Shanghai Catholics and Bishop Ma Daqin’s restrictions
A Catholic voice from Shanghai reminds AsiaNews of the case of the auxiliary bishop who resigned from the Patriotic Association when he was ordained and has been living in seclusion ever since. It was hoped that the tormented appointment of Mgr Shen Bin as ordinary bishop would unblock the situation, but two years later nothing has happened. Ma Daqin remains the icon of the “suffering righteous”.
We received the following reflection from a member of the Catholic community in Shanghai. We feel that it is important to make the opinions of Catholics in China known to the public, even when they have a subtle critical tone, expressed with respect for the decision made by Church authorities.
Many Catholics in Shanghai had and still have the wishful thinking that the Holy See’s decision to appoint Bishop Joseph Shen Bin as the Bishop of the Diocese of Shanghai signifies that Bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin, who has faced “restrictions” for over a decade, may soon find relief.
Last autumn (2024), Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, head of the Holy See’s negotiation team, visited Shanghai. More recently, in February 2025, a delegation from the Diocese of Hong Kong, led by Cardinal Stephen Chow Sau-yan, also made a visit to Shanghai. Although attendance at their Mass in Sheshan Basilica and other diocesan activities was limited, the low-profile visits of these prominent figures have sparked hope among the Catholics in Shanghai, who now glimpse a renewed possibility for Bishop Ma.
The primary argument against Bishop Ma resuming his duties is that an auxiliary bishop can only perform his role with a nomination from the ordinary of the diocese. With Bishop Shen now in Shanghai, if he is willing to renominate Bishop Ma, the latter can immediately return to his work. However, after nearly two years of Bishop Shen serving in the Diocese of Shanghai and holding the position of president of the bishops’ council (Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China, BCCCC, not recognized by the Holy See), significant efforts have been made to highlight his work. The Shanghai diocese, China’s One-Association-One-Conference (Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association and BCCCC), and even Vatican News have extensively covered both the diocese’s activities and those of the new bishop, helping to bolster his reputation. Despite these efforts, the issue of Bishop Ma remains unresolved to this day.
How much longer will Bishop Ma’s restrictions continue? Many readers are likely familiar with his case. On July 7, 2012, during his thanksgiving speech at the conclusion of his episcopal consecration Mass, he stated: “From now on, I must dedicate my entire mind and body to pastoral evangelization. Certain duties are not appropriate for me to hold, so as of this moment of consecration, it is no longer convenient for me to serve as a member of the Patriotic Association.” That afternoon, he was suspended and questioned, then removed from his position and placed under residential surveillance, where he remains to this day. What many may not be aware is that the Chinese government had long intended to appoint Bishop Ma as the successor to Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian, replacing Bishop Joseph Xing Wenzhi. This plan was set in motion even before Bishop Xing’s gradual withdrawal from public duties. As Bishop Xing transitioned into retirement, the Holy See agreed to approve Bishop Ma’s appointment.
Following the “July 7 Incident” (referring to Bishop Ma’s episcopal ordination in the morning and subsequent isolation that afternoon), the Holy See repeatedly communicated through various channels that, out of respect for the two living bishops at the time, Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian (coadjutor bishop, who passed away in June 2013) and Bishop Joseph Fan Zhongliang (ordinary, who passed away in March 2014), Ma could only serve as auxiliary bishop. However, the Holy See made its intentions clear during his appointment: Ma was designated as the successor to the senior bishops, ultimately to assume the role of ordinary (diocesan bishop) of the Diocese of Shanghai.
Given the unique relationship between China and the Vatican, the Chinese government does not recognize bishops from the underground Church. In the appointment letter issued by the BCCCC, Ma was designated as the Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Shanghai, whereas the Holy See’s appointment letter named him Auxiliary Bishop. After the July 7 Incident, although Bishop Ma’s installation was valid and legitimate under Canon Law, he was unable to fulfill all the requirements outlined in Articles 6(6) and 7 of the Measures on the Registration of Bishops in the Catholic Church in China (Trial and implementation) issued by China’s State Administration of Religious Affairs. Specifically, he could not file with Chinese government authorities through the One-Association-One-Conference framework. As a result, Bishop Ma was unable to complete his registration with the state religious authorities, exercise his duties, or conduct religious activities as a bishop.
On December 12, 2012, the BCCCC officially revoked the appointment letter designating him as Coadjutor Bishop. However, the Holy See’s appointment of him as “auxiliary bishop, with the explicit intention of him succeeding as the ordinary diocesan bishop,” remains unchanged to this day. Meanwhile, the claim that Bishop Ma is still under “restriction” has been repeatedly dismissed and ignored by his opponents within the diocese, as well as by Chinese government authorities.
The situation has developed paradoxically. Initially, Ma was a candidate strongly favored and promoted by the Chinese government. Yet, a single tactful statement expressing his unwillingness to hold a position in the Patriotic Association was interpreted as a rejection of patriotism and love for the Church, crossing a political red line. With the new leadership in office, “political reliability” has become the primary criterion for selecting cadres and religious leaders. The principle that “loyalty that is not absolute is absolutely not loyalty” appears to have left Bishop Ma in a deadlock. It is clear that such a political environment is exceptionally harsh.
Secondly, anonymous experts have pointed out that the revocation of Ma’s appointment as Auxiliary Bishop by the BCCCC was based on a higher legal norm titled Measures on the Registration of Bishops in the Catholic Church in China (Trial and implementation). This document, stated as Document No. 25 [2012] issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, was published on the central government's website on November 12, 2012.
It was not until December 12, 2012, the same day Bishop Ma’s appointment letter was revoked, that the corresponding subordinate legal norm, titled Measures for the Election and Consecration of Bishops by the Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China, was adopted. This document was later published on April 8, 2013, “with its publication date marking its implementation”. Prior to this, the One-Association-One-Conference had issued a document with the same title in 1993. However, that earlier document contained only six simple articles and did not include filing regulations that would have affected episcopal consecration. As such, the handling of the July 7 Incident by the One-Association-One-Conference constitutes a clear case of “retroactive legislation.” The BCCCC’s act of revoking Bishop Ma’s appointment as Auxiliary Bishop is therefore both questionable and unlawful. Furthermore, certain bishops who participated in the liturgy chose to betray their brother by failing to defend the validity of Ma’s consecration in the liturgy, which undoubtedly added insult to injury.
That expert, who stayed anonymous, further remarked that this form of retroactive legislation is counterproductive to efforts to strengthen the rule of law in religious affairs. Advancing the rule of law in religious governance requires careful consideration of factors such as legal stability, procedural legitimacy, constitutional compliance, and public trust. It is crucial to ensure that the creation and implementation of laws not only adhere to the principles of the rule of law but also safeguard social fairness and justice effectively.
Bishop Ma is highly regarded for his preaching and enjoys a strong reputation among local Catholics in Shanghai. His diverse talents, combined with the political pressure and cold treatment he has endured over the past 13 years, have shaped him into “a righteous man who suffers,” reminiscent of Job sitting in ashes, evoking deep sympathy. He has become a quintessential example of a “suffering righteous man” in contemporary China.
This situation also poses a significant challenge for Bishop Shen, even leading to unfair evaluations of him. People unconsciously view Bishop Shen as someone who has taken over another’s position, often comparing Bishop Ma’s strengths to Bishop Shen’s perceived weaknesses. Bishop Ma is celebrated for his profound spirituality and exceptional eloquence, with his homilies highly praised. In contrast, people criticize the new bishop’s homilies as being less spiritual.
Bishop Ma is widely respected for his frugality, simplicity of life, and ability to maintain appropriate boundaries in interpersonal relationships. In contrast, the new bishop has faced criticism for adopting a more secularized work style and for appointing trusted associates from his hometown to key positions in Shanghai. These allegations might blend elements of truth and falsehood, make it challenging to discern the full reality.
Many of the clergy and Sisters in the Shanghai diocese declined to be interviewed. However, some shared their thoughts, emphasizing that the diocese cannot function without a bishop. Reflecting on the past decade, they acknowledged relying solely on personal faith and conscience in their evangelization efforts, often failing to grasp the bigger picture. Since Bishop Shen’s assumed office, the situation has improved. He reorganized the clergy team, adjusted salaries, strengthened financial management, and implemented many regulations. Sheshan Seminary, which at its lowest point had fewer than ten seminarians, has since experienced a revival. It now has 25 seminarians, including 10 new entrants, alongside three sister novices and 14 participants in the inaugural training program for Sisters, a vibrant and encouraging scene not witnessed in years.
However, when asked about the visits of Archbishop Celli or the Cardinal Chow-led delegation from Hong Kong, someone candidly remarked, “Perhaps such matters are not meant for us to know.” With a wistful tone, the same Catholic added, “In this Synodal Church, how much longer shall we remain overlooked?
.png)
16/09/2023 21:12
22/04/2023 15:02
