The Vatican-CCP compromise on the Bishop of Shanghai: who won and who lost

On April 4, Bishop Shen Bin, until then Bishop of Haimen, was installed as the new Bishop of Shanghai by the CCP. The Vatican stated officially that “the Holy See learned from the media of the installation” the morning it happened.

The text of the Vatican-China deal of 2018, renewed in 2020 and 2022, is secret, but it is known that it regulates the administration of the Catholic dioceses and the appointment of bishops. The latter are still selected by the CCP but should be officially appointed by the Vatican. In the case of Shanghai, Shen Bin was not appointed by the Vatican as Bishop of that city. Yet, he was nonetheless installed.

On July 15, the Holy See announced that Pope Francis had appointed Shen Bin as Bishop of Shanghai, transferring him from Haimen. Of course, this happened more than three months after he had already been installed in Shanghai by the CCP. The Vatican said that it had “rectified a canonical irregularity” for “the greater good of the diocese.”

The only good served seems to have been the one of the CCP. However, the incident did have consequences. In an interview that is more detailed in the Italian than in the English version published by the Vatican, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Holy See’s Secretary of State, made several important statements.  

Bishop Shen Bin / Weibo 

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

First, while the text of the agreement remains secret, he confirmed that the CCP had breached it. “It is indispensable that all episcopal appointments in China, including transfers, be made by consensus, as agreed,” Parolin said, to avoid “disagreements and misunderstandings.” With “surprise and regret,” the Vatican had to note that the agreement had not been respected.

Second, Parolin commented that one problem still unsolved concerns the “regular communication of the Chinese Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, indispensable for effective communion, knowing that all this belongs to the structure and doctrine of the Catholic Church, which the Chinese authorities have always said they do not want to alter.”

Here, Parolin acknowledged that bishops formally appointed by the Pope do not maintain a communication with the Pope. When Bishop Shen Bin was installed in Shanghai in April, long before Pope Francis appointed him, he promised during the ceremony that he would “adhere to the principle of independence and self-government” that is at the core of the Patriotic Catholic Church, and has traditionally meant independence from the Vatican. This is the very principle the 2018 agreement should have modified.

Third, Parolin said that “Chinese Catholics, even those defined as ‘clandestine,’ deserve trust,” and should be “respected in their conscience and their faith.” The use of the word “conscience” was surely not coincidental. When the Vatican-China deal of 2018 was signed, there was much fanfare about the fact that the “clandestine” Catholic Church had ceased to exist and in fact had merged with the Patriotic Catholic Church. Those who denied that this was the case and observed that there were many Catholic conscientious objectors who refused to join the Patriotic Church were attacked by self-appointed pro-Chinese “Vatican experts,” who accused “Bitter Winter” and others to try to sabotage the agreement.

Now, the Vatican Secretary of State admits that the “clandestine church” is alive and well. He reiterates the request of the Vatican Guidelines of 2019 (which some claim are no longer in force) that the members of this “clandestine church,” i.e. the Catholic conscientious objectors who refuse to join the Patriotic Church, should be “respected.”

Readers of Bitter Winter know that this is not the case: the only form of respect the Catholic conscientious objectors receive is that they are harassed and put in jail. In the case of Shanghai (and others) the Vatican was not treated with much respect either. The CCP may regard the fact that it has decided to swallow even those new blatant violation of the deal as a victory.

However, hidden in plain sight in Cardinal Parolin’ s interview, there are the important admissions that the “clandestine church” still exists and a promise, although somewhat vague, that Rome, which does not regard its members as rebellious, would in some way try to protect them. If the request of “respect” for the conscientious objectors is serious, since they will never be “respected” by the CCP, Cardinal Parolin just placed a time bomb under the Vatican-China deal of 2018, whose explosion may one day destroy it.


Massimo Introvigne is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements.

This article has been republished from Bitter Winter with permission. 

Image: Shanghai skyline / Zhang Kaiyv on Unsplash

Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Jürgen Siemer
    commented 2023-07-27 02:59:50 +1000
    You have to sup with the devil????

    I will not correct you concerning the historical facts you have mentioned, because these facts are correct! I have to say that the historical experience has proven again and again the point I am making:

    Is the french revolution not mostly a result of the corruption of Cardinals Richelieu and especially Mazarin, who died as a billionaire in today’s money.

    Is the reformation in Germany and the following 30 years war in Germany not the result of the many young princes and noble men pushed onto bishop seats and leading the corrupt lives of small monarchs?

    These revolutions and the following wars could perhaps have been avoided, if the Vatican had had the stubborn bravery to resist the secular powers of the time and just said: better no bishop than a bad bishop or better a secret bishop than a bad bishop. But why should I hypothezise? The Vatican itself was corrupted at times.

    Nevertheless I repeat: we have to learn from history and not just repeat mistakes that obviously can lead to grave consequences.
  • Trotsky Lives!
    commented 2023-07-26 16:39:41 +1000
    Hullo there,
    Why are you trying smear the efforts of Pope Francis by referring to the unfortunate Cardinal McCarrick? That’s not an argument.
    As for your assertion: “No communist or atheist or other secular Institution should have a veto right in the selection of Bishops!” — well, who could disagree with that?
    But …
    Tinkering with the choice of bishops is a constant throughout Church history. Correct me if I am wrong, but as the price for recognition of the Catholic Church in post-Revolution France, Napoleon extracted a promise from the Vatican to depose all existing bishops and appoint 60 new ones chosen from a slate of Church nominations. As recently as the election of Pius X, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor vetoed the election of Mariano Rampollo. Apparently it was his right to do so. The Condordat of 1953 gave the dictator Francisco Franco the right to name bishops in Spain, as well as a veto over appointments of clergy down to the parish priest level.
    The Vatican went along with all this atrocious interference in the freedom of the Church.
    Sometimes you have to hold your nose and sup with the Devil.
  • Jürgen Siemer
    commented 2023-07-26 15:46:34 +1000
    Total Desaster.

    As a Catholic I am deeply ashamed, that our Pope has, with the help of his homosexual American Cardinal, has betrayed the Catholics in China and, in fact, the church as a whole.

    No communist or atheist or other secular Institution should have a veto right in the selection of Bishops!