Frank speech by the German ambassador to Dublin tweaked Irish sensibilities. Frankness and dialogue are to commended, though, to states as they foster secularization. The Church though must be free to bear witness to the Truth.

By Martin Barillas

Diplomats, it has been said, are normally chosen for their cleverness with words but what passes for “diplomacy”. This would seem to mean may choose words and phrasings that please listeners and cajole them into accepting the position of his masters in the home country. A diplomat is someone who, unlike a soldier, is prepared to lie rather than die for his country.

In Ireland a kafuffle has emerged over Christian Pauls, ambassador of Germany to Dublin, who tweaked Irish sensibilities in a bluff speech he gave on September 7 to a group of 80 prospective German investors meeting at historic Clontarf Castle. Speaking in unscripted German to his compatriots, the Teuton emissary was interpreted into English for the Irish present as saying that Ireland is a “coarse” place. According to reports in the Irish Times and The Independent, Ambassador Pauls also took the time to criticize the role played by the Catholic Church in Ireland’s history, while also taking a swipe at its traffic circulation laws. He made light of the large size of the bureaucracy in the Irish Republic while saying that plenty of physicians in Germany would be happy to earn the €200,000 per year salary spurned by many of their Irish counterparts.

Present at the speech was Gay Mitchell, Irish representative to the European Parliament and member of the Fine Gael party, criticized the ambassador’s remarks, saying that the diplomat’s remarks were "somewhere between resentment and spite", according to the Irish Times.

Ambassador Pauls later avoided offering an abject apology by offering his regrets over any misunderstanding by blaming a flub by his interpreter. In a statement recorded by the Irish Times, Pauls is said to have denied using the German equivalent of the word “coarse” in describing the land of the Gaels and whether Irish society had become a rougher and less-caring one as a result of economic gains over the last decade. He said that his mistake was to assume that a question-and-answer session would ensue and allow for clarification of his “quite black and white, yes, even provocative” talk. He promised to be less "blunt, loud and fast" in future public utterances. On Irish television, Ambassador Pauls acknowledged how the Irish may feel about how his remarks were broadcast, saying that if he were Irish “I would have said 'he is a complete idiot', which I don't think I am," adding that the affair was a tempest in a teacup.

For his remarks, Ambassador Pauls received a rebuke from the Irish Foreign Ministry, even though he has yet to be tagged as “persona non grata” and therefore unwelcome in the country where he is accredited. The foreign ministry knocked Pauls’ speech as “inaccurate, misinformed and inappropriate”.

It was another foreigner, English-born journalist Kevin Myers, who offered a sarcastic but incisive perspective on the issues raised by Ambassador Pauls. In an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Myers noted that when the ambassador had departed from the usual bromides peddled by diplomats in host countries, Pauls had actually been frank. Pauls apparently told his listeners that Ireland’s history is sadder than Poland’s and that Ireland has not learned from Germany’s experience with accepting immigrants. Writing an opinion piece in the Irish Times, Myers said of Pauls, “He merely told the truth. For this is a conceited, ill-run country, with a bloated civil service and a health-care service that makes Zanzibar's look like Zurich's. Moreover, as your man pointed out, we have studiously ignored the consequences of immigration right across Europe: instead we witlessly bleat about ‘the new Irish’, as if calling people what they are not will spare us the problems you know all too well about”. Myers, who in the United States would be considered a libertarian, has been denounced in the past for referring to illegitimate children as “bastards” in print. Some wags in Ireland, with Gaelic wit reminiscent of Swift and Wilde, refer to Myers as “My-arse”.

The Republic of Ireland has been the recipient of growing numbers of immigrants, especially from Eastern Europe but also Africa. However, the single largest group of immigrants comes from the United Kingdom, followed by Poland, Lithuania, Nigeria, Latvia, and the United States. Approximately 10 percent of Ireland’s population is foreign-born. Immigrants to Ireland, much like arrivals in the US or elsewhere in Europe, place demands on institutions such as schools. The birthrate in Ireland appears to be growing, too, perhaps because of the arrival of many foreigners unaccustomed to contraception and the culture of death.

The Irish state is coping with the inroads on its immigrants and babies make on its services, but appears to whine and then blame the Catholic Church for an inability to incorporate many non-Christian or non-Catholics in Catholic schools. The Catholic bishops, for example, had to publicly deny recently that their policy to favor Catholic students applying for admission to Catholic schools is not actually racist. This came after the Equality Authority (how perfectly Orwellian!) of the Irish state claimed that the bishops’ policy may actually break both Irish law and European anti-discrimination law in supposedly denying admission to non-Catholic students. Citing the Equal Status Act, Monsignor Daniel O’Connor of the Catholic Primary Schools Association said that the Act makes specific provisions to allow denominational schools in Ireland to give preference to students on the basis of religion. Therefore, Catholic schools in Ireland operate within the law.

Commentators like Myers are less than frank when it comes to the process of “secularization” going on in Europe. Ireland is now down to two Catholic seminaries, divorce is legal, attendance at Mass is declining, the numbers of Anglicans declines, while 45,000 Irish women have traveled to Great Britain since 1967 to obtain abortions, according to official figures. These are features of Irish society that are reflected in formerly Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain that are now increasingly secularized. Ireland now appears to be only beginning to emulate the Continent in opposing the Catholic Church as has, for example, the Socialist government of Spain as it seeks to dictate the teaching of deviant sexual practices in schools operated by the Church there.

With the concern and frankness of a father, Pope Benedict XVI received the new ambassador of the Irish Republic to the Holy See on September 17. The pope told Ambassador Noel Fahey that "for over 1600 years, Christianity has shaped the cultural, moral and spiritual identity of the Irish people." Remarking that the economic boom that has earned Ireland the sobriquet of “Celtic Tiger” may have been a blessing but "prosperity has undoubtedly brought material comfort to many, but in its wake secularism has also begun to encroach and leave its mark."

Speaking again very pointedly, the pontiff said about relations between the Church and the state that the church "serves all of society by shedding light on the foundation of morality and ethics, and by purifying reason, ensuring that it remains open to the consideration of ultimate truths and draws upon wisdom." The church, said Benedict, does not necessarily threaten the state, but "keeps public debate rational, honest and accountable." Also, while applauding concern for the environment, the pope deplored what he termed “scant attention to the marvel of life in the womb”, an obvious reference to the growing phenomenon of abortion among women from the Emerald Isle even while it remains ostensibly illegal there. Benedict made what seems to be a prognostication for Europe as a whole by saying that if the Church is barred from proclaiming truth in the public square that, "relativism takes its place: instead of being governed by principles, political choices are determined more and more by public opinion, values are overshadowed by procedures and targets, and indeed the very categories of good and evil, and right and wrong, give way to the pragmatic calculation of advantage and disadvantage."

One wonders if observers in Ireland would admit as much frankness from Catholic prelates and other Christian pastors that Kevin Myers welcomes from the bumbling German ambassador. As the so-called “secularization” of Ireland, and Europe, continues so too will the friction between Church and state. Let us hope that the friction produces more light rather than heated exchanges.



Click here to return to homepage

Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman wrote Pope Benedict asking him to publicly denounce Rev. Tadeusz Rydzyk - a Polish radio priest accused of anti-Semitism. Seven hundred Poles have already denounced him.

By Martin Barillas

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has written a letter to Pope Benedict XVI calling him to publicly denounce anti-Semitic statements espoused by Reverend Tadeusz Rydzyk, a Roman Catholic priest and founder of Radio Maryja, a radio station in Poland that has been accused of anti-Semitic broadcasts.

In a letter to Benedict XVI, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said to the pontiff "you have unfortunately lent him the priceless credibility of your office and integrity in the eyes of the world", in reference to the pope’s meeting and being photographed with Reverend Rydzyk last week at the papal summer retreat.

Foxman noted that, "As the founder and director of Radio Maryja, Father Rydzyk is responsible for the anti-Semitic comments and concepts the station regularly broadcasts to millions of Polish Catholic faithful," and "Father Rydzyk himself has on several occasions made anti-Semitic statements on the air. These are despicable anti-Semitic remarks that must be strongly and publicly condemned by all leaders and people of good will.” "We respectfully request that you publicly condemn the anti-Semitism that is being spouted by Father Rydzyk and other Catholic leaders in Poland." An ADL press release also noted Foxman’s concern over the pope “keeping silent on the issue of anti-Semitism.”

Reverend Rydzyk is reported by the ADL of having accused Jews of greed in a potential government compensation deal on confiscated property, and denounced Poland's President, Lech Kaczynski, as a "fraudster who is in the pockets of the Jewish lobby." The priest’s remarks were allegedly caught on tape at a lecture this spring and later reported in a Polish newspaper. Reverend Rydzyk has rejected accusations of anti-Semitism and said that he had no intention of offending anyone.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in California, has also denounced Reverend Rydzyk, saying that there should be no place in the Catholic Church for anyone who spreads anti-Semitism. The UK-based Guardian newspaper reported in July that 700 prominent Poles, among them former Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki and Auschwitz-survivor and former Foreign Minister Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, wrote and open letter condemning Reverend Rydzyk. The Guardian also reported that Pope Benedict asked Polish ecclesiastical authorities in 2006 to rein in the controversial priest.


Click here to return to homepage

Supporting and cooperating with Catholic nuns to serve poor and needy people is consistent with Islamic teaching, says an Islamic leader in East Java.

For Abu Muslich, a well-known Muslim figure in Kediri, 600 kilometers southeast of Jakarta, the work of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul nuns in his area is in line with what is taught the Qur'an and Hadith (collected sayings and deeds attributed to Prophet Muhammad), so Muslims who support and cooperate with the nuns are implementing Islamic teaching.

Muslich shared this view in a commentary he wrote for UCA News as Daughters of Charity (DC) nuns from eight Asian countries held their Fifth Asian Superiors Meeting here. During their July 10-21 meeting, Muslich helped them arrange a visit to Tebuireng Pesantren (Islamic boarding school) in Jombang, about 40 kilometers northeast of Kediri.


Sister Anna Soepraptiwi, the Indonesian provincial of the DC nuns, asked for his help to contact Kiai Hajj Salahuddin Wahid, head of that Pesantren.

Muslich, who was born in Kediri in 1959, is vice-chairperson of Gerakan Pemuda Ansor (GP Ansor, Ansor youth movement) in East Java province. GP Ansor is the youth arm of Nahdlatul Ulama, the Muslim scholars' organization, Indonesia's largest and most influential Muslim organization.

He is also East Java vice chairperson of the Democratic Party, and executive editor of Radar Kediri, a supplement of Surabaya-based daily Jawa Pos.

In his commentary, Muslich speaks of how he met Sister Soepraptiwi, and how the nuns and GP Ansor together promote interreligious understand and harmony, and serve a society that has seen religious intolerance and violence. He also describes how he has helped develop the sisters' friendship with other local Muslim leaders and institutions.

His commentary follows:

***


At the end of the 1990s, a group of unknown people destroyed a church in a village in Mojo, a sub-district of Kediri in East Java. Such an anarchic event really disturbed our efforts to create interreligious harmony in Indonesia, especially here in Kediri district.

I found through an investigation that residents near the church did not know the perpetrators. The unidentified people came at midnight and systematically disconnected the power lines, destroyed the church and left within 60 minutes.

As head of GP Ansor of Kediri district at the time, I had to respond strongly to show that Muslims live in harmony and peace with other religious believers.

Thanks to God, Munasir Huda, an activist, visited my office while going to the DC provincial house on the same street where Radar Kediri daily is located and I work. I followed him to meet the nuns.

Alhamdulillah (praise God), I was lucky to meet and become acquainted with Sister Soepraptiwi. She welcomed us into her clean, simple, cool and charming guest room with old shiny floor tiles.

Sister Soepraptiwi, a kind, middle-aged woman, always smiles. When she asked what I wish to drink, I answered just plain water. "What a pasone gede (great fast) you are observing, Mr. Abu!" the nun replied. That made me proud.

During our dialogue, I learned that the headquarters of Indonesia's DC nuns are in Kediri and they offer free medical treatment to poor people in the villages of Kediri district every Sunday. I also noted that GP Ansor members are spread through all villages of Kediri district, so the DC nuns and GP Ansor agreed to collaborate to provide free medical treatment to the poor.

We have performed such service more than 10 times in various villages, including for santri (Muslim students) of the pesantren in Kandangan village, who suffered from skin diseases due to poor sanitation.

Another village was Kalipang in Grogol sub-district, where a group of outsiders came to destroy a church Catholics were building in that village.

When I immediately asked the head of GP Ansor Grogol for complete information, I was really surprised to learn that Kalipang villagers said they live in harmony, and help and love each other. When Muslims built mosques, Catholics came to help, and Muslims helped them when Catholics built a church.

I shared this with the DC nuns and we agreed together to provide free medical treatment for the village poor, to show that Kalipang Muslims do not object to the church building.

Then Sister Soepraptiwi expressed the DC nuns' wish to visit a pesantren in Kediri. As head of GP Ansor and alumnus of various pesantren in East Java, I know many Islamic educational institutions. I contacted Kiai Hajj Imam Yahya Mahrus, head of Lirboyo Pesantren in Kediri, one of Indonesia's biggest.

Sister Soepraptiwi and 25 other DC nuns visited the girls' unit of Lirboyo pesantren and they were warmly welcomed. In that dialogue, women santri asked many questions about the DC nuns. The nuns then visited the girls' hostels, study rooms and library. At the end of the visit, Sister Soepraptiwi planted a tree in the pesantren compound as a symbol of everlasting fellowship between the congregation and the pesantren.

The Bali bombing on Oct. 12, 2002, that killed 202 people and injured another 209 was traumatic. It worried many people, including the DC nuns. That is why Sister Soepraptiwi gathered all DC nuns in Indonesia -- 92 nuns in all, if I am not mistaken -- and asked me to help arrange a meeting with an Islamic ulama (scholar) with deep knowledge about Islam.

I recommended Kiai Hajj Mustain Syafii, caregiver of Tebuireng Pesantren in Jombang. I remember him saying in one lecture attended by DC nuns during Ramadan (the Islamic fasting month) that Islam is a religion that brings peace. He explained that Prophet Muhammad was sent out as God's mercy to the whole world (Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 107 of the Qur'an).

After the lecture, Kiai Syafii broke his fast together with the nuns. Later, he and his friends said maghrib (evening) prayers in a room with sajadah (prayer mats) prepared by the nuns. It was really an extraordinary and beautiful event, genuine fellowship not blocked by religious differences. People can establish genuine friendship by respecting each other's religion.

At the same time, the nuns also asked about my activities, and one asked what Ansor stands for. I told her Ansor is not an acronym but an Arabic word meaning "helper." Some stories in the Qur'an say people who identify themselves as Ansor, helpers of God, are the people of khawariyyin, disciples of Prophet Isa, whom Christians call "Jesus."

What impresses me much about the DC nuns is their belief of "leaving God for God," which stresses the importance of service to those in need. I also find such a noble teaching in Islam. A Hadith says:

"On the Day of Judgement, when God judges His servant, He will say: 'O son of Adam, why did you not give Me food when I was hungry?' The servant replies, 'How could I give You food, while You are Rabb (the Almighty God)?' God says: 'Did you not know that my servant Fulan ibn Fulan was hungry, but you did not give him food? Behold, had you given him food, you would have found all of that with Me.'

"'O son of Adam, why did you not give Me to drink when I was thirsty?' The servant replies, 'How should I give You to drink when You are Rabb (the Almighty God)?' God says: 'Did not you know that My servant Fulan ibn Fulan was thirsty, but you did not give him to drink? Behold, had you given him to drink you would have surely found all of that with Me.'

"'O son of Adam, why did not you visit Me when I was sick?' The servant replies, 'How could I visit You, when You are Rabb (the Almighty God)?' God says: 'Did you not know that My servant, Fulan ibn Fulan was sick, but you did not visit him. Behold, if you had visited him, you would have found Me with him.'"

[Note: Fulan ibn Fulan, literally "Fulan, son of Fulan," is a fictitious name in Arabic used to refer to an unspecified person.]

How could I not respect and support the DC nuns when they do humanitarian work and dedicate their lives to serve God in the persons of the poor, the disaster victims, the sick and those suffering misfortune.

When I interact with the DC nuns, I am never concerned they will hurt my belief. On the contrary, supporting the DC nuns' work is implementing Islamic teaching. Surah Al-Maidah, verse 2 of the Qur'an says: "Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancor."

Wallahu a'lam bi shawab (God knows the truth).

Source: UCAN

Click here to return to homepage

By Bishop Thomas G. Wenski

Is the pope Catholic? Well, yeah. But considering the reaction that the recent reaffirmation of the Catholic Church's self-understanding (issued under the pope's signature by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) received, you might think that many were surprised to learn that the pope is, well, still Catholic.

Of course, many non-Catholics, expressed hurt, incomprehension, even anger. However, the statement, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church," in reality said nothing new. Dominus Jesus, issued in 2000 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, said the same thing. And this was nothing more than another reaffirmation of Catholic teachings found in Vatican II and in the constant tradition of the Roman Catholic Church: Namely, that the Church, willed by Christ as a visible and spiritual community, actually continues to exist in the Catholic Church as a continual concrete, historical reality.
Much of the overwrought reaction, I believe, was caused not so much by what was said but by how it was reported in the secular media. Did the media deliberately give it a negative spin?

Not necessarily. We can and should presume their good faith. However, they often get it wrong because in reality we often do not speak the same language: The pope speaks in the languages of philosophy and theology; most modern reporters, untrained in these disciplines, speak more comfortably in the idioms of sociology and psychology.

Most Catholics, including the pope, would not deny that myriad denominations that have emerged in the almost 500 years since the Protestant Reformation are indeed "churches" according to the popular -- i.e., sociological -- idiom in which people speak today. But we do say, as did the Second Vatican Council, they are not churches -- as Catholic theology understands "church."

In fact, most Protestants, especially those who hold that Jesus did not found a visible hierarchical structure with apostolic succession and a Petrine office as Catholics do, would readily agree. They believe themselves to be churches, but they do not believe themselves to be churches in the Catholic sense. Our understandings of "church" simply differ. In any case, we Catholics do believe that, "separated churches and communities . . . are neither deprived of significance or importance in the mystery of Salvation."

Does this reaffirmation of Catholic teaching impede the ecumenical movement and the dialogue with those whom we have called our "separated brethren" since Vatican II?

Not according to Metropolitan Kiril of the Russian Orthodox Church. He called the statement "honest" and preferable to a diplomatic approach that dodges the tough issues. Dialogue in the ecumenical and interfaith context should not mean "splitting the differences" or soft pedaling the real differences that exist. Many religious communities -- most Baptists, for example -- shun such dialogues because they believe that this is precisely what is implied.

To dialogue -- and to forge from dialogue, relationships, based on mutual trust and understanding -- cannot mean setting aside or bracketing how one's own tradition understands the truth. Ecumenical dialogue is aimed at restoring unity to the Body of Christ, but such unity is built on truth, not at the expense of truth. Dialogue is not about undermining one another's truth claims but understanding them. The Catholic-Lutheran dialogue in recent years on "justification by faith" is one very good example of such honest and, therefore, fruitful dialogue.

A few weeks ago, the Sunday magazine of The New York Times profiled Robert Novak, the noted journalist and news pundit -- and recent convert to the Catholic faith. Asked why he converted from Judaism, he answered the same way that the pope would. It is the same answer the every well-catechized Catholic would give: "I believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church."

Such a statement is never meant to be a conversation stopper; it is, however, an invitation to further dialogue.

Thomas G. Wenski is the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Orlando.

Source: CNA

Click here to return to homepage

By Father Jeroom Heyndrickx,

The pastoral letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholic Church in China, published on June 30, is remarkable and historic for its content and style.

The pope speaks like a father to the Chinese Catholics and with respect to Chinese authorities, and he puts forward clear principles to both of them.

In carefully chosen words, he expresses his understanding of the sufferings of the "underground community," which refuses to cooperate with the government, but also for the "official community" and for its decision to cooperate.

He expresses some fundamental theological principles asking both communities to reconcile, and he calls on civil authorities to enter into dialogue beyond the misunderstandings of the past.

The letter is remarkable for its content because it gives a clear answer to the burning pastoral questions that have divided the Chinese Church internally for 20 years. Only Rome can clarify the confusing discussions of the past.

I understand the meaning of the pope's letter as follows:

There is only one Chinese Catholic Church and it is faithful to the Holy See. Bishops and priests of both communities may concelebrate, but the pope encourages them first to express among themselves their unity by a profession of faith. For the Church to live underground is not a normal situation. There is at present no longer any reason to keep an underground Church community going in China. The pope, therefore, revokes all privileges that were conferred to China's underground community in the past. Chinese faithful may also take part in the Eucharist of priests of the official Church community.

The pope expresses these pastoral guidelines after he, in the first part of his 26-page text (English version), exposes at length some basic theological principles on the communion of particular Churches with the universal Church, reconciliation, and the need for dialogue and cooperation in charity and truth between Church and state, while giving to God and to Caesar respectively what belongs to each.

The pope promised in January that he would write a letter to the Catholic Church in China. Since then, they awaited this letter impatiently, and so did civil authorities. There was even some tension. All planned ordinations and other important Church activities were postponed "until after the letter of the pope," even if it was not said in just those words.

The causes of this uncertainty in China were calls expressed outside the mainland for confrontation with Chinese authorities, as well as last year's illicit episcopal ordinations in China at which Chinese bishops recognized by Rome had been forced to participate.

Everybody wondered: will the pope's letter threaten to apply canonical sanctions for illicit ordinations that may happen in the future? Or will the letter instead be a friendly though urgent call for unity and dialogue?

The large majority of Catholics in remote places in China's countryside had other concerns. The vital question for them has existed for decades: yes or no, may we participate in the Eucharistic celebration of the "open" (official) Church communities? Do we commit a mortal sin if we do, as we were taught?

So much confusion has been caused by what was said, preached and written about these questions that only the highest Church authority could give a clear answer. This is what happened in the pastoral letter. The pope says there: only one Catholic Church exists in China. Let Chinese Catholics peacefully celebrate the Eucharist together.

But there is more in the letter. The pope admonishes the official bishops appointed by the Holy See to make their appointment public. They apparently did not make that sufficiently clear in the past. The pope does not speak a warning language to bishops ordained without papal appointment, but he does ask them to clarify their relation to Successor of Peter now. Underground bishops are encouraged to apply for recognition by civil authorities.

An underground Church "is not a normal feature of the Church's life" for the Catholic Church, says the pope. All bishops should now unite so that Rome can finally recognize officially the already existing Chinese Bishops' Conference. This could not be done until now because the underground bishops are not members, while some other members of the conference are not appointed by Rome.

The pastoral letter touches here upon an extremely delicate point related to Church-state relations. It suggests that the present statutes of the Chinese Bishops' Conference still need to be amended.

In the present situation, one entity "desired by the State" -- apparently referring to the Patriotic Association -- stands above the bishops and makes important pastoral decisions, some even related to the appointment of bishops. Doing so, it in fact directs the Church. This situation takes the pastoral authority away from the bishops, which is against Catholic teaching: "Only a legitimate Episcopal Conference can formulate pastoral guidelines, valid for the entire Catholic community of the country concerned."

The pastoral letter contains more concrete pastoral guidelines than many of us may have anticipated. But they are all important, useful guidelines urgently needed in the Chinese local Church and they are included in Canon Law.

Priests are reminded that they should be incardinated in one clearly defined diocese. Dioceses that have a limited number of priests and experience difficulty in finding a suitable candidate-bishop are encouraged to ask neighboring bishops to help find alternative candidates. Bishops are reminded to set up structures required in their dioceses to promote cooperation and dialogue in pastoral work, such as: diocesan curia, presbyteral council, college of consultors, diocesan pastoral council and financial commission.

The letter even refers to the importance of registering Church properties in the name of the Church, not of individuals. It all shows how well the Holy See is informed about and concerned with the concrete needs of the Church in China.

The pope pleads for the principle of separation between Church and state, a relation in charity and truth to be realized through open dialogue. However, he introduces some points that, from the side of the Church, are not discussable.

The proposal to set up a Church independent from the Holy See is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. The principle that bishops must be appointed by the successor of Peter is crucial for the Church, since only appointments by the pope assure the unity of the Church and the apostolic succession of bishops. These appointments have no political character at all. The pope refers to internationally accepted documents that state the appointment of Catholic bishops by the pope is part of true freedom of religion.

For some readers, the letter may create the impression of being "too clear" and "too explicit," leaving nothing to be discussed and clarified in the dialogue with diplomats. This is the opinion of some friends in China who stress that in China one should leave some things to be cleared up by private bargaining. But here, too, the problem is that years of discussion have created confusion around matters of principle that are crucial for the Church.

Just as pastoral guidelines were urgently needed for the Chinese Church, so too is there need to make clear what is and is not discussable with regard to relations of the Church with the state.

Some people would have criticized the pope if he did not clarify these points. But he repeatedly expresses his hope and trust that, through dialogue, all these questions can be clarified and agreed upon.

As a concrete example, the pope cites the new division of dioceses that civil authorities introduced over the past 50 years but never previously agreed upon with Rome. The pope says this can be discussed whenever opportune and helpful.

This is the beginning of a new phase in the history of the Chinese Catholic Church. Together with the letter in which Pope John Paul II offered excuses for what happened in the 19th century, this pastoral letter is undoubtedly the most important and historical document ever written by Rome to the Chinese Church.

The key words are: reconciliation, unity and dialogue. Nowhere in this letter does the pope call for confrontation. Marked by reconciliation and unity inside the Church and dialogue with civil authorities on the basis of equality and mutual respect, it initiates a new phase in Chinese Catholic Church history.


Father Jeroom Heyndrickx is a member of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and director of Ferdinand Verbiest Institute at Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium.


UCAN

Click here to return to homepage

A Catholic priest in his 30s, who asks to be identified as "a Priest from the Underground Church," has written his impressions of the letter Pope Benedict XVI recently issued for Catholics in mainland China.

The writer in northern China was trained in underground seminaries in China and has studied abroad. He asked not to be named in the commentary he wrote for UCA News on July 2, two days after the pope's letter was published.

The priest analyzes the situation and expresses thanks for the papal letter. He supports the pope's call for unity and reconciliation among all Catholics in China, and draws special attention to the vexing issue of clergy from open and underground Catholic communities concelebrating the Eucharist.

For the priest, the papal letter's only disappointment is that it fails to mention a single word about the clergy who continue to suffer in prison.

UCA News has translated the original Chinese text as follows:



First impressions about "Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops, Priests, Consecrated persons and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church in the People's Republic of China"


The long awaited papal letter has finally been released. The pope's letter touches on various aspects of Church life in China. It cannot be simply summarized in a few articles of reflection, nor can its impact on the Church in China be explained in a few commentaries. This letter undoubtedly will have a decisive impact on the future development of the Church in China. Now, I would like to express some of my personal feelings and views.

1. All through the letter, the pastor of the Universal Church and the successor of Saint Peter expresses concern for the faithful in China. He is willing to share the joy and hope, worries and anxieties of the Church there. This will bring about much spiritual happiness to the Chinese Catholics. We can feel we are an important part of the Universal Church. We can feel his pastoral care and deeply feel that communion of the Church is not an empty concept. We know that we actually live in the communion of the Church.

2. For more than 50 years, the Church in China could not experience normal development. Therefore, the pope in this letter hopes to see the Church in China, in the process of overcoming many difficulties, slowly moving toward normal and full development. Whether in revoking the faculties or in teaching various sectors among the faithful (bishops, priests, families), he expresses concern about the urgent problems the Church in China faces and points out how the Church can move toward healthy and normal development.

3. The most urgent mission of the Church in China is now reconciliation. Reconciliation means we look to Jesus Christ together in truth and charity. Such adoration and focus demand that we abandon past prejudices so as to sit down and engage in true dialogue. If the Church is like a real person and we are to live together in communion with Christ, then the present situation in the Church in China can and must be altered first by you and me. We have to sit down and listen to one another. In communion with Christ, we must accept one another. We actually are one body. Our quarrels and confrontation are definitely not what Christ wants. We need to sit down in love and truth -- even better, in the truth of love and in the love of truth -- so that we can pursue sincere dialogue. We should not look at each other's attitude. I must first sit down unconditionally. To have the other sit down, I first must sit down. The only way to have the other listen to me is for me first to listen to the other. The only way to avoid quarrel is for me not to quarrel. Of course, I do this not to make the other sit down but because he and I are in communion with Christ and we live in the same Church of Christ. In such dialogue of unity, it is equally dreadful to forget about love and to forget about truth. The pope has reiterated the truth of the Church in this letter. At the same time, he points out the concrete demand of love. To brothers in communion with the pope and the bishops' conferences of the Universal Church, I should open my heart completely. This carries us to the question of "concelebration." Perhaps some members of the "underground" Church will find this hard to accept for the present. We should put aside personal prejudices and personal views and bear in mind the Church of Christ.

4. Regarding the legal aspect and actual reality, objectively speaking, it is clear that religious freedom (including freedom of belief and freedom of movement) promulgated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not yet fully observed in China. As a priest in the "unofficial" Church, I personally believe the reason for our existence is to uphold human beings' vocation and continuous struggle for the fundamental rights of religious freedom. Different voices should be allowed and even encouraged within the Church. Diversity will only enrich Church life. The true value of the "underground" Church's existence is the weak but real voice it utters. It is the voice of human conscience. While not denying the government's efforts to achieve religious freedom in the past 30 years, we have to admit that China still has a long way to go to achieve the generally accepted international standard.

5. As part of its normal development, a religious community will definitely relate to the local government directly or indirectly. Normal Church life cannot lack contact with the government authorities. Examples include recognition of the clergy and granting permission for venues of religious activities. However, the prerequisite is that the government should protect normal religious activities rather than control them.

6. As for Sino-Vatican relations, the pope clearly expresses his sincere desire to dialogue with Chinese authorities. The ball is now in the hands of the Chinese government to decide whether to express the same sincerity for dialogue. From a practical point of view, if the government continues to use the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) -- nominally an internal organization of the Church in China but actually a tool the government uses to control the Church -- to lead the China Church, this would clearly indicate that the government is unwilling to have real dialogue. In the long run, if China and the Vatican are to establish diplomatic relations, the CCPA is a card that the government can afford to sacrifice.

7. The papal letter mentions not a single word about bishops and priests still in prison. I personally think this is really an imperfection. We do not call on the pope to give much support to these suffering brothers in his letter since Church history tells us that those who give their lives and blood for their faith in any country subsequently have no important position at the negotiation table. Nor do we want to fight for anything in particular. For the sake of unity and for the good of the Church, we can put that aside and endure in silence. However, the fact that the pope, as pastor of the Universal Church, does not even mention those still suffering in his letter is frustrating and shocking. We would not ask the pope to offend the Chinese government by mentioning it, nor request any special rights. We only want assurance that the Universal Church has not totally abandoned these people who are suffering, in silence. This is just a humble request.

UCAN
Click here to return to homepage

Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong told a press conference July 5 that Pope Benedict XVI's letter to the Catholics in China did not ask the "underground" Church to "surface."

The pope's letter "certainly does not encourage" them to "come out," the prelate said. The underground clergy could make such a move only if the authorities do not attach any conditions, he added.

The decision to surface is a complicated choice, he continued. The cardinal explained that "indeed almost always" in the procedure of recognition, underground clergy are forced to violate Church discipline by joining the Catholic Patriotic Association and concelebrating Mass with the illegitimate bishops ordained without a papal mandate.

Cardinal Zen added that he believes the pope has an open attitude about whether they come out or not.

The press conference at the Catholic Diocese Centre, next to the cathedral, was called to answer the many media inquiries about the June 30 papal letter and the Hong Kong situation.

As the local Church leader called on mainland Catholics to "understand accurately" the pope's letter, he said the Church in Hong Kong, while not mentioned in the letter, will continue to play its role as a bridge Church and help mainland Catholics understand the text.

Concerning Beijing's reaction to the letter, the cardinal said he is glad the initial response is mild, in contrast to the authorities call for mainland bishops to stand against the Holy See during the canonization row in 2000. That year, on Oct. 1, China's National Day, the Vatican canonized 120 Chinese martyrs.

Nevertheless, he thinks the Chinese government is worried about the letter, citing reports that it has warned or closed down some Catholic websites that carried the text or even related news.

By July 6, UCA News found three such websites, run by "underground" Catholics, that still had the full official Chinese text, which ran 19,763 characters including the footnotes. Local public security bureaus closed three other popular sites that carried the papal letter and related news.

One of the key issues addressed in the letter is the appointment of bishops.

On July 5, Wen Wei Po, a pro-Beijing daily in Hong Kong, reported that the dioceses of Guangzhou, Guizhou, Hubei (Yichang) and Ningxia have already elected bishops and are now waiting for the approval of the government-approved bishops' conference. Once this is given, the ordinations will be held within three months, according to Church custom, it quoted an unnamed "authoritative person" as saying.

The person went on to say that the pope in his letter urged "pardon and reconciliation" within the Church. The person also claimed the pope encouraged the underground community to seek recognition by governmental authorities in order to further evangelization work of the China Church.

"Actually, we have been working on pushing forward the underground community to turn 'above ground' to acquire lawful identity. As long as they do not act in violation of laws, they can live normal religious life," the person said.

However, the Chinese daily also quoted the person as saying that Beijing authorities do not accept the "unrealistic" papal letter.

The "authoritative person" summarized that the letter had no surprises for either the open or underground Church communities, had few new things to say and "repeated the hackneyed tune" on fundamental issues.

The pope's letter intentionally avoided the Taiwan issue and did not consider current conditions in China when it addressed the issue of bishops' appointments, the unnamed person was quoted as saying.

Since such an attitude is quite rigid and lacks flexibility, the person continued, it is not likely to have the effect the Vatican might hope for, and might even create more complications and barriers in future dialogue between China and the Vatican.

The person stressed that the Church in China will ordain its bishops according to the actual needs of the local dioceses and will not deliberately speed up or slow down the process.

UCAN
Click here to return to homepage

In Pope Benedict XVI'S June 30 letter to mainland Catholics giving guidelines for Church life, he also announced the revocation of faculties previously granted to the China Church and pastoral directives concerning it.

The pope revoked "all the faculties previously granted in order to address particular pastoral necessities that emerged in truly difficult times."

He explained that this decision came after "some positive developments" in the China Church situation, "increased opportunities and greater ease in communications" between China and Rome, and "requests sent to Rome by various bishops and priests."


Faculties and special privileges regarding how clergy could administer sacraments under difficult situations were granted to the China Church -- those given in 1978, 1981 and 1988 the most widely known -- as Church activities revived in China following the end of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76).

Anthony Lam Sui-ki, senior researcher of the Hong Kong diocese's Holy Spirit Study Centre, sees the new papal letter as having the potential to help unify the China Church.

When the faculties and special privileges were granted, they were not known throughout the Church on the mainland, Lam told UCA News July 2. When the Holy See suspended them in late 1990s, the same problem recurred, he said.

"This created many controversies, and different Church people have adopted different canonical and ecclesiastical bases to support their respective stances," said Lam.

In his view, a reference to the Code of Canon Law would have made Pope Benedict's letter clearer. He thinks that the phrase "in line with canon law" should be added to the end of the last sentence of section 18, on the revocation of the previous directives: "The doctrinal principles that inspired them now find a new application in the directives contained herein."

Lam is the author of The Catholic Church in Present-Day China Through Darkness and Light, published in 1994, which contains a chapter on the issue.

In his book, Lam noted that when the Church activities revive in late 1970s, not many China bishops were in communion with the pope. When the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples granted the faculties and special privileges in 1978, this provided a basis for the "underground" Church to develop.

Many of these measures were granted as exceptions to canon law to handle the vacuum created when bishops or diocesan authorities were prevented from carrying out their pastoral duties. One example was allowing clergy to go beyond diocesan boundaries and administer sacraments to Catholics anywhere.

Another exception allowed mainland bishops to ordain Catholic men as priests if they were firm in their faith, virtuous, willing to observe celibacy and loyal to the pope. Formal theological education was not necessary.

In 1981, Bishop Peter Joseph Fan Xueyan of Baoding in Hebei province secretly ordained three priests as bishops. With Holy See's acknowledgement, Bishop Fan and other bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII also privately ordained new bishops. From 1980 to 1993, it is believed that about 80 bishops were ordained secretly.

These so-called underground bishops were not affiliated with government-approved "open" Church organizations. Many of them interpreted Bishop Fan's faculties as applicable to all bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII.

In 1988, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples issued the influential "Eight-Point Directive on Dealings with China," which required that all communicatio in sacris (sacramental communion) be avoided with bishops and priests belonging to the Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA), a government-approved structure to administer the "open" Church in China.

The directive pointed out that the CPA in 1957 issued a proclamation saying the Church "had broken all relationships with the Pope and the Holy See" and announced the Church was to be "under the direct control of the government." It advised mainland Catholics to look for priests in communion with the pope when they attended Mass and received the sacraments.

Such directives have strengthened the growth of the underground Catholic communities. Many of them were still following those directives when Pope Benedict revoked them in his recent letter.

UCAN
Click here to return to homepage

By Santificarnos.com

And as people age, those who were highly religious fare much better than most, according to a new study. The authors of the report found that people in the twilight years who were dealing with physical ailments but who had high levels of religiousness did not experience the same levels of depression as their less religious peers.

This finding, and others is presented in "In the Course of a Lifetime" (University of California Press), a book that gathers together the findings of University of New Hampshire Professor Michele Dillon, and which provides an unprecedented portrait of the dynamic role religion plays in the everyday experiences of Americans over the course of their lifetime.

"In the Course of a Lifetime" relies on a unique 60-year study of close to 200 mostly Protestant and Catholic men and women born in the 1920s. The participants were interviewed first in adolescence and then again in the 1950s, 1970s, 1980s and late 1990s. Drawing on these extensive first-person interviews, the researchers paint a picture of the place of religion in people's lives and how it intertwines with their everyday experiences over time as well as with broader cultural changes, aging, and transitions in the life course.

The study also notes the rise in alternative forms of spiritual seeking.

Most longitudinal studies compare the responses of different groups people interviewed at different times about the same topics. The two studies used by Dillon and co-author Paul Wink of Wellesley College -- the Berkeley Guidance and Oakland Growth studies established by the Institute of Human Development at UC Berkeley -- provide rare, detailed data from interviews with the same group of people over their lifetime.

"As our data from the 1930s through the 1990s show, there is much autonomy in how Americans construe religion, church, and the sacred. At the same time, though it is not heavy-handed, religion matters a great deal in many people's lives, adding texture and meaning to their everyday reality, anchoring their personal and social commitments, and buffering them in times of adversity," the authors said.

In looking at the ebb and flow of religiousness over a lifetime, Dillon and Wink found that adolescence is a high point of religiousness for most people. This discovery was exciting considering only a few studies worldwide have the necessary survey data to trace religious change from adolescence to late adulthood. Religiousness dips slightly but remains high through early adulthood (people in their thirties) but then drops through middle adulthood (forties). It plateaus between middle and late-middle adulthood (people in their mid-fifties and early sixties) and then increases as people move into late adulthood (people in their late sixties and seventies).

Adolescents were attracted to church for many reasons, including the social network it provided. Many reported switching churches – and even denominations – because of a particularly endearing pastor, exciting social activities and friendship opportunities. They all also were part of the pre-World War II civic generation of Americans who were highly involved in community activities.

"Our adolescents clearly appreciated the social opportunities for interacting with their peers that church allowed, and, in fact, encouraged," the researchers said. "There were strong expectations that young people would not simply attend Sunday school classes but also actively participate and assume social and leadership responsibilities in mixed-gender young people's societies."

The researchers attribute the drop-off in religiousness in middle-adulthood to parents feeling less pressure to socialize their growing children in religious circles as well as parents encountering increase career responsibilities.

"Apparently, as a result of the confluence of children leaving home and newly emerging pressures exerted by work and other activities, our middle-aged participants assigned a lower priority to church involvement. The perceived need for church may also have dimmed because midlife is a time in the life course when individuals tend to see their mortality as still far off," Dillon and Wink said.

Throughout their lives, women consistently were more religious than men. And conservative Protestants (evangelicals) had the highest levels of religiousness when compared to mainline Protestants and Catholics.

One of the most interesting discoveries of Dillon and Wink's research is a more in-depth understanding of spiritual-seeking Americans, those who do not participate in regular traditional religious services but who would be incorrectly labeled as secular.

The majority of surveys about religious behavior rely on the frequency of church attendance as a measure of a person's level of religiousness. Those who do not attend church frequently or at all usually are considered to be less religious or not religious at all. These types of results are partially responsible for the debate about whether Americans are becoming more secular.

What Dillon and Wink found is that the vast majority of those interviewed were either religious or spiritual seeking. Instead of relying on traditional measure such as church attendance, the researchers took cues from those interviewed about how they lived their lives and whether they engaged in regular spiritual seeking behaviors, such as meditation. Simply saying they were interested in spiritual endeavors was not enough to be classified as a spiritual seeking person.

Discovering and measuring this spiritual seeking behavior was important, as Dillon and Wink found that people who were spiritual were just as concerned about the well-being of others as more religious people. "Our study suggests that there is more than one pathway to the development of an ethic of care for others," they said.

And as people age, those who were highly religious fared much better than most. The authors found that people in the twilight years who were dealing with physical ailments but who had high levels of religiousness did not experience the same levels of depression as their less religious peers.

"In other areas of functioning – depression, sense of control, and fear of death – our data showed a more specific role for religiousness. In particular, among those who were in poor health, religiousness emerged as a strong buffer against depression and the loss of life satisfaction and personal control," the authors said. "These findings strongly support the common assumption that religious involvement helps individuals cope with adversity."

Click here to return to homepage

The underground bishop of Zhengding, freed eight days ago after 17 in a jail, is both hopeful and pessimistic about what the Pope’s letter to Chinese Catholics might do. The prelate, who has spent more than 20 years in a labour camp, believes that the Chinese government has not changed. “It uses the same strategy as during Mao’s times” and relies on the Patriotic Association to split the Church. But for the Church itself the Pope’s letter is an important sign of what direction to follow.

Mgr Julius Jia Zhiguo, a 73-year-old who spent more than 20 years in prison, is the underground bishop of Zhengding (Hebei), the Chinese province where anti-Catholic persecution is strongest. He lives in isolation and is constantly detained by the police for political (brainwashing) sessions designed to force him to submit to the Patriotic Association, the government agency whose ultimate goals is to set up a Church independent of the Holy See. The last time Mgr Jia was seized was June 5 but was let go on June 22. Overcoming his isolation, AsiaNews was able to ask him some questions about the Pope’s letter which he was actually reading when he was contacted.

Your Excellency, what influence will the Pope’s letter have on Church-state relations?

I fear we should not expect too much from it. China’s politicians have not changed at all. The government uses the same strategy as during Mao’s times and just instigates and creates conflicts within the Church.

This has been going on for 50 years (since the creation of the Patriotic Association or PA) and I am afraid that the Pope’s letter won’t change much to the situation.

Of course the letter clearly states what the Church’s teachings are and for those who seek the truth it is greatly encouraging. But for the many atheists among the politicians this does not mean anything. They won’t change their ideas because of any statement. What is necessary is for the government to make a profound change in mentality and allow for greater openness and religious freedom.

What do you think about the relationship between the Church and the Patriotic Association after the Pope condemned it in his letter?

The Patriotic Association is a tool in the government’s hands. Its interference won’t stop until the government says so. The problem is that the PA cannot decide for itself. It is not independent but is at the service of the government, under its control. It is not easy to break those chains. I think that without the Lord’s intervention the situation cannot improve. We don’t believe that the Lord always works within His Church.

Will the letter improve relations between the official and underground Church?

For those who live in truth and justice and are faithful to their faith, this letter will be the right push towards unity. The real problem is how to overcome the pressures that come from the state. Various official bishops are afraid to actively communicate with underground bishops. Courage is often found wanting because they too are under strict control. Their phones are always tapped by the government for example. Even if they are government-approved, there is not much they can do—they can’t do what they want.

But for us underground bishops, who are not recognised by the government, communications are a problem. It is almost impossible to do it directly. I live under constant controls. But for them controls are event greater. We might get in touch indirectly, through intermediaries. But we know that no one “wants to create difficulties” for the government.

The Pope’s letter urges Catholics to live the mission in China with courage . . . ?

I have not yet finished reading the letter, but I think for the more resolute Catholics, it offers a clear-cut path. On this issue, Benedict XVI’s teachings are aligned with those of John Paul II. We shall have to carry out our ministry and mission from within the communion. With the Lord’s encouragement and the Pope’s guidance, I shall continue my mission without fear. The journey we have undertaken so far is the right one. And we shall continue. The Pope’s support helps us go as far as we have to, even if it might mean sacrificing our lives.

Source: Asia News

Type rest of the post here
Click here to return to homepage

In an interview with the Spanish daily “La Razon,” Father Gerard Sheehan, pastor of the Church of St. Thomas Moore, said that in his Diocese of Westminster-London, each year some 800 new Catholics are baptized or received into full communion with the Church.”

“If we apply those numbers to all of England, we can say without fear of being wrong that the Catholic Church in England receives an average of five thousand new adult members each year,” he said.

Father Sheehan said conversions reached their peak during the 90’s, when the progressive wing of the Anglican Church in the United States ordained women bishops, something unacceptable to the “conservative” wing of the Church of England. “That was a key moment,” he said, adding that “today, the number of converts is less than it was ten years ago, but when the (Anglican) Church of England accepts the ordination of women bishops, conversions will increase again.”

Father Sheehan said it was difficult to obtain concrete numbers as the Church “has always wanted to avoid giving signs of triumphalism, she does not want to publicly brag about these issues, because she does not want to offend anybody; in reality for sometime unity between the two churches has been sought, and any show in this sense could damage the road to this encounter.”

The case of Tony Blair, who visited Pope Benedict XVI recently at the Vatican amid rumors of his imminent conversion to Catholicism, is a one such case.

The Vatican made no comment about the matter, and Blair told the Times that, “Things are not as resolved as they would seem.” However, everything indicates that Blair’s conversion is just a matter of time and that, out of sensitivity, the announcement of his conversion will not come until he has left office, La Razon said, adding that Blair is only the public figure of the return to the Catholic faith of thousands of British who have already begun their process of conversion, with reserve and without intermediaries.

Source: CNA
Click here to return to homepage

Fr. Segura's Lost Mission of 1570-71

By Matthew M. Anger

In 2002, the Diocese of Richmond opened the cause for the canonization of the Spanish Jesuit Martyrs of Virginia. This has renewed interest in the fascinating, almost fantastic, tale of a lost Spanish colony in Virginia and the men who died trying to convert the Ajacan Indians. In 1571, Fr. Segura and his seven companions were killed by hostile tribesmen at the St. Mary's mission sited on Virginia's Lower Peninsula, near the Chesapeake Bay. This was close to the spot where the English would permanently settle just thirty years later. Fr. Russell E. Smith is the postulator for the martyrs' canonization and a judge with the diocesan tribunal. Fr. Smith learned about the Jesuit settlement while growing up in historic Williamsburg, Virginia and as a priest he took up the matter with the postulator general for the Society of Jesus, in Rome. The Virginia Historical Society and the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities have also lent their scholarly support for evidence of the Spanish mission. Meanwhile, the Richmond diocese has designated St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish in New Kent County as the new Shrine of the Jesuit Martyrs.


Spiritual Conquistadors
When Sir Walter Raleigh claimed the territory of Virginia for England's Queen Elizabeth in the 1580s, he was a relative late-comer. Some fifty years before, Spaniards had landed in what some historians estimate to be the Chesapeake Bay. Spanish attempts at colonization in the geographical limits of the present United States probably began in the summer of 1526. Judge Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, with an expedition of 600 other settlers, sailed from San Domingo (now the Dominican Republic). They were accompanied by two Dominican priests and two religious. Entering the capes along the coast the Spaniards made their way up a major river, said to be the James in Virginia. They landed at the Indian town of Guandape, which Ayllon christened San Miguel de Guandape (St. Michael of Guandape). Unfortunately for this first attempt at European settlement, conditions were harsh and Ayllon died in October from fever. The colonists lasted through a miserable winter and fended off hostile Indians, finally departing in the spring of 1527. Only 150 Spaniards reached San Domingo alive.

The conquest of Mexico had challenged Spanish fortitude and zeal. Yet by comparison, the territory of the present United States was to prove even more difficult. The northern lands were more heavily wooded and sparsely settled and the natives were hunter gatherers as opposed to the more sedentary, agricultural based populations further south. The relatively higher level of culture under the Aztecs certainly lent itself to the forging of a new civilization in Mexico. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the Florida settlement (which included the entire southeastern seaboard) was logistical. Whereas a handful of Spaniards could keep the peace amongst the natives of Mexico, a significantly higher proportion of men, working with scanty resources, were demanded in Florida. Spain could spare few individuals from its vast imperial efforts for this relative backwater which, though strategically crucial, was always a losing proposition. There were no gold fields and even foodstuffs had to be imported.

Throughout the northern American territories, both French and Spanish Jesuits would endure terrible trials and sufferings with often painfully disappointing results. Unlike Mexico, which ultimately yielded millions of converts for the Catholic Church, the American woodlands produced only a few thousand new disciples. There were certainly periods of apathy and disillusionment. The Jesuits remarked that their primary aim was not martyrdom but conversion and the spread of Catholic culture, which the natives so violently resisted. Nevertheless, they were resigned to the possibility of dying for their faith, and many faced it with a heroic resolve that seems difficult for us to fathom. It was a passive heroism that rivaled the active military valor of the famous conquistadors.

In all, there were five attempts to conquer la Florida (the "place of flowers"). The last succeeded in 1565 with the establishment of St. Augustine, the first city in the United States. Dozens of mission stations and presidios (forts) dotted what is preset-day Florida, while small settlements spread along the eastern coast into Georgia and the Carolinas. The northern-most post was Santa Elena (today Port Royal, South Carolina).

Despite Ayllon's failure in 1526, there were continued Spanish expeditions to the Chesapeake Bay, named "La Bahia de la Madre de Dios" (the Bay of the Mother of God) or "La Bahia de Santa Maria" (the Bay of St. Mary). On one of such journey in 1560, the son of an Algonkian chief in Ajacan (as Virginia was called) was captured and brought to Mexico. He was instructed in the Catholic religion and baptized Don Luis, in honor of Luis de Velasco, his sponsor, the Viceroy of New Spain. It would seem that the Indian convert was favored with a trip to Madrid, an audience with the Emperor and a thorough Jesuit education. The next serious foray into Ajacan was not until 1570, when a group of missionaries sailed north from Santa Elena. This small band consisted of Father Segura, Vice-Provincial of the Jesuits, Father de Quiros, six Jesuit brothers and a servant. They were accompanied by the Indian Don Luis as their guide and translator.

Fr. Segura's Ambition
We can gather a reasonably detailed picture of the mission and its members through the collection of primary source materials and the indispensable work of Clifford M. Lewis, S.J. and Albert J. Loomie, S.J. published in 1953. Some material is admittedly conjectural interpolation by men writing after the event, but there is enough agreement in the essentials to provide a portrait of the events that transpired. The only surviving eye-witness of the mission was Alonso de Olmos, the boy who accompanied the Jesuits as their altar server and assistant. He was probably between the age of twelve and fourteen at the time of Fr. Segura's mission, and it is from his recollections that all subsequent accounts are drawn.

The leader of the ill-fated expedition, Fr. Juan Baptista Segura was roughly forty-one at the time of his martyrdom. He had been ordained in 1557 and entered the Society of Jesus at Alcala, Spain in 1566. Fr. Segura was a well read individual and a popular teacher. He spent many years as a professor and rector at a number of institutions before taking a position at the college of Valladolid. There he had the misfortune of stepping into the crossfire of petty factional squabbles and attempts at impartiality only seemed to worsen his reputation amongst the querulous locals. He was an extremely reticent man who devoted a great deal of effort to cultivating in himself the virtues of humility and obedience, yet he felt more and more drawn to the idea of an overseas mission. No doubt the scandal-mongering which confronted him at the university was a strong incentive to go abroad. Says Florida historian, Frank Marotti

An easy-going leadership style and a scrupulous conscience had served Segura well in remote areas of northern Spain. This was not true in pressure-packed Valladolid, where vehement political disputes rocked his college. Segura was ambitious, but only in the spiritual sense; he desired a post in the Indies [i.e. the New World], where he believed he could demonstrate his love for Christ in a heroic manner.

The memory of St. Francis Xavier, who died in 1552 while almost single-handedly building the Church in Asia, was still fresh in everyone's minds, including Fr. Segura's. With the permission of his superiors, Fr. Segura was permitted to go overseas. In 1567 he was named vice-provincial of Florida and after a rather eventful trans-Atlantic crossing, including a hairbreadth escape from Caribbean headhunters, he arrived the following year in the New World with three other Jesuit priests.

Inexperienced but enthusiastic, Fr. Segura was inspired by a favorable account of the northern Florida missions given by Fr. Juan Rogel who had recently toured Guale and Santa Elena. Yet when it came to talk of an Ajacan mission, Rogel and the district superior, Fr. Martinez, were dubious. Nor was their skepticism unjustified. The Florida apostolate was doing all it could just to meet its present obligations. Why increase its burdens? Fr. Segura countered by saying that the slow progress of the existing missions demanded new opportunities. Furthermore, accounts of the great Chesapeake Bay near Ajacan held forth the ever elusive hope of a direct water route to Asia, which European explorers were to pursue even two centuries later. Fr. Segura also wanted to establish a mission without a military garrison. As startling as this demand was to his contemporaries, it was not totally unreasonable. One of the chief stumbling blocks to converting the Indians was the often deplorable conduct of the colonial soldiers, which missionaries were forever lamenting in their letters to Spain. Soldiers on garrison duty, not challenged by the prospect of fighting, were apt to seek an outlet for their boredom in drunkenness, thievery, bullying and sexual license. It was an age old problem.

Despite concerns about the plan's feasibility, Fr. Segura eventually obtained a green light from his superiors for the founding of St. Mary's mission. In August 1570 he and his ten companions, including the convert Don Luis, sailed from their base of operations in Havana to the Santa Elena settlement (South Carolina). This was the final stop-over before Ajacan. At Santa Elena they were outfitted with the best religious articles, including chalices, monstrances, and vestments by Br. Juan de la Carrera.

Br. Carrera, a hardened veteran of the Florida missionary circuit had conflicting views about the journey north. Fr. Segura's plans were "praiseworthy, for they came from a holy, sincere Christian heart, and I gave him high praise. But I pointed out the difficulty in the execution of the plan, saying that the Indian [Don Luis] did not satisfy me...." No doubt Br. Carrera shared the bitter experience of other missionaries, who found the Indians often dissimulated before their European overlords. They would proclaim loyalty to the Spanish crown and church to gain favors and alliances against rival tribes, but would frequently come up short on their end of the bargain. Br. Carrera saw that Don Luis was "a liar" and "a clever talker," but Fr. Segura could not be dissuaded from the idea that the Algonkian was another "Paul of Holy Faith," referring to the Japanese convert who helped St. Francis Xavier in Asia. The mission's "second-in-command" was Fr. Quiros, also fresh from Spain and eager to claim new conquests for the Church.

The Ajacan Mission
On September 10, the Jesuits landed in Ajacan. Previous research placed the spot at Queen's Creek on the north side of the Lower Peninsula, near the York River. New findings, however, suggest that St. Mary's Mission may have been in the village of Axacam on the New Kent side of Diascund Creek near its confluence with the Chickahominy River. This would have been reached via the James River. Both spots, however, are relatively close to one another (and to the later English settlement). Certainly the physical details remain elusive. This is true for most early explorations, such as the mysterious "Lost Colony" at Roanoke under Sir Walter Ralegh in 1587. But there is little doubt as to the basic facts or the chronology of events.

Don Luis led them there in search of his native village of Chiskiak (or Kiskiak) which he had not seen in ten years. It was near this spot that a small wooden hut was constructed with an adjoining room where Mass could be celebrated. After establishing their camp with the help of the ship's pilot, Fr. Quiros wrote a letter (with a postscript by Fr. Segura) to the Treasurer of Cuba who was a chief benefactor of the Jesuits in New Spain. It is the only writing that has survived from the Ajacan mission. Fr. Quiros relates that Don Luis was uncertain as to the exact spot of his tribe. Ravaged by drought and famine, many of the inhabitants had removed to other areas. Contact was eventually made, and relatives of Don Luis greeted them with good will and "seemed to think that Don Luis had risen from the dead." A "brother" (possibly a nephew) of Don Luis, in a nearby village, was reported to be fatally ill, and the Indian asked that one of the Fathers baptize him.

The Algonkians who inhabited Ajacan were, according to Spanish and later English narratives, remarkably tall (up to six feet in height), athletic and more fair skinned than other tribes. Yet their existence was primitive and austere. Clothing consisted of animal skins while many lacked even that luxury, going about almost naked with nothing more than skirts made of grass or leaves.

While spiritual prospects seemed hopeful—the local chief was interested in hearing the Gospel preached—material conditions posed immediate challenges. The missionaries were forced to share half their rations with the ship's crew, who had run low on food during the long journey from Santa Elena. The Indians did not know how to properly harvest and store food for use in the winter, since they would eat most of the food as it was gathered. Nevertheless they did generously share some of their corn with the missionaries upon their arrival. During the cold months, however, they would barely eke out an existence on roots and berries. Fr. Quiros requested an urgent shipment of grain in the hopes that the missionaries could impart the rudiments of agriculture which would make the natives more sedentary and less prone to starvation.

The Massacre
Don Luis was on his best behavior during the two days that the ship's crew remained to assist the missionaries and, following his example, the locals were quite hospitable. Yet almost as soon as the ship disappeared over the horizon, the Jesuits were left completely at Don Luis' mercy and his demeanor began to change. No longer was he constrained by the mores of Spanish civilization. In the Virginia wilds, with the old ways of his people beckoning, Don Luis seems to have quickly shed his Christian scruples. Accounts show that "marital immorality" was his downfall, since he was a member of the native aristocracy for whom polygamy was de rigueur.

Don Luis asked permission to visit his uncle, the reigning chief, who lived a day and a half away. Having heard the Indian's reasonable excuses, such as that he wanted to gather catechumens for the mission and food for the Jesuits, Fr. Segura assented. As the days passed and no word was heard from their native guide, the truth of the situation must have quickly dawned on the missionaries. According to the sole survivor, the young Alonso, the Jesuits braced themselves for the worst. Death at the hands of the local inhabitants was all too common. They increased their prayers and devotions and meanwhile coped as best they could, hoping that Don Luis might repent or that Spanish help would soon arrive. Fr. Rogel, while taking part in the belated relief expedition to Ajacan in August 1572, wrote the following account:

Father Master Baptista [Segura] sent a message by a novice Brother on two occasions to the renegade. Don Luis would never come, and [the Jesuits] stayed there in great distress, for they had no one by whom they could make themselves understood to the Indians.... They got along as best they could, going to other villages to barter for maize with copper and tin, until the beginning of February. The boy [Alonso] says that each day Father Baptista caused prayers to be said for Don Luis, saying that the devil held him in great deception. As he had twice sent for him and he had not come, he decided to send Father Quiros and Brother Gabriel de Solis and Brother Juan Baptista to the village of the chief near where Don Luis was staying. Thus they could take Don Luis along with them and barter for maize on the way back. On the Sunday after the Feast of the Purification, Don Luis came to the three Jesuits who were returning with other Indians. He sent an arrow through the heart of Father Quiros and then murdered the rest....

According to Rogel's letter, the incident would have taken place in early February, 1571.

Leaving the deputation of three Jesuits dead or dying in the forest, the Indian party swooped down on Fr. Segura's encampment. Don Luis stealthily confiscated all the tools and hatchets so as to leave the Spaniards defenseless. It was said that as a ruse he claimed he wanted the tools to fell timber in the woods. The Indians had the European axes and their own machetes ready, and Don Luis assigned one native to one Spaniard each, so that they would be killed all at once without being able to combine in self-defense. Br. Carrera, who had such grave premonitions about the mission the year before, said that the "wretched and perverse Don Luis attacked Father Baptista... to pay him back for the many kindnesses shown him." Fr. Segura lay ill in his hut on a grass mat. When his former Indian protégé entered, the priest greeted him joyfully: "You are very welcome, Don Luis!" The Indian replied with a series of axe blows to Segura's head and body. The other Jesuits were similarly dealt with. One of them, Br. Cristobal Redondo, was in the kitchen. He was described in disposition and speech as being "more of an angel than a man." When his appointed murderer suddenly appeared and wounded him he cried out: "Help me, my Fathers, they are going to kill me." But it was too late.

Alonso at first rushed in amongst the Indians to try to prevent the killing, or else to be martyred with the Jesuits, but was held back by Don Luis' brother who hid the boy in a nearby hut. One may be surprised that the Indians did not finish him off as well. It would seem Alonso was spared because he was not a Jesuit and, moreover, because of his youth. The Indians throughout colonial history had a practice of adopting the young of their enemies. Nevertheless, the treacherous Don Luis quickly regretted this oversight. He plotted of a way to dispose of the only eye-witness to the massacre in the likelihood that the Spaniards might return. Fortunately, either due to the influence of a friendly Indian or Alonso's own perspicacity, the young boy made his way to a rival chief who lived close to the main coast on the Chesapeake Bay. There he waited until the relief expedition arrived in 1572, by which time he had nearly forgotten his own language.

The intriguing question is why did Don Luis turn so suddenly on his benefactors? Fathers Lewis and Loomie offer two motives. One contributing cause was the precious vessels used by the possessed. After the massacre Don Luis and the others not only dressed themselves in the attractive vestments but also wore patens around their necks and drank from the gold chalices. But there were probably deeper motives at work than mere covetousness

[Greed] may have induced Luis' companions to follow him, and it would have been a strong motive in a tribe where wealth meant greater power and possession of more women. But it hardly explains Luis' own actions, which seem to have been immediately occasioned by the third visit and the importunity of the Jesuits, calling upon him to abandon his sins and to return to the practice of his religion. In the light of ... studies of historic Indian psychology... we may expect Don Luis to manifest extreme sensitivity to overtones of anger or public criticism, in his case a sensitivity perhaps heightened by a disturbed conscience if his conversion had been genuine.

Such, note the writers, was the motive behind the massacre of Franciscans at Guale (Georgia) only a few years later.

Aftermath
More than a year after the massacre, a Spanish supply ship found and rescued Alonso. Upon receiving news of the killings, Florida Governor Menendez arrived in Ajacan to punish the culprits, though Don Luis proved ever elusive and was never discovered. Eight other Indians accused of murdering the missionaries were promptly hanged by the Spaniards.

The disastrous attempt at a Virginia colony spelled the end of Spanish ventures in the area. Following the death of Fr. Segura and his companions, the Jesuits were recalled from St. Augustine and sent on to Mexico where the harvest, temporal and spiritual, seemed much more promising. In the judgment of Theodore Maynard, "The failure [of the Virginia mission] was made glorious by martyrdom. It was therefore not a failure under its religious aspect." At the same time it is also true that

The abandonment of the Chesapeake region... was politically disastrous for Spain. Could it have been held, an effectual barrier would have been erected against the encroachments of the English in Virginia. But not even Spanish energy was quite sufficient to keep its grip on such far-flung territories. It was already becoming as much as the authorities could do to protect the settlements already made in the Indies and Central America...

Spain expended so much energy in maintaining her Mexican colony that the initial sacrifice of conquering the U.S. seaboard did not seem worthwhile, though, as the English were to discover, this part of the New World would eventually yield the most fertile territories. Interestingly, English settlement was first prompted, in a purely negative way, by Spanish colonization. They wanted to counter Catholic activity in Florida and the Caribbean. The ill-fated Roanoke colony of 1587 and the subsequent Jamestown settlement of 1607 were in large part meant to be bases of operation for privateers and soldiers to attack la Florida.

As rum and guns flowed southwards from the English towns, many of the natives turned against Spanish rule. No doubt the Indians thought they were cleverly playing off one tribe of Europeans against another for their own short-term gain. Little did they think that in the place of the traders and missionaries who dominated the Spanish settlement would come the growing waves of English pioneers who would clear the forests and expel or kill the Indians without even the pretense of converting them. By contrast, the lack of intensive cultivation and depopulation by Spanish colonists generally favored their relations with the natives. But it hindered them insofar as they could no longer compete with English interlopers whose growth in population and territory in the New World quickly surpassed them.

It is worth noting that the colony at Jamestown faced many of the harsh conditions as endured by Ayllon and Segura, and its survival was touch-and-go for many years. Even as late as 1622—fifteen years after Captain John Smith first landed on the James Peninsula—the settlement was nearly wiped out in an Indian raid which claimed 347 lives. The Indian chief who sought the destruction of the Jamestown settlers was the aged Openchancanough. As legend would have it, he was the apostate Don Luis who had killed Fr. Segura and his companions in 1571. An ironic footnote to the noble failure of the Virginia mission.


***
Matthew Anger currently resides in the Richmond, Virginia area with his wife and six children. He is a frequent writer for traditional Catholic publications on historical, political and cultural topics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
· Gibson, Charles. Spain in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
· Lewis, Clifford M., S.J. and Loomie, Albert J., S.J. The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia 1580-1572. Richmond, Virginia: The Virginia Historical Society, 1953.
· Hill, William B. The Indians of Axacan and the Spanish Martyrs: The Beginnings of Virginia, 1570. Clarksville, Virginia: Prestwould House, 1970.
· Neill, Steve. "Richmond Diocese Promotes Cause of Jesuit Martyrs." Arlington Catholic Herald, July 18, 2002.
· Woodbury, Lowry. The Spanish Settlements Within the Present Limits of the United States, Florida 1562-1574. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1905.
· Marotti, Frank, Jr. "Juan Baptista de Segura and the Failure of the Florida Jesuit Mission, 1566-1572." The Florida Quarterly, LXIII (Fall 1985): 267-279.
· Maynard, Theodore. The Story of American Catholicism, Vol. I. New York: Image Books, 1960, p. 44.



Click here to return to homepage

HONG KONG (UCAN) -- Bishops of the "open" Church in China have been called to a two-day meeting in Beijing.

Some bishops whom UCA News contacted said they believe the June 28-29 meeting is related to an expected letter of Pope Benedict XVI to Catholics in mainland China, others said they do not know why the meeting was called.

The pope promised to write such a pastoral letter after a summit took place Jan. 19-20 at the Vatican to discuss the Catholic Church situation in China. The letter, which Pope Benedict reportedly signed on Pentecost Sunday, May 27, is generally expected to be released soon.

Anthony Liu Bainian, a Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) vice chairman, confirmed to UCA News on June 27 that the bishops have been invited to a June 28-29 meeting to discuss a plan for the celebration of the CCPA's golden jubilee. At the same time, he denied that the meeting has any connection with the papal letter. "We don't know its content, so how can we discuss it?" Liu said.

The first CCPA meeting opened in Beijing on July 15, 1957. After 18 days, the participants formally established the CCPA, approved its statutes and agreed Archbishop Ignatius Pi Shushi of Shenyang would be the first chairman.

Bishop Johan Fang Xingyao of Linyi, Shandong province, who reached Beijing June 27, told UCA News the meeting organized by the CCPA and the Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC) will mark the 10th anniversary of the death of Bishop Joseph Zong Huaide, former head of CCPA and BCCCC. He died on June 27, 1997.

Bishop Fang, a BCCCC vice president, said that he knows of no other agenda for the meeting and that about seven to eight bishops have already arrived.

A Church source in Beijing told UCA News that a few bishops and a dozen priests from Shandong and other provinces attended the commemoration held June 27 morning for Shandong-born Bishop Zong.

The Church source believed that the June 28-29 meeting might also discuss the pope's pastoral letter, but the agenda remains unknown. Basically all bishops must attend, the source pointed out, and most were informed by phone, but some were told about the meeting by local religious affairs officials.

A bishop in northern China told UCA News that local religious affairs officials had informed him about the meeting on June 25 and he was just then on his way to Beijing. He also said he was told the meeting will be about "how to receive the papal letter."

Another bishop in central China who asked not to be named told UCA News that he and other bishops in his province heard about "a meeting in Beijing June 28-29," but not about its agenda. He said he is still pondering whether or not he will attend.

A bishop in southern China also about to go to the airport told UCA News on June 27 that he does not know the purpose of the meeting, but he and a fellow bishop guess it is somehow related to the forthcoming papal letter.

That same day, Bishop John Liu Jingshan of Ningxia told UCA News he was told about the meeting but cannot go due to a leg problem. He added that his guess is the meeting is related to the forthcoming papal letter.


Click here to return to homepage

At the weekend meeting in the Vatican of Benedict XVI and His Beatitude Chrysostomos II, archbishop of New Justiniana and All Cyprus, the archbishop affirmed that he had come to Rome to give the Pope "a fraternal kiss of peace and, after a centuries-long non-fraternal journey, to build new bridges of reconciliation, collaboration and love."

In his turn, the Holy Father delivered a talk in which he described the archbishop's visit as "a gift from the God of steadfastness and encouragement mentioned by St. Paul as he addressed people in Rome listening to the message of salvation for the first time."

He continued: "We are experiencing that gift of steadfastness today because, notwithstanding the presence of centuries-old divisions ... and despite the effort of closing painful wounds, the Lord has not ceased to guide our steps along the way of unity and reconciliation. And this is, for all of us, a cause for encouragement, because our meeting today is part of an ever more intense search for that full communion for which Christ so longed.

"We well know," he added, "that adherence to this ardent desire of the Lord cannot and must not be proclaimed only in words or in a purely formal way. Hence, Your Beatitude ... has not come from Cyprus to Rome simply for an exchange of ecumenical courtesy, but to underline the firm decision to persevere in prayer, so that the Lord may show us how to achieve full communion."

"Thank you, Beatitude, for this gesture of esteem and friendship. In you I greet the pastor of an ancient and illustrious Church, a splendid tile in that magnificent mosaic, the East, ... which constitutes one of the two lungs with which the Church breathes. ... I would like to pay homage to the ancient and venerable Church of Cyprus, rich in saints," such as "Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia, once known as Salamis, ... who undertook his ministry for 35 years in a period of great turbulence for the Church."

"As a good pastor, Epiphanius showed the flock entrusted to him by Christ the truths in which to believe, the path to follow and the snares to avoid. This is a method that is still valid for announcing the Gospel today, especially to the young generations," because "the Church finds herself finds herself, at the beginning of the third millennium, facing challenges and problems not dissimilar to those faced by Epiphanius."

"Today too it is necessary ... to warn the People of God against false prophets, against the errors and superficiality of proposals that do not conform to the teaching of the divine Master. ... It is vital to find a new language to proclaim the faith that unites us, ... a spiritual language capable of faithfully transmitting revealed truths" in order "to build, in truth and charity, communion among all the members of the one Body of Christ.

"This need, of which we are all aware," the Holy Father added, "encourages us to continue, undiscouraged, theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church as a whole. It indicates to us that we should use valid and stable means in order to ensure that the search for communion is not a discontinuous and intermittent element in the life and mission of our Churches.

"Faced with the enormous task before us, ... we must entrust ourselves above all to prayer," though not forgetting to use "all valid human means that may help to reach the objective."

The Pope concluded his discourse to the archbishop of New Justiniana and All Cyprus: "From this point of view, I consider your visit an extremely useful initiative in helping us progress towards the unity Christ wished. We know that this unity is the gift and fruit of the Holy Spirit, but we also know it requires ... constant efforts, animated by a firm will and an unshakeable faith in the power of the Lord."


Click here to return to homepage