by Father Federico Lombardi SJ*
Rome – We publish the speech given by Father Federico Lombardi on the occasion of the Academic Conference entitled “100 years since the Concilium Sinense: between history and present” which opened the academic year of the Pontifical Urbaniana University on Friday afternoon, October 10, in the Aula Magna of the university.
During the Academic Event, the volume “100 years since the Concilium Sinense: between history and present 1924-2024,” published by Urbaniana University Press and edited by the Missionary Dicastery, was presented.
This volume contains the contributions of the International Conference on the “Concilium Sinense,” which took place at the Urbaniana University on May 21, 2024, exactly 100 years after the Council of Shanghai.
First of all, I feel it is my duty to express my great appreciation for the beautiful volume we are presenting on this occasion, which contains the Proceedings of the International Conference held in this same venue last year on the centenary of the Council of Shanghai. These are supplemented by three significant reports from the Conference held at the Catholic University of Milan the day before for the same occasion.
Aside from the very high ecclesial and cultural level of the Roman and Milanese speakers, who are well-known here , the fact that five authoritative speakers, including first and foremost the new Bishop of Shanghai, H.E. Mons. Shen Bin, but also two leading figures from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and two high-profile recognized directors of Chinese cultural institutes , had traveled together specifically from China for this occasion, demonstrates the importance and significance of the initiative itself. This is particularly true within the framework of the development of cultural, ecclesial, and, let’s say, even diplomatic relations between the Church and China. In addition to the balance between the speakers—non-Chinese and Chinese—the fact that the publication is fully bilingual, Italian-Chinese, which took a great deal of time and work, gives it a particular value. I mean to say that the bilingual form is in itself a message, consistent with the topic addressed and the spirit that animated the great step forward of the Council of Shanghai.
The volume is also highly commendable for its rich content. It allows us to truly better understand this event of a hundred years ago, certainly one of the most important for the history of the Church in China in the twentieth century, but also crucial for the overall history of the Catholic missions.
Thanks to the various contributions, we can place the Council of Shanghai in the context of the complex events of Chinese history and society during that period, with the end of the Empire and the transition to the Republic ; as well as in the context of the history of the Church, its relationship with colonialism and the rise of nation-states ; and naturally, more specifically, in the history of the relationship between the Holy See and China.
With the contribution of Liu Guopeng and Chen Ruiqi, we are guided to understand the preparation of the Council, the choice of Shanghai for its celebration, its conduct, and the problems addressed by the assembly—which range from religious terminology to the concrete problems of ecclesial life. We also learn about the revision and Roman approval of the concluding documents, as well as the reception and subsequent developments.
In this whole story, the great figure of Archbishop Celso Costantini stands out, as does his courageous fidelity in implementing the directives of Benedict XV for a renewal of the Catholic missions clearly freed from the political and cultural conditioning of Western colonialism. This marked a true reversal of the situation and perspective. The decisive aim was to form and value local clergy and to prepare for the appointment of Chinese bishops, thereby reducing the almost total dependence on European missionaries. Only in this way could the Catholic Church cease to be viewed as foreign and instead be seen as Chinese. At the same time, this manifested an appreciation for Chinese national consciousness, which was consolidating in the overcoming of colonialism and the profound humiliation it had inflicted on the dignity of the Chinese people and their great, millennia-old tradition.
Costantini’s role can be considered decisive, but the importance of other voices accompanying him, particularly Chinese voices, should not be forgotten. Otherwise, one unknowingly repeats the error of privileging the European perspective. Therefore, it is right that the volume highlights the figure of Ma Xiangbo, well-delineated in the extensive report by Prof. Li Tiangang. A member of an authoritative Catholic family in Shanghai who had entered the Society of Jesus where he was educated, he left the Society precisely because of tensions with his French confreres. However, he established himself as a leading figure in Chinese culture and society, playing a decisive role in the founding of Catholic universities, first Aurora in Shanghai with the Jesuits, and then Fu Jen in Beijing. Consequently, he effectively supported the integration of the Catholic Church in the field of Chinese education and culture and the necessity of the cultural, not just numerical, growth of the indigenous clergy.
In this brief address, I would like to emphasize two main points.
After reading the Proceedings and, more specifically, the contributions of the Chinese authors, I seem to find that in recent decades, a consensus is emerging that previously did not exist regarding the recognition of some fundamental pillars for the bridge of dialogue and encounter between the Church and China.
The first is Matteo Ricci with his first confreres and his Chinese friends. The second is Celso Costantini with the Council of Shanghai and the ecclesial movement that accompanies it.
The first pillar is represented by the figure and work of Matteo Ricci. Most speakers refer to him as a model of a positive cultural and spiritual attitude, based on respect and dialogue, on the respectful and fruitful encounter between the Church and Chinese culture, or, to use a word dear to Ricci, “friendship”. The terms “accommodation” or “adaptation” have been used, but it is certainly an indispensable initial phase of what we usually call today the “process of inculturation,” or, as the Chinese insist on saying today with a term whose meaning is still fluctuating, “sinicization”. It is a fact that today both ecclesiastical authorities, starting with recent popes, and Chinese authorities—not only ecclesiastical but also civil, including the highest—commonly name Ricci as a model of a positive cultural and spiritual attitude for dialogue and encounter between East and West, between Christianity and the Chinese reality. Despite its limitations, the time and work of Ricci and the Jesuits of the late Ming and early Qing dynasties can be considered a first solid pillar, recognized by both sides, of the bridge of dialogue and encounter between the Church and China.
Unfortunately, this was followed by a very long, indeed truly tragic, period in which this relationship was radically jeopardized. This was due first to the “rites controversy,” which was internal to the Church, and then to the ambiguity of the relationship of “protection” of Christian missions by European powers intertwined with their colonialism. The responsibility for the errors made by the Catholic side, including conflicts among religious orders and Roman misunderstandings, along with the deep-seated sense of cultural superiority on the part of even generous missionaries, continues to obligate us to a very profound meditation on the history of the Church and its missions. Many rejections, resentments, and oppositions, leading to violent and dramatic persecutions, were in large part the consequence of this. And we continue to feel the aftermath and echo of this even today. Against this background of “errors and limits of the past,” John Paul II, on behalf of the Church, spoke a very strong word in the context of his great requests for forgiveness during the Great Jubilee, addressed precisely to China, the Chinese people, and their authorities: “For all this, I ask forgiveness and understanding from all those who have felt, in some way, offended or hurt by such forms of action by Christians” , 601-666).
Against this backdrop, the Council of Shanghai and its consequences, the work of Costantini, appear as a historical event that marks a determining turning point with long-term follow-up. The value of this Conference-Encounter, now testified in the Proceedings, is precisely in consolidating and sharing the recognition of this fact, not only by the Catholic Church with its authorities and scholars, but also by the Chinese side, both civil and ecclesial.
Compromises with colonialism must end. The Catholic Church is not foreign in China; it is not imported, but has its roots deeply planted in China and must become capable of living and developing there with its own strength. While not separating itself from the broader community of the universal Church, it is a vital component of the Chinese nation with its millennia-old culture.
Even if a long journey is still needed for all this to translate into the concrete life of ecclesial communities and to be understood by interlocutors outside the Church, and even if the price to pay for the oppositions that have arisen over time is still very high and continues even in our days, we can affirm as an acquisition that the Council of Shanghai and the work of Costantini constitute a new and solid pillar of the bridge of encounter between the Catholic Church and China. To use the vocabulary of our Chinese speakers, for example Liu Guopeng, we have moved from a profound adaptation to a true “indigenization”.
Naturally, the Council of Shanghai must be seen not as an isolated event, as an episode, but as a central moment of a process that includes other connected moments. First and foremost, the consecration of the first Chinese bishops by Pius XI, whose centenary we will celebrate next year , and then the definitive closure of the Chinese rites controversy and the establishment of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in China by Pius XII. Archbishop Costantini, having returned to Rome as Secretary of Propaganda Fide, would also make a decisive contribution to these further steps.
This whole set of events, despite the conflicts that would follow, constitutes a new, indestructible foothold for the development of the relationship between the Church and China. In fact, perhaps we can say—almost paradoxically—that the fact that the subsequent conflicts could not destroy the bridge is the demonstration of the depth of the rooting of the Christian faith in China since Ricci’s time and the solidity of the renewed “indigenization” of the Catholic Church after the end of the Empire and in the birth of modern China. We must absolutely continue to promote awareness and conviction of the irreversibility of this second transition. Therefore, the discussion on the centenary of the Council of Shanghai must necessarily continue and deepen by connecting with the imminent centenary of the Chinese episcopal ordinations in the coming year.
This is where the second point I wish to draw your attention to fits in. If we want to continue ideally with the image of the pillars of the bridge, some reports in the Proceedings also highlight a subsequent pillar. If the Council of Shanghai expressed the renewal and broadening of the Church’s horizons for a truer and deeper encounter with Chinese identity and culture, Vatican Council II broadens the Church’s horizons for dialogue with the modern world in all its vastness and variety of cultures. This can also favor an interaction with the dynamic of China’s opening to the world that characterizes the current era and which Prof. Zheng Xiaoyun strongly emphasized. Another of the Chinese speakers, Tan Lizhu, quotes a thought from Yves Congar, according to whom “Catholicism before the Second Vatican Council seemed to offer little hope for the real world. Hope had become individual and eschatological rather than universal, social, and historical” . I can personally add that Pope Benedict XVI, in the Encyclical Spe Salvi, also develops his critical considerations on a too-restricted and individualistic vision of Christian hope. A new China, which considers itself a protagonist of the future of our planet, does not feel in contradiction with the Church, which is concerned and co-responsible for the destiny of humanity and its common home. For his part, the Bishop of Shanghai, Shen Bin, evokes the well-known statement of recent popes, repeated in particular by Pope Francis in relation to China, that being a good Christian is not incompatible with being a good citizen, but is an integral part of it. Another speaker, Tan Lizhu, keenly insists on the compatibility, indeed the necessary reciprocity, of universality and sinicization, because “universality is embodied in difference and does not abolish it” .
In short, despite the rigidities and categorical nature that also appear in certain pages of this volume, it can be affirmed that they inspire confidence, both for the historical path they make us aware of and for the positive prospects they encourage us to cultivate.
Furthermore, they remind us that the Church’s journey in China is accompanied and guided by the Holy Spirit. Pope Francis explicitly states this in his opening message to the Conference: “The Holy Spirit gathered the Council Fathers of the Concilium Sinense, fostered harmony among them, led them along paths that many of them would not have imagined, overcoming even perplexities and resistance. This is what the Holy Spirit who guides the Church does” . The theme of the work of the Holy Spirit is also taken up with enthusiasm and conviction by one of the Chinese speakers, Tan Lizhu, speaking of synodality as an appropriate mode or style of action for the Church of the Third Millennium and of “walking with the Holy Spirit,” so that the Church of God may “walk with China, walk with the Chinese people, glorify the Lord, and do good to the people” .
This is not just a “devout” consideration at the conclusion of these brief reflections. It means the profound spiritual value of the commitment to strengthen the structures of communion and participation in the universal Church, also for the benefit of the Church in China.
In this context, allow me finally to observe that causes for beatification are underway for both Father Matteo Ricci and Cardinal Celso Costantini, with the joy and support of many Chinese faithful. Their enlightened work for evangelization, for the encounter between the Christian faith and Chinese civilization, was not only the fruit of intelligence but also of Christian virtue listening to the Holy Spirit. Let us continue with confidence in the path of their inspiration and example.
Thank you!
*President of the Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI Vatican Foundation
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.