Cardinal Joseph Zen, along with five co-defendants, was convicted on November 25 by a Hong Kong magistrate鈥檚 court of a regulatory breach for failing to properly register a humanitarian-aid fund of which he was a trustee. The fine of about $512 that he has incurred is relatively small, but there鈥檚 more to this case than meets the eye.
When asked about Zen鈥檚 trial last September, Pope Francis , 鈥淗e says what he feels, and you can see that there are limitations there.鈥� Every observer understands that the cardinal鈥檚 real offense was dissenting from Chinese Communist Party repression. His real sentence, therefore, includes self-censorship and self-restraint from anything that might be construed as countering party ideology. It is a taste of much worse legal trouble ahead for the Church. Moreover, the draconian National Security Law, under which Zen is separately being investigated, contains a vague prohibition on 鈥渇oreign collusion鈥� that hangs like the sword of Damocles over him and the rest of the Catholic Church in Hong Kong.
The trial of the 90-year-old Bishop emeritus of Hong Kong sent shock waves through the region鈥檚 Church community, signaling that none there is safe. Unlike mainland China, Hong Kong has never had a Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) policing its Catholic Church. Once a center of reliably free Christian learning and discourse, the region鈥檚 Christians are now getting used to checking what they say and do. As the current bishop of Hong Kong, Stephen Chow, , 鈥淭he difficulty of the national security law lies in not knowing where the red line is. Educators, social workers, and even legal professionals face barriers. . . . Everyone needed to know where the boundaries were so they would know how to express themselves.鈥� It was a telling complaint from one who favors dialogue and compromise.
In an last February, Bishop Chow, an educator and former Jesuit-school head, staunchly defended as indispensable the mission of Hong Kong鈥檚 249 Catholic schools in developing 鈥渋ndependent thinking.鈥� He asserted, 鈥淚 find it unacceptable for human dignity to be ignored, trampled upon, or eliminated entirely.鈥� Shortly after Zen鈥檚 arrest last May, he sounded more wistful than defiant. Using the analogy of a flower growing in the crack of a wall, he , 鈥淚 can feel that Hong Kong, including our Church, are becoming more like an existence within cracks. . . . That spaciousness for our freedom and expression, which we had taken for granted, seems diminishing.鈥� In October, with the Vatican approving, his diocese felt it was prudent to change the name of its commission on 鈥淛ustice and Peace鈥� to the less provocative 鈥淐ommission on Integral Human Development.鈥�
On November 15 and 16, while the Zen verdict was pending, Chow, along with theologians from the Holy Spirit Center, the renowned research center of China鈥檚 Catholic Church, was called to a command performance 鈥� an online conference with the leaders of the CCPA and the Chinese Catholic Bishops鈥� Conference (CCBC), neither of which the Vatican recognizes as legitimate. According to the government-approved press, CCBC chairman and conference organizer Bishop Shen Bin opened by praising the recently concluded, 鈥渧ictorious鈥� Chinese Communist Party鈥檚 20th Congress, and establishing that its 鈥渟pirit鈥� would guide the conference toward 鈥渇ully implementing Xi Jinping鈥檚 Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.鈥� Referring to both the CCPA and the Hong Kong diocese, Bin then made a stunning pronouncement: 鈥淚t is necessary to jointly promote the translation and interpretation of the Bible, and promote sinicization of China鈥檚 Catholicism.鈥� An example illustrating what he was talking about can be found in a recent government textbook, in a lesson on enforcing the law, which retells John鈥檚 Gospel account of the adulterous woman with a new ending: It concludes with Jesus stoning the woman. If Chow pushed back on this plan to enlist him and the others in the project to conform Scripture and Catholic teaching to party ideology, it was not reported.
This brought to mind a meeting with Cardinal Zen and a group of China observers in my Washington office, in April 2011. Stating that repression against China鈥檚 churches was being overlooked, the cardinal explained that, rather than using attention-grabbing physical torture and bloody attacks against Christians, the Chinese Communist Party applied measures to control the Church that were incremental, more insidious, and calculated to evade Western economic sanctions. He cited the case of Bishop Feng Xinmao. In December 2010, Feng refused to attend the Conference of Chinese Catholic Representatives, convened in Beijing to select new leaders for the CCPA, because he did not want to validate a group that is viewed as illicit by the Vatican. As a who was present recounted, 鈥淎ccording to Cardinal Zen, 鈥榤ore than 100 police鈥� were dispatched 鈥榯o ensure that the bishop [went] to the meeting.鈥欌€� A decade later, insidious pressures, including repeated brainwashing in hidden detention sites, continue to be applied to force Catholic bishops and others to conform to the Chinese Communist Party鈥檚 religious diktats and change the character of China鈥檚 Catholic Church and the Christian religion.
Zen is among the few Catholic bishops to have advocated for persecuted Chinese Catholics. He led campaigns on behalf of Bishop Julius Jia, who is detained in a secret 鈥渂lack鈥� jail for defying the party鈥檚 prohibition on children from praying. He imprisoned lay dissenters, such as Apple Daily publisher Jimmy Lai. He strongly condemned the CCPA as a 鈥渟chismatic Church,鈥� and criticized the Vatican鈥檚 Ostpolitik agreement to 鈥溾€� China鈥檚 Catholic Church and to give Beijing a role in mainland episcopal appointments.
The Vatican has not officially protested Zen鈥檚 trial, consistent in its practice of maintaining virtual silence about China鈥檚 persecuted bishops. (I was able to research their in old news accounts and by consulting Church experts.) It argues that such criticism of the Chinese Communist Party would be harmful to its dialogue with Beijing 鈥� a dialogue in its fourth decade, with little to show.
Some mischaracterize Zen鈥檚 courageous witness as 鈥�intemperance.鈥� Yet, for most of his ministry, he quietly served as a theology professor in CCPA-aligned seminaries and, during a stint as supervisor of his Salesian order, found it necessary to work with mainland government authorities. He held back his criticisms until he retired from episcopal responsibilities, in 2009.
The trial is likely to have silenced China鈥檚 last globally prominent dissident. Zen鈥檚 outspoken criticisms of the party were the desperate warnings of a hero trying to shake the world out of its ignorance and complacency. Aside from the occasional riot over Covid lockdowns and one-off protests that are quickly crushed, no prominent and sustained voice of dissent remains in the country. It is now up to us to speak out for China鈥檚 voiceless.