in his letter to the Church in China that the Church is apostolic, and no civil authority or official can claim to be above this apostolic authority of the Church as represented in its local bishops and national Episcopal conferences in union with the Successor of Peter. When officials representing the civil authority claim this superior role dealing with matters of faith and Church teachings, they usurp apostolic authority which is not properly theirs. No government official, who also claims membership in the Church, can rely on principles of independence and autonomy, self-management and “democracy” to exercise apostolic authority which is solely that of the Church, “one, holy, catholic and apostolic…” Perhaps some Catholics are comfortable in blurring this crucial distinction; however, the Holy Father is not.
My commentary of the Holy Father’s important letter has been all too brief. I am hopeful that his correspondence will be read by most Americans, including contributors and readers of MOJ. This letter merits our conscientious, judicious, and prayerful study. And now, in anticipation of the Fourth of July, I must go off to the parish at which I am assisting this summer to celebrate the Eucharist and deliver my “Let Freedom Ring” homily on this Thirteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time. RJA sj
