There has been so much in the media about Prince Harry and his new
girlfriend Meghan Markle, as well as a fair bit of coverage of both the
American election and the High Court ruling on the triggering of Article
50, that you may have missed what might be the most important story of
the moment, namely the continuing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
These are led by two brave young people
called Sixtus “Baggio” Leung and Yau Wai-ching. And brave they
certainly are, as those who oppose the will of the Chinese Communist
Party generally pay a high price for it.
What is the Catholic Church’s position on the Hong Kong pro-democracy
movement?
Or indeed what is its position on the pro-democracy movement
in China as a whole, and in particular in Tibet and among the Uighurs,
who live in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region?
As one holding a license and a doctorate in moral theology, I should be
able to expound the Church’s teaching on this matter and apply it to
the Chinese situation.
The Church’s social teaching emphasises the importance of
subsidiarity, that is, that decisions should be made at the lowest
possible level.
In other words, the Uighurs should have autonomy on all
the matters that relate to them, rather than having to await decisions
made in distant Beijing: what we in Europe call devolution.
And in cases
where a people have a distinctive culture, language and home, where the
characteristics of a nation exist, then they should have independence
if indeed that is what they democratically determine for themselves.
Consider the case of Scotland. The Church has been supportive of
devolution, as it makes sense for Scottish matters to be decided in
Scotland.
The Church would have supported independence if that were what
the majority had voted for.
The Church would justify the continued
existence of the United Kingdom by pointing to the benefits of shared
responsibility in matters that concern all of the constituent nations,
saying that this arrangement is for the common good.
Are the current arrangements in Tibet, in Xinjiang, and in Hong Kong
for the common good? Do they reflect the popular will?
I very much doubt
anyone, Catholic or not, could argue that case.
The thrust of Catholic
social teaching is clear; and the conclusions one should draw when
applying it to the Chinese situation, equally so. Of course if China
were a democracy which respected human rights, it is quite possible that
the current separatist movements might become less pressing.
But the
Chinese government is any thing but: it remains repressive in many areas
of life, bar the economic, including the area of religion.
Given that the Chinese government is atheist, one would expect it to
have no interest in religion, but this is far from the case, as this
magazine has reported on numerous occasions.
The Chinese government has,
for example, waged war on crosses, pretending that this is something to
do with planning laws, but which is clearly ideological.
But it gets worse.
The Chinese government is not just interested in
Church architecture, it also wishes to determine who should minister in
churches as well. For years, the government has exercised control over
“official” churches both Catholic and Protestant, whose bishops it
appoints.
Those bishops it does not appoint it has persecuted.
The idea
is to bring religion under the control of the state, and to make the
Church yet another department of government. It is all part of the
Chinese government’s addiction to state control.
But how complicated is it really?
The Church has faced this challenge
many a time. In England, it happened when St Thomas was Archbishop of
Canterbury.
The state tried to exercise control over the Church; the
Archbishop resisted and paid for it with his life.
Until the late nineteenth century
almost all Catholic bishops in the world were appointed by the state.
The freedom of the Church to appoint its own bishops has been won only
after a long and hard struggle for independence.
And how right the
Church was to insist on the freedom to appoint its own bishops!
It is
essential, if we are to have bishops who serve God rather than Mammon.
This is why Cardinal Zen is right.
Let us hope that his wise advice prevails. If the Church in China were
to accept state-appointed bishops, this would severely damage the Church
and confuse the faithful.
Moreover, it would destroy the Church’s credibility
in China, making it just another institution to have sold out to the
repressive government in Beijing.
I don’t know how religious or
otherwise someone like Sixtus “Baggio” Leung is, but he, and the other
pro-democracy activists, would, whatever their religious allegiance, be
deeply disappointed by the Church siding with the enemies of democracy
and freedom.