I wouldn't call it a slap

Adam Minter is, of course, totally capable of defending himself, should he choose. However, I have some ownership in this because I have been recommending Adam's profile of Bishop Jin in The Atlantic to everyone and anyone, regardless of political stripe. Much of the article corresponds with and explains my own (I know, limited) experience in the local Catholic Church here in Shenzhen. So when I read in First Things' On the Square today that Fr. Neuhaus thinks Adam took a cheap shot at Cardinal Zen, I was really deflated. Here was an article that I have been going ga-ga over and Fr. Neuhaus has reduced it to a slight against Cardinal Zen.

Meanwhile, there is an interesting article on Catholicism in China by Adam Minter in the current Atlantic, “Keeping Faith.” It is most regrettable that Minter thinks it necessary to take a slap at Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong, who is a man of enormous courage and a real hero in the cause of religious and other freedoms. Another China-watcher is concerned that Minter is uncritically admiring of Bishop Jin Luxian of Shanghai, who, while undoubtedly having paid a steep price for “keeping faith,” is viewed by many Chinese Catholics as having compromised himself by frequent cooperation with the regime’s repression of fellow believers. All of which highlights the suspicions and bitter memories that make so urgent Benedict’s moving appeal for reconciliation in the one Catholic Church in China.

I had to go back and read what Adam wrote that might be insulting to the Cardinal. In the actual profile of Bishop Jin, Cardinal Zen is mentioned in the part where Jin decides to take a different path than Cardinal Kung once they were released from prison:

Instead, Jin used his standing as a bishop to begin the reforms that he’d wanted to see in China’s Church since the 1940s. In 1988, he made six trips to Beijing in hopes of persuading the Religious Affairs Bureau to, among other things, allow him to include a prayer for the pope in his diocese’s services; he obtained permission on the sixth visit. The next year, he received permission to have two Hong Kong priests and an American priest teach at the seminary. Soon after their arrival, the priests began preparing the seminarians to say Mass in the vernacular, and on September 30, 1989, the first Chinese-language Mass was celebrated in Shanghai. Father Joseph Zen, a Shanghai native and now the cardinal archbishop of Hong Kong, was the celebrant. The risk was significant: China’s religious authorities reserved the right to approve changes to the liturgy, and they’d long preferred Latin, largely because it couldn’t be understood by most Chinese.

That seemed pro-Zen.
Cardinal Zen's name next comes up when Bishop Jin brings him up.

During one of our interviews, Jin contrasted himself with the outspoken Joseph Zen, who has become a well-known agitator against the CPA since taking over as archbishop of Hong Kong. “You cannot speak out as a bishop in a Communist country,” Jin says. “I can’t freely speak like Zen, because I must protect my diocese.” Withholding criticism of China’s religious authorities and their policies is perhaps the greatest compromise that the open-Church bishops choose to make.

This is neither pro- or anti- Zen as far as I can tell, but rather just Bishop Jin stating it as it is. Cardinal Zen has many more degrees of freedom than he does. I think everyone can agree with that.

That's all that Cardinal Zen comes up in the actual profile. Next I went back to the teaser interview of Adam by Abigail Cutler. There is one question that specifically addresses Cardinal Zen. I didn't see it as a "slap," but perhaps I am reading it wrong.

Can you speak more about the role of Joseph Zen, archbishop of Hong Kong? You mention in the piece that he’s very outspoken. What’s that all about?

Zen is an interesting character. His family is from Shanghai, as is he. He left in the 1940s for Hong Kong where he became a priest and returned to China in the late ‘80s to teach in Shanghai’s seminary. Under Jin, he taught for several years before returning to Hong Kong where he was named Archbishop by Rome and then Cardinal last year. I think the hope was that Zen could provide a bridge between the Mainland Chinese Church and Rome. Since moving back to Hong Kong, He’s always been very outspoken and very critical of the Mainland—about Tiananmen and other abuses by the Communist Party. But I think what’s come as a surprise is that since he’s ascended to this role of Cardinal he’s also been critical of the Open Church. For many Chinese Catholics, such criticism has come kind of out of left field, and nobody really knows what to make of it. It also hasn’t proven to be very helpful in his efforts to serve as an informal bridge; Beijing has made it clear that he’s not welcome there, and his relationship with the leaders of the CPA has completely bottomed out. I don’t think it’s a controversial statement to say that he’s changed since becoming cardinal. And that has surprised and hurt a lot of people who he’s known for decades. They seem to feel like he should know better.

When I read this, what immediately came to my mind were comments Cardinal Zen made to the Associated Press back in January of this year that I blogged about in February, too.

It is time for the Vatican to adopt a more hard-line stance in its bid to re-establish formal diplomatic ties with China, outspoken Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun said Friday.

He also indicated that state leaders in Beijing have better international vision and are more ready to accept changes than the leaders of the state- sanctioned churches who keep ignoring Vatican requests.

Zen, who is in Rome to discuss the China question with Vatican officials, said in an interview with the Associated Press Thursday that while the Holy See was keen to establish diplomatic relations with China, he thought it was time for the Vatican to take a harsher stance on other secondary matters.

Zen was apparently referring to the state-backed Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the official church, which last year ignored advice from the pope and unilaterally appointed three bishops for churches in China.

"I think at this moment the most important thing we have to do is to assess the situation, to assess what we have done over many years and realize that we must change strategy," Zen said.

Earlier this year, Cardinal Zen could be described as hawk-ish when it came to the Mainland Catholic Church. This seemed to be a turnaround from the Father Zen who taught in Mainland Chinese seminaries from the late 1980s until the mid-1990s, who celebrated the first Chinese-language Mass in China, and from the Cardinal-elect Zen who answered in press conference in February 2006

Reporter: Bishop Zen, Your relationship with China has been at times tense, now was wondering that while in public they may welcome your elevation to Cardinal, in private they may resent it because you’re so outspoken and do you think that would harm the prospects of normalization of ties between China and the Vatican?

Bishop Zen: I am afraid I have not understood very clearly, but maybe more or less I see the point. My relation with the Chinese Authority I think can be qualified as a --how to say-- a watching attitude. Uh, obviously after that march in 2003, many papers classify me as “Enemy” already but I don’t think that’s what the Central Authority have ratified because they still take a watching attitude. So, for example, in 2004, my friends in Shanghai succeeded to bring me to make a visit to Shanghai for three days and then they owe this official occasions I still receive not only invitation but pressing invitations [emphasis his] to join to visit to the religious institutions in Guangdong Province for example. And so I think it is very easy to improve because there is not an 80 year breakdown. I mean, it’s open!

A year and half ago, Cardinal Zen seemed very optimistic about what he would bring to the Chinese Church on the whole, despite his feelings about the government of the PRC. Earlier this year, though, he wanted the Pope to take a hard-line, now-or-never stance with the Church in China. This had to sting some of the very people he taught along side of or even taught in the Mainland Seminaries for all those years. The very people making "pressing invitations" for him to visit them.
Calling Cardinal Zen "outspoken" is not a slap either, or at least I didn't think so. I mean, we are talking about a man who not only prides himself on being outspoken, but has also referred to himself as a "deviant bishop."

Yet another female reporter: You mentioned that there is a possibility you could be appointed a special advisor or assistant of the Pope on China affairs (mumbles something). How likely will that be? And what do you hope to achieve if that’s the case? And the second one is. Earlier on you called yourself as a “deviant bishop.” And you seem to express some reservations as to whether the Vatican would acknowledge this role of being a “deviant bishop,” which in your definition is just speaking louder for the underprivileged. I just wonder if you see there will be a need to change that deviant style? Thank you.

Bishop Zen: First of all I said in Chinese that it is not necessary for an appointment as a “Special Advisor.” So if the Pope wants to ask me advices about China he can do that without making a formal appointment. Then I think I said that the important thing is not so much the style. I think that in a civilized society people easily tolerate any style, provided you don’t insult people. Then any style may be accepted. But important is what you say be the truth. So I think maybe I’ve a little bit to be a more cautious, but I don’t think it is as much I should change because I think what I did was not wrong, so it is not much to change.

The above two Q%A came from then-Cardinal-elect Zen's first press conference after his elevation was officially announced. I transcribed to the best of my abilities the English parts because at that time I could not find a full transcript.

I guess what I really want to make sure is clear is that I would not have recommended this so widely and enthusiastically if I thought that Adam's article were so gravely flawed or offensive as Fr. Neuhaus did. What I read, rather, was a profile of someone (Bishop Jin) who assumed so much on his shoulders, who negotiated risks and compromises in order to return church property to the faithful and the Liturgy to its proper place at the center of Chinese Catholics' lives. If it weren't for him, the Cathedral in Shanghai would still be a grain house, and other pieces of church property throughout China would be in similar state of desecration. When I first started attending Chinese Mass here in China last fall, I was afraid I would find something unrecognizable as Catholicism or any form of Christianity. I feared we would be singing the Chinese National Anthem and praying to Mao. How wrong I was. That is why I hope that anyone who is truly interested in the state of the Catholic Church in China reads Adam's piece in the Atlantic. It is far, far, far from ideal, but in fits and spurts, good things are happening here. It will definitely help those who have difficulty understanding how the Pope's letter can be one of reconciliation and not anything more.....extreme.