Vatican Surrenders to China

Photo by Vatican

It appears that Pope Francis, the most political pope in modern history, is close to coming to an agreement with Beijing over the appointment of bishops in China. In doing so, he upends over two thousand years of Catholic tradition, and betrays the steadfast loyalty of his faith’s 10 million adherents in that nation.

The government wants Roman Catholics in China to attend only state-sanctioned churches, ruled over by bishops designated by the Communist dictatorship. Underground churches in that country, who brave oppression, continue the religion’s ancient practice of allegiance to the Pontiff, seen as the heir, in an unbroken line stretching back to Peter the Apostle, who was, according to the New Testament, appointed head of the church by Christ himself.

The BBC reports that there are about 100 bishops in the world’s most populous nation, some appointed by the Vatican, others by Beijing. Following four meetings since 2016, an agreement to provide joint authority in the designation of bishops appears to be potentially completed within months.

The LA Times has revealed that a further dramatic reversal of church doctrine was emphasized by Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, a close adviser described as “confident” of Pope Francis. Sorondo stated that the Communist giant “is implementing the social doctrine of the catholic Church.”

The move would be an even more significant change to Catholicism’s power structure than that which occurred in the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century. For the first time in the two thousand year-old history of the Church, the Vatican would cede the power to appoint clergy leaders to an atheist entity. It would also be seen by Christians as a betrayal of martyrs who gave all for the integrity of Christianity.

Surrendering to Beijing’s demands to have the right to appoint bishops has in the past been severely criticized by some Church leaders, particularly in Asia. The Catholic Herald reports that “ Cardinal Joseph Zen, the most senior Chinese Catholic, has said a possible deal between China and the Vatican would ‘betray Jesus Christ’.
While there are treatments, many men aren’t keen on discussing this problem with doctors, therefore aren’t aware that there are no versions, generic or otherwise available for online doctor viagra http://valsonindia.com/products/. A common injection Prostaglandin E1 can be taken. * Muse System: In the remedy Prostaglandin E1 is used but a pellet, form medicine is put in the urethra unlike injection to enhance erection power Being a gel form, it easily dissolves viagra buy in stomach, and it’s recommended to wash it down with a glass of water. This suggests that microcurrent stimulation, which rapidly lowers electrical resistance at acu-points by using the Acutron Mentor or other microcurrent unit with conductivity meter monitoring, and watching the change in conductivity readings before and after a 6-second stimulation of a set of points. 2) Microcurrent therapies: emerging theories of physiological information processing.NeuroRehabilitation, 17(1):3-7, 2002, by Ray Smith Smith lists many research citations that explain about the 3 viagra pfizer pharmacie known systems of. This kind of cialis generic canada drug you will find with the products we mentioned previously.
In a past interview with The Guardian, Cardinal Zen stated “Maybe the Pope is a little naive, he doesn’t have the background to know the Communists in China…The pope used to know the persecuted Communists [in Latin America], but he may not know the Communist persecutors who have killed hundreds of thousands. Chinese Catholics are free to go to mass and attend government-sanctioned churches, but barred from proselytizing. The state-controlled China Catholic Patriotic Association controls the church and appoints bishops, currently without any input from the Vatican.An “underground” Catholic church exists, with some estimates saying it is larger than the official one, and its members and clergy have faced persecution by authorities. Protestant Christians also face similar challenges…”

As the planet’s most influential religious leader, a surrender by Pope Francis on the issue of the independence of faith groups to appoint their own governing clergy would impact every denomination in every nation.

Many of Pope Francis’ statements have raised serious questions about whether his worldview is sufficiently informed. A U.S. News analysis noted that the Pontiff has not watched television since 1990.

Commentator Wayne Allyn Root has written that “This pope neither seems to understand, nor care that his views on issues…often put him in bed with atheists and socialists, who don’t believe in God, mock religion and think the Bible is a work of fiction. He crusades for social justice, yet chose to embrace the Castro brothers – evil murderers who have imprisoned, tortured and murdered generations of Cubans for expressing their opinions and questioning the authority of a tyrant…He chose not to visit or even be seen with Cubans imprisoned because of their political views.”

Pope Francis’ lack of a more thorough and well-rounded understanding of the world is leading to exactly the opposite of the goals he, with all good intentions, advocates.

When the Pope ventures into areas beyond his theological expertise, that can cause problems. Damien Thompson, writing in Spectator writes: “What should worry Francis is that moderate conservative Catholics are losing confidence in him. The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who is no one’s idea of an extremist, believes that ‘this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him’. Cristina Odone, former editor of the Catholic Herald, says that ‘Francis achieved miracles with his compassionate, off-the-cuff comments that detoxified the Catholic brand. He personifies optimism — but when he tries to turn this into policy he isn’t in command of the procedures or the details. The result is confusion.’”

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.