Votes : 0
A Bridge to Walk: An interview with Msgr. Stephen Chow, Bishop of Hong Kong
The invitation from Beijing came from the diocese through a third party. We took time to discern as I needed to familiarize myself with the diocese of Hong Kong, since 2022 was my first year as the bishop. However, the two dioceses have had contacts in the past, e.g., a couple of their seminarians were sent to Hong Kong to study theology, and a diocesan priest from Hong Kong was the spiritual companion of the seminarians in the diocese of Beijing. So, it should not be a surprise that they would like to resume contact after the pandemic.
If I am not mistaken, this is the first visit by the bishop of Hong Kong to Beijing since the former British colony returned to China in 1997. The Global Times called it “historic.” What were your feelings about doing it? What are the main fruits of this visit?
It was not my first trip to Beijing but my first as the bishop of Hong Kong. I used to visit The Beijing Centre at least once a year as a board member, and later as the provincial of the Jesuit Chinese Province.
Honestly, I do not think that my trip was “historical” but a continuation of Cardinal John Baptist Wu’s Beijing trip in 1994. He was the bishop of Hong Kong at the time. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, our diocese was missioned by the late Pope John Paul II to be a “Bridge Church.” The idea of being a bridge was first mentioned by the Venerable Matteo Ricci.
Although an official channel has been established between the respective State Departments of the Holy See and China since the setting up of the provisional agreement, we see our trip on April 17 as a bridging one on the diocese level, between Beijing and Hong Kong. The more outstanding fruits of the trip included personal connection between the leadership of the two dioceses and the rekindling of collaboration in different areas. The intended collaboration, which is earnestly desired by both sides, gives us hope and determination to work together.
A Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China regarding the appointment of bishops has been active since 2018. There are dioceses but not all have their bishops.
Of all the dioceses on the Mainland, about one third are waiting for their respective episcopal appointments.
The transfer of Msgr. Shen Bin from Haimen to Shanghai and, earlier, the installation of Msgr. John Peng Weizhao, bishop of Yujiang, as auxiliary bishop of Jiangxi raised fears that the agreement would no longer hold on the Chinese side. What are your thoughts on this?
My understanding is that the agreement is not dead as some seem to have suggested. But discrepancies in the understanding between the two sides on the assignment of bishops to other dioceses could be a factor requiring better understanding. Hence, more regular and in-depth dialogue could help minimize confusion in the future.
What is the memory of Msgr. Aloysius Jin Luxian? Is his memory still meaningful today? How can his magisterium as a pastor inspire the life of the Church today?
On April 27, the Shanghai diocese commemorated the 10th anniversary of the death of Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian, with gratitude for his enormous contributions and influence in the Church in China. The Mass had over 60 concelebrants, over 70 religious sisters and close to 1000 lay participants. This should be indicative of the significance of Bishop Jin for the Church in China 10 years after his passing.
Bishop Jin was also much respected by the Chinese government. Because of his willingness to work with the government, his multiple languages skills and ability to go beyond China, he was able to connect the government sanctioned Church with the Universal Church and the world. His pastoral presence also energized the Church in China at the time, helping her to develop and flourish.
How is the “sinicization” of the Church to be understood?
My impression is that the Church on the Mainland is still grappling with what sinicization should mean for them. It has not reached a definitive conclusion at this point in time. Therefore it should be meaningful for us to dialogue with them via seminars, so that we can also share with them the meaning and implications of “inculturation,” which certainly addresses some of their concerns about sinicization. And we are learning from them what sinicization can mean for them.
According to one of the government officials whom we met during the trip, sinicization is similar to our concept of inculturation. So, I think that it is better not to jump to a conclusion regarding sinicization for now. It should be more helpful to hold further dialogue on the topic.
The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the preface to the Chinese translation of his book-interview The Salt of the Earth asked, “Will an Asian or Chinese Christianity appear one day, just as a Greek and Latin Christianity appeared, arising from its transit from Judaism to paganism?” What do you think? What can be the specific contribution of Chinese thought and culture in which Christianity is embodied in global Catholicism?
Instead of the “rights” language, we prefer to focus on the cultivation of “dignity” and a healthy sense of “duty” toward the community, society, and country. Our duty is to promote or ensure dignity of the others, not only our own. Having said that, China, like the rest of the world, also needs to learn to do better in the promotion of dignity among all in the country as well as in the world, even though it has done an incredible job in the elimination of material poverty and illiteracy in the country.
With the current geopolitics around the world, specifically between the West and China, a dichotomy worldview of good guy and bad guy seems to be the model being employed. What about unity in plurality? And “dialogue” that is being promoted by Pope Francis?
I would venture to say that there should be dialogue on the understanding and assumptions embedded in the process of dialogue between the parties involved. The Jiangxi and Shanghai cases could justify holding a dialogue on the dialogue.
Another value cherished by the Chinese is “harmony.” Harmony among different interests, parties, stakeholders becoming a community of peaceful coexistence and mutual support. This is somewhat different from our understanding of unity in plurality which allows a certain degree of uniqueness and independence of the different parties, but united under common interests or concerns. But harmony and unity are certainly opposite to the culture of dominance and superpower, which seem to be favored by the political world today.
When you arrived in Beijing there was a moment of prayer with Msgr. Li Shan at the Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior. An image of Jesuit Father Matteo Ricci, a missionary to China between the 16th and 17th centuries, had been placed in front of the altar. Is his memory alive in China? What can be his teaching for the Church in China today?
Matteo Ricci is still known and respected in China, inside and outside of the Church. He is widely respected by the Catholics in China, and is also held in high esteem by Chinese intellectuals. Even President Xi has honored Ricci in one of his addresses to the international community. It is clear that the proclamation of Matteo Ricci as venerable was widely welcomed. And we are praying for his beatification and canonization, which will certainly be joyfully applauded in China.
Matteo Ricci’s teachings on friendship, inculturation of Christianity, holding dialogue with interested parties, and being a bridge are fondly remembered in China, even today.
Can one be a good citizen and a good Christian at the same time? Should Christians be patriotic and love their Country?
As I have said in my recent article Loving Our Country or What?, love for our country is part of the Catholic Church’s teachings. Starting with the famous saying of Jesus, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mark 12:17). The implication is that both domains are necessary and not mutually exclusive for us citizens and Christians. Then in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2239, it is written, “It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.”
What is the greatest asset of a country? Without a doubt, it is its people. Hence, loving one’s country means loving those living in the country, especially its citizens and residents. As for the Church, her greatest asset in this world should not be church buildings but the People of God. Love is better if it has concrete subjects, not remaining notional. Therefore, loving our country means the dignity of its people should come first. I believe any responsible government must have the same mission in mind, though the approaches prescribed may vary due to different external factors.
Having said that, people can enjoy a “good” life when their government adheres to its mission. The contrary is also true. It is, therefore, desirable to have an opening for dialogue between the government and the Church. For the sake of the country, we should help the government to become better.
What are the challenges for the Church in Hong Kong? You and Cardinal Pietro Parolin have called it a “Bridging Church.” In what sense?
I have said on previous occasions, that being a bridge is not romantic. If a bridge is to serve its intended purpose, people will have to walk over it and cars will have to roll over it as well. Without that, there will be no need to build a bridge at all. The challenge, therefore, is to face attacks and criticisms coming from different sides. They may perceive that their interests and concerns are being compromised by the connecting efforts of the bridge. I can certainly understand their concerns with empathy. The alternative is to do nothing and maintain the status quo, without any chance for mutual listening and understanding. But upholding deep distrust and hurtful actions against their perceived evil ones.
So, in relation to a Bridging Church, the greatest challenge is to connect the different and opposite parties, to help them see each other as human persons desiring to be heard and understood. Help them listen to the other parties with respect and empathy, and hopefully to bring healing in them, and/or to foster collaboration.
Pope Francis has repeatedly expressed his love for China and also his desire to travel there. How is his figure perceived in the Country?
Many Catholics still honor him as their Holy Father and appreciate what he is doing for the Church in China. The bishops whom I have encountered during this trip are positive toward him. But for those who are against the provisional agreement, they appear to be rather negative toward Pope Francis.
There are no statistics on the spread of the likes and dislikes. But from what I have seen and read, together with the attitude of the Catholics whom I have encountered on the trip, I would say a large majority of the Catholics in China are loyal to Pope Francis, and they hope that the provisional agreement will bring desirable changes for their Church, including a meeting between Pope Francis and President Xi.
The Chinese government also has much respect for Pope Francis. They particularly appreciate his open-mindedness and inclusiveness. His love for humanity as a whole is seen to coincide with the values espoused by President Xi with his focus on the “Community of Common Destiny” of humankind. While Pope Francis has expressed his love for the Chinese people and his hope to visit China, it should not be surprising that the Chinese government would also like to see that realized. Let us pray that this will happen not just for Pope Francis or China, but for the world.
Pope Francis is promoting a path of synodality in the Church, inviting all members of the Church to listen to each other and, even more, to learn to listen to the Holy Spirit who guides us on our journey. In your homily in the Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior you said that the Holy Spirit is the God of unity not of division. How can this insight inspire more intense collaboration and exchanges in the communion of love inside of the Church in China?
How my homily will inspire more intense collaboration and exchanges in the communion of love inside the Church in China remains to be seen. But the theme of synodality was clearly presented at our meetings with the different Church leaders and institutions throughout our trip, and it seemed to be well received. However, how it will be practiced will depend on the local context that they are in. We all have to learn and understand what synodality means for us in our own cultural and socio-political contexts.
However, what I can say with confidence is that the collaboration and exchanges between the Beijing Diocese and the Hong Kong Diocese will continue and deepen. Since I am encouraged by the bishops and the government to visit the other dioceses on the Mainland, I believe it is an invitation for further development of our synodality with the Church on the Mainland.
tags :
Without comments 
