The Code of Canon Law and the Self-Consecration of Catholic Bishops in China in 1958

Abstract

The 1958 autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations in China represent a significant episode in the history of the Chinese Catholic Church. One of the central issues at stake was the violation of canonical norms regarding episcopal consecrations; therefore, the Code of Canon Law became a subject of internal debate within the Chinese Catholic Church. This study examines how Chinese Catholic discourse on Canon Law evolved between November 1957 and December 1958, during the early implementation of the policy of self-election (自选) and self-consecration (自圣) of bishops promoted by the Chinese Government. Drawing on Chinese-language sources—most notably articles from Guangyang 广扬, the journal of the Catholic Patriotic Association of Tianjin, and the proceedings of local assemblies held in some dioceses such as Rehe—this study documents how prevailing attitudes toward the Code of Canon Law shifted over the course of these months, from a moderately conciliatory stance to a more radical one. Already dominant in study sessions and political-ideological campaigns of mid-1958, these radical positions appear to have become preponderant toward the end of the year, especially in the wake of Pope Pius XII’s 1958 encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, which condemned the autonomous election and consecration of bishops without papal mandate.

1. Introduction

The 1957–1958 biennium marked a crucial turning point in the development of the Chinese Catholic Church.1 In July and August 1957, the founding congress of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (中国天主教友爱国会) was held,2 followed on 13 April 1958 by the first consecrations without papal mandate of two bishops who were autonomously elected. These initiatives reflected an attempt to implement the political line of “independence and autonomy” (独立自主), a principle promoted by the Chinese Communist Party in order to free the Chinese Catholic Church from what was perceived as foreign influence in both political and economic spheres.

These actions were explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XII. The episcopal consecrations without papal approval, in particular, constituted a clear violation of the norms established by the 1917 Code of Canon Law and were subject to the penalty of excommunication ipso facto, reserved specialissimo modo to the Holy See.3 Thus, adherence to Canon Law became one of the key points of contention. It is not surprising, therefore, that both sides involved referred to the Code in support of their respective positions; the Holy See invoked it to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the consecrations, while the Chinese Church endeavored in various ways to justify its actions on canonical grounds.

This study seeks to reconstruct and analyze the debate surrounding the Code of Canon Law that emerged within the Chinese Catholic Church between November 1957 and December 1958, coinciding with the first autonomous elections and consecrations of bishops. The analysis draws on articles published in Guangyang 广扬, the journal of the Catholic Patriotic Association of Tianjin,4 and records from some local assemblies of Catholic representatives held during the middle months of 1958—especially the assembly convened in the Diocese of Rehe in May–June 1958. These records, collected in booklets printed by local “patriotic” Churches immediately after the conclusion of the meetings, provide valuable primary material. Given the restrictions on access to and consultation of archival sources, both the local journals and the proceedings of these assemblies offer a rare insight into the concrete implementation of the political campaigns undertaken to promote the policy of self-election (自选) and self-consecration (自圣) of bishops, as well as into the debates that emerged around this crucial issue.

This article forms part of a broader investigation into Chinese-language sources concerning the Catholic Church in China during the 1950s. Examination of materials related to the period of autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations revealed an increasingly frequent recurrence of articles devoted to the Code of Canon Law—an aspect that, in previous years, appears to have been almost entirely neglected. This prompted three main questions, which the present article seeks to address: first, why such a concentration of contributions on Canon Law occurred during this period; second, what positions on the Code were expressed by the various voices involved in the debate; and third, how the course of events shaped the evolution of that discussion.

Among the publications examined, Guangyang was selected because the topic of Canon Law is addressed there with a consistency and depth not found in other Catholic journals, such as Xinge 信鸽, published in Shanghai. The same rationale guided the choice of Rehe, where the issue took on a central importance absent in the other cases examined (Guiyang and Hongzhao), where other forms of justification for the autonomous elections and consecrations tended to prevail.

The scrutiny of the sources revealed that the issue of the Code of Canon Law was not a marginal concern but rather a pivotal element in the debate over autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations, as adherence to the Code was itself a concrete expression of communion with Rome. This centrality stems from the fact that the 1917 Code of Canon Law was drafted to provide juridical unity to the Church under the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, following the centralized legal model of nation-states. This centralization was accompanied by a process of standardization, inspired also by the universalism inherent to Catholicism (Fantappiè 2008, vol. 1, pp. 1065–85). Observance of the Code thus constituted the tangible sign of the unity of the universal Church around the Holy See.

Given these premises, it becomes clear why Canon Law was a crucial issue in the context of autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations: at stake was the question of communion with Rome, an essential characteristic of the Catholic Church. As political pressure to proceed with autonomous elections and consecrations intensified—compelling Catholics to violate certain canonical norms—an effort was made to interpret those norms in such a way as to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, fidelity to the most essential canonical requirements. By establishing an internal hierarchy among the norms, priority was given to observing those canons that guaranteed the validity of the sacrament, while accepting the breach of those that conferred legitimacy on the consecration. While the violation of the latter was justified through the concept of epikeia, the observance of the former was demonstrated by strict adherence to the formulas and procedures required for the validity of episcopal consecrations.

In the process of mediating between the imposition of the political line and the desire to maintain communion with Rome, this led to the carrying out of consecrations that were valid but illegitimate—a circumstance that preserved the possibility of future recognition by the Holy See, which was indeed granted in many cases from the 1980s onward.

2. Who Is Violating the Code?

The discussion about the respect of the Code of Canon Law began to emerge in the pages of Guangyang in close connection with the practical necessity of appointing vicars or new bishops to fill vacant or impeded Sees, resulting from the expulsion of foreign missionaries or the imprisonment of Chinese incumbents. On 30 March 1956, Zhang Shilang 张士琅 was elected capitular vicar of the Diocese of Shanghai, whose ordinary, Gong Pinmei 龚品梅, had been imprisoned in 1955.5 The Holy See not only refused to recognize the election but, in March 1957, issued a decree granting special faculties to priests of the diocese “in peace and communion with the Holy See”.6

This case was examined in a series of articles published in Guangyang in November and December 1957. Lan Luyi 蓝路一 (Lan 1957), a priest and professor at the Seminary of the Diocese of Tianjin (天津教区神哲学院), emphasized that the election of Zhang Shilang had followed the procedure outlined in canon 429 §3,7 which permitted the election of a capitular vicar in cases of an impeded see. The same choice was made in other dioceses as well, indicating that, at this historical juncture, the clergy and the faithful who adhered to the Reform Movement and Patriotic Movement sought to appear respectful of Canon Law. At the same time, Lan acknowledged the pope’s authority to remove bishops and vicars, as affirmed by canon 218,8 which defined the pope’s jurisdiction over all local Churches. However, he argued that such authority must be exercised for the good of the Church, something he claimed was not evident in the case of Shanghai.

The issue was also addressed by Song Leshan 宋乐山 (Song 1957), another professor at the same seminary, who reiterated the legitimacy of the election. According to Song, it was not the Church of Shanghai that had violated the provisions of the Code, but rather the pope himself:

We acknowledge that the Pope stands above the Code; however, we also affirm that he cannot transcend it in a way that disregards sensibility and reason. Both the establishment of laws and the act of derogating from them must be grounded in the concrete interests of a particular Church. […] In other words, the legislator cannot legislate arbitrarily, nor can one who dispenses from the law do so at will. Above all stand sensitivity, reason and the interests of the Church, that is to say, there is the limit imposed by the holy will of Christ. (我们承认教宗是超法典的，但是我们说也不能越乎人情和理性而超法典。立法超法都必须以具体教会的利益为根据。[…] 也就是说，立法者不能随便的就立，超法典者也不能随便的就超。上层还有人情、理性、教会的利益；也就是说，还有基督的圣意限制).

(Song 1957, p. 19)9

Beneath these arguments lay the assumption that the Code of Canon Law had been promulgated to safeguard the interests of the Church and functioned as a kind of impartial “constitution” to which the Chinese Church had faithfully adhered, while the Holy See had exceeded its provisions without justification grounded in the genuine needs of either the universal Church or the Church of Shanghai. These arguments were reiterated by Wu Jingxi 吴景溪 (Wu 1958), parish priest of the Xiaowangzhuang Church in Tianjin, who employed this reasoning to advocate for the establishment of an “independent and autonomous” Church capable of enjoying the rights guaranteed by the Code:

If we do not achieve independence and autonomy, the clergy of the Chinese Catholic Church will be unable to enjoy the protection of the Code of Canon Law and will be deprived of the rights it guarantees. The Holy Church is a unified whole, and the Code has been established for the entire Holy Church. There are no distinctions between one country and another, and there is no justification for allowing Churches abroad to enjoy the rights of the Code while denying them to the Church in China. The Curia should treat all equally and must by no means discriminate against the clergy of the Chinese Catholic Church. (如果我们不独立自主，中国天主教会的神长，就不能得到圣教法典的保护，就不能享受圣教法典的权利。圣教会是一个整体的，法典是为全圣教会规定的，没有这国那国的区别，也没有外国可以享受法典的权利而中国教会不能享受的理由。教廷应一视同仁，决不当歧视中国天主教的神长).

(Wu 1958, p. 14)

These words highlight the strain between the attempt—imposed by government religious policy—to establish an “independent and autonomous” Church and the commitment to uphold Canon Law as established for the universal Church as a whole. This outcome stemmed from a complex effort to mediate between the political directives handed down from above and the Chinese Church’s determination to reaffirm its belonging to the universal Church, as embodied in the Code.

Beginning in March 1958, the debate surrounding Canon Law shifted from being a component of the Zhang Shilang case to becoming an integral aspect of the issue of the autonomous elections of bishops, which were in the process of commencing. The inaugural autonomous election had, indeed, taken place in December 1957 within the Diocese of Chengdu, subsequently followed by elections in the dioceses of Yibin, Suzhou, Jinan, Kunming, Guangzhou, Taiyuan, Nanjing, Hankou, and Wuchang in February and March (Giunipero 2007, pp. 143–44). Consequently, it became imperative, through the publication of Guangyang, to elucidate and justify the actions of the Chinese Church in an attempt to persuade those who still harbored reservations regarding this trajectory of action.

An editorial published in Guangyang in March 1958 initiated the debate on autonomous episcopal elections,10 arguing that this was a right already exercised by numerous countries, as evidenced by the various concordats signed with the Holy See (Zixuan zhujiao 1958). In the following pages, Wang Da 王达 (D. Wang 1958) of the Diocese of Wuhu (Anhui) asserted the necessity of self-elected bishops. He cited canon 331 §§ 2–3,11 which assigned to the Holy See the responsibility for judging the suitability of episcopal candidates, offering a historical explanation for the origin of this norm: it was originally intended to curb the abuses committed by royal houses and the nobility who sought to interfere in episcopal appointments. Wang argued that, since the success of the revolution had marked the end of semi-feudal society and class exploitation, such circumstances no longer existed in the People’s Republic of China; thus, this canon had lost its original purpose and binding force. The Code, he claimed, was a human law designed to safeguard the interests of the Church, yet if it ran contrary to divine law or caused harm to the Church’s mission, it should not be respected. The Holy See itself had already violated the Code by refusing to approve Zhang’s election, thereby harming the local Church. For this reason, it was necessary to proceed with autonomous episcopal elections regardless. This approach, Wang continued, did not constitute a rejection of doctrine, nor did it deny the primacy of Rome, with which communication should be maintained on matters of faith. He concluded: “Is this a ‘schism’? We absolutely cannot tolerate rightist elements utilizing the Code of Canon Law to defend the reactionary political conspiracies of the Curia and to obstruct the just cause of establishing an independent and self-managed Church” (这难道是“裂教”吗？我们绝对不能容忍右派分子搬弄圣[教]法典替教廷的反动政治阴谋辩护，阻挠独立自办教会正义事业) (D. Wang 1958, p. 9).

From this final remark, it could be argued that Canon Law had become one of the instruments through which a segment of the Chinese Church opposed autonomous elections.12 Consequently, the Code—initially perceived as a neutral instrument safeguarding the Church’s interests and adhered to demonstrate the legitimacy of actions to the Holy See—could also come to constitute a potential obstacle, since “rightist” elements could invoke it in ways that would hinder the objective of establishing a self-managed (自办) Church.

This shift becomes particularly evident in an article published in April by Pang Shihong 庞世宏 (Pang 1958), a priest of the Diocese of Jining (Inner Mongolia) and Director of the Department for Propaganda of Religion of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (天主教友爱国会宣教部). Pang took a clear stance against those who argued that the Church should continue to adhere to the Code of Canon Law in the face of Rome’s refusal to approve autonomously elected candidates:

If there are still those who believe that […] we should engage in a “legal struggle”—that is, continue to submit repeated requests for approval in accordance with the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law, and that the Curia will eventually approve the consecration of the bishop we have elected—this is nothing short of a joke! (若还有人认为：[…] 我们采取“合法斗争”，即按照圣教法典规定的手续一再申请，教廷是会批准我们选举祝圣主教的，真是笑话！).

(Pang 1958, p. 6)

As preparations for the inaugural autonomous episcopal consecrations were underway, Pang acknowledged the possibility of acting in ways that did not conform to the Code of Canon Law, placing the responsibility for such a deviation on Rome: “The reason we no longer act in accordance with the Code of Canon Law today is that it is the Curia itself that has failed to act in accordance with the spirit of the Code” (我们今天之所以不按圣教法典行事，完全是由于罗马教廷不依照法典精神办事) (ibid., p. 7).13

This marked a shift from the earlier Zhang case, where it had been contended that canonical provisions had been strictly observed. In order to dispel fears that such actions might lead to excommunication or result in a schism, the violation of the Code was justified in light of the exceptional circumstances in which the Chinese Church found itself at the time. As stated in a Guangyang editorial:

With regard to autonomous consecrations, some people still hold confused ideas: they have become trapped in the dead ends of the Code and are unable to free themselves, continuing to harbor illusions about the Holy See […]. Others are filled with anxiety, fearing “schism”, fearing “excommunication”. All of this is mistaken. It is true that, according to the prescriptions of the Code, episcopal consecration requires the Holy See’s approval and provision; but this applies under normal circumstances, under circumstances in which the Roman Curia itself faithfully observes the Code. At present, however, the Curia, driven by reactionary political motives, has created an abnormal situation within the Chinese Catholic Church and has seriously harmed its interests. It is the Curia itself, therefore, that has violated the Code. (在自圣的问题上，有的人还存在一些胡涂观念，他们钻在法典的死犄角里拔不出脑袋来，他们还对教廷抱有幻想 […]。也有的人顾虑重重，怕“裂教”，怕“绝罚”。这都是错误的。诚然，根据法典规定，祝圣主教要教廷批准加委，但是这应该是在正常的情况下，首先是罗马教廷自己切实遵守法典的情况下；而在目前，教廷基于反动政治目的，造成中国天主教会的畸形现象，已经严重地破坏了中国天主教会的利益，它自己就破坏了法典).

(Zai tan zixuan 1958, p. 4)

The discussion on Canon Law continued even after the first two autonomous episcopal consecrations, which took place in Hankou on 13 April. In May 1958, Guangyang published a detailed analysis by Wang Xi’er 王洗耳 (X. Wang 1958a), director of the Seminary of the Diocese of Tianjin, aimed at supporting and justifying the decision of the Chinese Church to act against the prescriptions of the Code. Wang began by explaining the distinction between the validity and the legitimacy of episcopal consecrations:

The autonomous election of bishops is entirely feasible; all related concerns and problems can be easily resolved. As for autonomous episcopal consecration: according to the prescriptions of the Code, the right to consecrate bishops is reserved to the pope; without a papal canonical provision (provisio canonica) or mandate (mandatum), no bishop may be consecrated (canon 953 of the Code). However, it is important to clarify that affirming the necessity of papal provision or mandate for episcopal consecration does not mean that a bishop consecrated without such provision or mandate is invalid; rather, it means that such a consecration is not legitimate. What is referred to as provision or mandate pertains not to the validity (validitas) of the episcopal consecration, but to its legitimacy (liceitas). This is the core issue in the matter of autonomous consecration: is it permissible to consecrate a bishop without papal provision or mandate? To resolve this question, one must determine whether the papal provision or mandate is absolute or relative. (自选主教，是完全可以的，所有的顾虑和问题很容易解决。关于自圣主教：祝圣主教的权利，按法典规定，是保留于教宗的，无教宗之法定加委 (Provisio Canonica) 或诏勅 (Mandatum)，不得祝圣任何主教 (法典第953条)。但是该当说明，祝圣主教必须有教宗的加委或诏勅，但不是说，没有教宗的加委或诏勅，祝圣的主教，就不妥当，而是说，不许祝圣主教。所谓加委或诏勅，并不涉及祝圣的有效与否 (Validitas)，而只涉及祝圣的许可与否 (Liceitas)。这是自圣题问的焦点：没有教宗的加委或诏勅是否也可祝圣主教？要解决这一问题，就当看教宗的加委或诏勅，是绝对的还是相对的).

(X. Wang 1958a, pp. 9–10)

Wang drew a distinction between absolute precepts, those pertaining to matters of faith that must be observed under all circumstances, and relative precepts, which allow for exceptions or dispensations under particular conditions. The requirement of papal appointment for bishops, he argued, fell into the latter category. Since Chinese Catholics had a right to salvation, and the Holy See had turned episcopal appointments into a political tool, the situation had become “extremely exceptional” (极端特殊) (ibid., p. 11); under these kinds of circumstances, the priority was to safeguard the life of the Church. Proceeding with autonomous consecrations was, therefore, a response to these conditions and did not constitute a tout court rejection of Canon Law. With regard to the violation that was committed concerning the legitimacy of the ordination, this exception was theologically justified through the concept of “权宜 (epikeia)”, which holds that a law need not be applied when its application would entail the violation of a higher law or “when the burden imposed on the one who observes the law is heavier and more cruel than what the legislator had originally foreseen” (若守法给人带来的负担，较比立法人实际上所料到的更重，更惨酷) (ibid., p. 13).

Although Wang insisted that “the heavier burden” would have been leaving the faithful without bishops or sacraments, this assertion also reveals an awareness of the broader conditions in which the Church found itself; refusing episcopal consecrations would have increased the already considerable pressure on Catholics and jeopardized the few remaining chances of keeping the Catholic Church alive in China. This was probably also the reason why bishops such as Dong Guangqing accepted episcopal consecration without a papal mandate while remaining convinced that they were essentially faithful to the Pope and to the Church.14 It is both suggestive and plausible to interpret Wang’s statement, along with other efforts to justify the actions of the Chinese Church found on the pages of Guangyang, as indirect messages addressed to foreign missionaries who understood the Chinese language and, through them, to the Holy See itself. At a time when direct communication was extremely difficult, publications of the Chinese Catholic Church, along with official media, constituted an important source of information for Rome regarding what was taking place on the ground (Giunipero, forthcoming). It was precisely the content published in newspapers controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and in Church Reform Movement periodicals such as Guangyang that enabled the Holy See to assess what was happening in China. Catholic priests who agreed to sign articles in these periodicals were certainly aware of this, and it is likely that some of them wished to make their position known: one of adherence to Mao’s religious policy, but without abandoning respect for Canon Law.

Another fundamental issue related to the autonomous consecrations concerned whether bishops consecrated in this way possessed the full power of orders and jurisdiction. In his encyclical Ad Sinarum Gentem (1954), promulgated in October 1954, Pope Pius XII had addressed the principle of “autonomy of government” promoted by the Chinese Church by stating:

The power of orders (through which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is composed of Bishops, priests, and ministers) comes from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity.

(Ad Sinarum Gentem 1954)

In light of this passage, it is likely that some members of the clergy and faithful questioned whether bishops consecrated autonomously could legitimately exercise jurisdictional authority without papal approval. In response to this doubt, a contribution by Zhu Guang 朱光 and Zhang Jinshan 张金山 (Zhu and Zhang 1958), priests of the Diocese of Xianxian (Hebei), appeared in Guangyang. They acknowledged that canons 33215 and 953,16 which concern episcopal consecration and the necessity of papal approval, as well as canon 2370, which stipulates suspension for those who confer or receive ordination without the pope’s consent,17 clearly defined the relevant canonical discipline. After reiterating the now-familiar argument regarding the exceptional nature of the situation and the fact that the Holy See had itself initially breached the Code, Zhu and Zhang addressed the issue of the dual power of orders and jurisdiction. While the validity of the former was not in question, they argued that the latter required clarification: did the power of jurisdiction come from the pope or directly from God? Since theological opinions on this matter were not unanimous, the authors offered their own interpretation, grounded more in scriptural and historical reasoning than in canonical argumentation. In their view, the power of jurisdiction held by the successors of the apostles derived directly from God. Therefore, bishops consecrated autonomously and without papal approval possessed both powers. As a result, the sacraments they administered and the acts they carried out in their capacity as ordinaries were fully valid.

The same conclusion was also reached by Yuan Lezhong 袁乐中 (Yuan 1958), a priest of the Diocese of Nanchong, who published an article on the same topic in the following issue of Guangyang.

3. Accusations Against the “Reactionary Code”

In the spring of 1958, coinciding with the first autonomous episcopal consecrations, the country was undergoing a period of intensified political and ideological mobilization as part of the launch of the Great Leap Forward.18 Among the various campaigns initiated at the time that directly involved the Catholic world was the so-called “Open-Your-Heart Campaign” (交心运动) (Ni 2012a, 2012b; R. Zhang 2010). This political movement took its name from the expression “向党交心”, meaning “to open one’s heart to the Party”, and it consisted of organized meetings in which participants were expected to “spontaneously” and “voluntarily” confess all doubts, misgivings, and erroneous thoughts they had held toward the Party, both past and present, as well as to express their positions regarding political campaigns conducted in previous years, in order to undergo a process of “self-reform” (自我改造). The campaign was carried out between March and July 1958 and initially targeted members of the “democratic parties” and intellectuals outside the Communist Party. It was later extended to include members of religious communities, including the Catholic Church. In addition to sessions of criticism and self-criticism, the primary vehicle of the campaign was the production of dazibao 大字报 (big-character posters), resulting in a sort of competition to produce posters “faster, more sincerely, more deeply, and more penetratingly” (快、真、深、透).

Between April and May 1958, the “Open-Your-Heart Campaign” was carried out in many dioceses across the country, including Tianjin, Beijing, Jining (Inner Mongolia), Harbin, Fenyang, Anyang, Lu’an, Wuchang, Zhouzhi, Heze, Yantai, and Qiqihar.19 During the same period, and continuing in the following months, various Catholic representative assemblies and conferences were organized at the local level with multiple aims—to promote the government’s political line, to support and prepare for autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations, and to criticize individuals labeled as “rightists”.20 In some cases, these events overlapped with the nationwide “Open-Your-Heart Campaign”. Such was the case in the Diocese of Guiyang, where between May and June 1958, several assemblies and meetings of Catholic representatives from Guizhou province were convened to criticize rightist figures, including the former vicar of Guiyang, Deng Jiqian 邓汲谦, to prepare and carry out the autonomous election and consecration of Chen Yuancai 陈原才 and to implement the “Open-Your-Heart Campaign” (Guizhou sheng Tianzhujiaoyou Aiguohui 1958).

Another example is the Diocese of Rehe,21 where, from 21 May to 1 July, the “Congress for the Leap Forward of Catholic Representatives of the Diocese of Rehe” (天主教热河教区教友代表跃进大会) was held. One of its objectives was to prepare the autonomous election and consecration of Zhao Youmin 赵牖民 as bishop of the diocese, which took place in mid-June. Those who spoke at the congress included priests, seminarians, nuns, and laypeople, not only from the local diocese but also from nearby dioceses, such as Jilin, Chifeng, Shenyang, Xuanhua, and Fushun (Jinzhou shi Tianzhujiaoyou Aiguohui Chouweihui 1958).

What distinguishes the Rehe congress is that nearly all of the speeches published in the proceedings focused explicitly on the vehement criticism of what was called the “reactionary Code” (反动法典).22 The tone of these interventions differs significantly from the articles published in Guangyang, not only in their style, which was more polemical and less argumentative, but also in their overall approach to Canon Law. Whereas the Guangyang articles offered a focused analysis of episcopal appointments, aiming to justify autonomous elections and consecrations in light of exceptional circumstances, the interventions at Rehe meetings were characterized by an extensive attack on the Code of Canon Law, which was condemned as reactionary on the basis of numerous canons that extended well beyond the question of episcopal ordination.

Xia Defa 夏德发, a priest of the Diocese of Rehe, began his address by stating that “the Code is the most reactionary tool used by imperialism to invade, enslave, and oppress us” (法典是帝国主义用来侵略, 奴役和压迫我们的最反动的工具) (Jinzhou shi Tianzhujiaoyou Aiguohui Chouweihui 1958, p. 15). He first cited canons 233323 and 2344,24 which imposed penalties, including excommunication, on those who obstructed or insulted a papal legate. According to Xia, these provisions were designed to grant special protection to Vatican envoys engaged in activities detrimental to China, such as the “imperialist” internuncio Antonio Riberi,25 effectively shielding them from the jurisdiction of local laws.

Xia asserted that this objective was also evident in canon 120,26 which established the privilegium fori, exempting clerics from trial before secular courts. As a result, he continued, many Chinese Catholics had abandoned their path toward patriotism, fearing excommunication should they expose counterrevolutionary activities occurring within the Church. Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law was employed by the Vatican to obstruct efforts aimed at establishing an autonomous and independent Chinese Church, as exemplified by the case of Zhang Shilang.

Xia’s conclusions were as follows: “Today, the Code can no longer safeguard the interests of the faithful. If we still cling to the Code and refuse to let it go, we are enslaving ourselves, forfeiting the moral integrity of our nation, this is something that we absolutely cannot tolerate!” (今天法典已不能维护敎友们的利益了。若我们还是抱着法典不撒手，那就是我们的自做奴役，丧失民族气节，这是我们绝对不能容忍的！) (ibid., p. 16).

The inclusion within the Code of elements pertaining to essential components of Catholic doctrine, such as the section on the sacraments, also became a subject of debate. According to Xu Zhenjiang 徐振江, a priest and director of the Patriotic Association of Shenyang, this part represented an exception to the otherwise reactionary nature of the text. Nevertheless, he argued, the Code could still justifiably be burned due to its fundamentally reactionary character (ibid., pp. 21–22). Xia Shuqing 夏树卿, a priest of the Diocese of Rehe, reached a similar conclusion:

The Code also contains certain religiously coloured provisions, included to disguise its fundamentally reactionary nature. For this reason, sections on the sacraments are present, to ensure that those who follow the Code do not perceive the toxic nature of its content. […] The Code established by the Vatican is, in essence, reactionary. It is not intended to safeguard the interests of the Church as a whole, but rather to foster hostility against the Soviet Union, against the Communist Party, against the people, against socialist states, and especially against our New China. We can no longer tolerate this. Within the Chinese Catholic Church, this Code will permanently lose its validity. It must not only be abolished and burned, we must also purge our minds of its poison. (在法典中也掺杂了一点宗教彩色的条文，做为掩饰他反动的本质，所以在法典上也包括着圣事等部分，使听从法典的人，不感觉他内容的毒辣。[…] 梵蒂冈制定的法典——本质是反动的，并不是为维护教会整体利益，而正是为仇视和反苏，反共，反人民，反社会主义国家，特别是反对我们的新中国。我们决不再容忍下去，这部法典在我们中国天主教会中，将永远失掉它的效力，不但将它作废，焚烧！更要把他的毒素由我们的脑海中清洗出去).

(ibid., pp. 13–14)

Li Qinglan 李庆兰, a nun of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Fushun, confessed that she had previously believed that Canon Law was intended to safeguard the interests of the Church. However, during the study sessions in which she had participated, she came to fully understand the reactionary nature of the Code. She further revealed that the Vatican’s threat of excommunication against those who were consecrated and who performed consecrations without a papal mandate had deeply disturbed her. How was it possible, she asked, that Chinese prelates had proceeded despite the risk of such a punishment? “Could it be that so many bishops and priests no longer cared for their own souls? That is impossible!” (难道那么多的主教神父，他们都不要灵魂了吗？不能!) (ibid., p. 26). After attending the consecration of Zhao Youmin and listening to the explanations provided during the study sessions, Li Qinglan stated that she had come to recognize the reactionary nature of Canon Law and had clarified her stance on autonomous elections and consecrations.

This pattern of acknowledging one’s past “errors” or “contradictions,” followed by the affirmation of lessons learned during political education sessions, recurred in the interventions of other participants as well. Such discourse reflects a broader strategy employed during these political campaigns, which required a necessary element of self-criticism as a basis for adopting new positions that resolved previous ideological contradictions.

Lan Qinglan’s speech was followed by an intervention from Zhang Zhenhuan 张震寰, a seminarian from the Diocese of Rehe, who argued that the Code was incompatible with the defining marks of the Catholic Church: it undermined unity (as it served the interests of the capitalist class), holiness (as it demanded betrayal of one’s homeland), catholicity (as it was used to exploit weaker nations), and apostolicity (as it opposed socialism). He concluded with the following statement:

It is no surprise that the French word canon, used to express the Code, also means ‘cannon’. It is clear that the Vatican used the Code of Canon Law to launch fierce attacks against the Soviet Union immediately after its revolutionary success, instructing the bishops in Europe and the Soviet Union to organize an anti-Soviet crusade. (无怪乎法典的法文字 canon 即大炮之意，这很显明的是梵蒂冈用法典，向刚刚革命成功的苏联加以猛攻，命令欧洲及苏联境内的主教要组织反苏十字军).

(ibid., p. 28)

Calls to burn the Code were emphatically echoed by lay participants as well, many of whom admitted, however, that they had previously known little or nothing about Canon Law. Particularly revealing are the words of Qin Zhong 秦忠, identified in the proceedings as a representative of the Catholics from Jianchang County, which provide insight into how the study and discussion sessions were actually conducted:

They [the rightist elements] adopt a stance of hostility toward the people and constantly use the Code to intimidate us. As a result, some individuals have fallen under the Code’s spell. The representatives therefore discussed the Code, and the vast majority concluded that it is reactionary. A very small number, however, maintained that there are parts of it that are good. We debated the matter until nine o’clock in the evening, at which point the presidium proposed writing dazibao. I then wrote a poster stating that, since the Code is harmful and entirely devoid of benefit, it should be burned without delay. Others wrote that the Code was a golden rule, sacred and inviolable—more sacred even than the Holy Scriptures. Still others argued that one should retain what is good and discard what is not. Upon seeing these dazibao, I wrote another one saying: Why are we still circling around the Code? It is both reactionary and poisonous. How could we remain attached to it? Since it is neither dogma nor doctrine to which we are bound to believe, even if it contains a few good elements, it should not be taken as a model. Let me give an example: there is a glass of good wine, but if urine is mixed into the glass, even if somebody is the most devoted wine enthusiast, upon realizing this, do you think he could still drink it? (他们[右派分子]是站在与人民敌对的立场，总是拿法典吓唬我们，因此也有的人受了法典的迷惑。所以代表们便讨论了法典，绝大多数的人都认为它是反动的；也有极少数人说它有一部分是好的。我们讨论至晚上九点时，主席团便提出了建议写大字报。当时我在大字报上说，既然法典是有害而无益的东西，应当快快烧掉才好。有人写的是，法典是金科玉律，是神圣不可侵犯的，它比圣经还圣；有的写着择其善者而从之，其不善者而改之。我看到这张大字报后，我又写了一张说：为什么还在法典上打圈子呢？它既是反动的，又是有毒的，我们怎能留恋它呢？它既不是当信的教义教规，虽然里边有一点好东西也不足取法了。举个例子来说吧，一杯酒是好的，若渗上了尿，虽然是最爱喝酒的人知道了里面有尿，你想他还能喝吗？).

(ibid., p. 21)

The final report of the assembly was presented by Xia Huanzhang 夏焕章, a priest of the Diocese of Rehe, who summarized the discussions on autonomous elections and consecrations. The report reiterated several accusations that had already emerged in the statements of other participants: the Code of Canon Law was described as the legal instrument of the “Vatican Curia”, used to safeguard its “bourgeois interests”. Additionally, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri was targeted, the chief architect of the Code, who was portrayed not only as a collaborator with the Nazi Fascists but also as the principal figure responsible for the recognition of Manchukuo.27 Following the Code, it was argued, would amount to violating the Fourth Commandment, interpreted in this context as a directive to love and serve one’s homeland: “If we do not break the chains of the Code, we will be left with no choice but to await ruin with our hands tied, and to set foot on the path of betrayal of both our nation and our faith!” (如果我们不粉碎法典这一枷锁，我们只有束手待毙，走上叛国叛教的道路了!) (ibid., p. 7).

It is noteworthy that during the same months, such divergent viewpoints could be heard within the Chinese Catholic Church regarding the nature of Canon Law: on one side, the “moderate” line expressed in Guangyang, and on the other, the categorical criticism carried out in the Diocese of Rehe. It can be assumed that the assemblies, study sessions, and indoctrination campaigns held at the local level served primarily a political–ideological purpose: to transmit government propaganda at the grassroots in order to overcome remaining resistance. These campaigns were conducted under the close supervision of the Party, which shaped their content and progression; it is not unlikely that some of the Catholic representatives involved were infiltrated figures tasked with serving as mouthpieces for the political line. The aim of these meetings was to eliminate opposition, and the vehement rejection of the Code evident in Rehe was likely linked to the fact that Canon Law remained one of the key references for those resisting self-consecrations.

The contributions published in Guangyang, although certainly subject to censorship and control like all publications at the time, seem to reflect a different approach. While they broadly supported the official line, they were not always directly integrated into the political–ideological mobilization and, thus, enjoyed slightly more space to articulate what appears to have been an effort at mediation—between the desire to adhere to Canon Law, seen as a fundamental element safeguarding unity with the universal Church, and the government’s pressure to proceed with episcopal consecrations without papal mandate.

However, the tone and content of the local campaigns and meetings seemed to foreshadow a shift in the political climate—one increasingly hostile to any form of resistance, even partial or implicit.

4. The Final Turn Against the Code

In the second half of 1958, the debate on the Code carried out in the pages of Guangyang began to undergo a gradual shift. The first sign of this change was the publication of Xia Defa’s intervention that was mentioned above, in the first August issue of the journal (Xia 1958). This article marked a clear departure from the tone of earlier contributions. Although it did not yet represent a decisive change in the periodical’s “editorial line”, this signaled an impending shift in the atmosphere that would also come to affect the Church in Tianjin. Nevertheless, for several weeks thereafter, Guangyang still continued to reflect a more moderate and conciliatory approach.

The subsequent issue featured another analysis by Lan Luyi (Lan 1958). Although not focused on strictly canonical aspects, Lan revisited the issue of the validity of bishops elected and consecrated autonomously, as well as their right to exercise jurisdiction. Referring to the papal bull Inter Cunctas by Martin V, Lan pointed out that two conditions are required for the validity of a sacrament: the minister’s power of orders and his “compliance with the intention of the Church” (遵照教会的意旨) (Lan 1958, p. 22).28 If these two conditions were met, as was the case in the People’s Republic of China, the consecrated individuals were indeed valid bishops. By addressing the issue of acting in accordance with the Church’s intention, Lan touched on a fundamental point—one that would later prove to be crucial in ruling out the possibility that Chinese actions were leading to a schism. As for the right of jurisdiction in the case of consecrations without a papal mandate, Lan noted that theologians’ opinions on the matter were divided: while some maintained that jurisdiction derived from the pope, others held that bishops received it directly from the apostles and, therefore, papal approval was not strictly necessary. Notably, Lan concurred with the provision of canon 329 §2,29 which affirmed the pope’s faculty to freely appoint bishops:

We fully acknowledge that the Pope, who governs the Church on behalf of Christ, possesses the freedom to appoint bishops. However, since he exercises leadership on behalf of Christ, in accordance with Christ’s will, who entrusted him with the care of the “flock”, he ought to assign to each local Church pastors—that is, bishops—who can shepherd the “flock” In other words, the bishop exists to serve the Church: wherever there is a Church, there ought to be a bishop. For this reason, Christ entrusted the power to lead the Church to the bishops as successors of the apostles. Therefore, whether the Pope should appoint bishops to local Churches ought to depend on the concrete needs of those Churches. His freedom in appointing bishops must be understood solely as the freedom to select the candidate best suited to lead the Church effectively, not as the freedom to refuse to appoint a bishop to a diocese in need. Thus, the Pope’s freedom to appoint bishops to local Churches, like his authority of governance, is ultimately a relative freedom. (我们也完全承认，代替耶稣领导教会的教宗有委任主教的自由，但是他既然代替耶稣领导教会，就应该按耶稣叫他照管“羊群”的意旨给各个教会委派牧放“羊群”的主教，就是说，主教是为教会服务的，哪里有教会，哪里应该有主教，为了这个原故耶稣把领导教会的权柄交给了接宗徒位的主教；所以教宗是否要给各个教会委派主教，这应该取决于各地教会的需要，他给各地教会委任主教的自由也仅仅是挑选一位更能好好领导教会的主教的自由，而不是拒绝给那需要主教的教区不委派主教的自由，所以，他给各地教会委派主教的自由如同他的领导权一样是相对的).

(Lan 1958, pp. 25–26)

The Pope’s refusal to appoint bishops for the Chinese Church thus justified self-elections and self-consecrations.30 In Lan’s opinion, it was not a rejection of papal primacy but a necessary act for the good of the Church.

The discussion on Canon Law was then resumed in September by Yao Zhengyi 姚正一 (Yao 1958), a priest of the Diocese of Datong. He asserted that during the session of the “Open-Your-Heart Campaign”, the issue of the Code had been one of the most frequently debated topics. Offering an overview of the various perspectives that emerged during these discussions, Yao argued that the differing positions could be grouped into three main orientations: the first called for the complete abolition of the Code on the grounds of its reactionary and capitalist character; the second held that while the Code could not be entirely abolished, a stance of temporary non-compliance should be adopted, particularly regarding those provisions deemed unhelpful to the socialist cause; the third advocated for a reform of the Code to better align it with the needs of the country.

According to Yao, it was necessary to distinguish between different types of canons contained in the Code. One category comprised provisions purely related to matters of faith; these should be respected, as they were tied to doctrine, as well as to moral and dogmatic theology, and they served as a sign of unity within the universal Church. A second category included canons that directly conflicted with the socialist system, such as those protecting private property, which, he argued, could be rejected. A third category included norms that were neither supportive of nor explicitly opposed to socialism. However, certain provisions within this group, such as those concerning the papal mandate for episcopal consecrations, could be politically instrumentalized by imperialist forces and used to interfere in China’s internal affairs.

Regarding this third group, Yao expressed his opinion as follows:

The Code itself, as well as the purpose for which it was compiled, is to safeguard the interests of the Church, to ensure its unity, and to promote the salvation of the faithful. However, in today’s reality, the Vatican is using precisely this portion of the Code to advance its own political aims, letting the Chinese Catholic Church accept its political line. This runs directly counter to the Code itself and to the original purpose for which it was established, hereby causing the Code to lose its intended purpose. If we consider the principle affirmed by theologians that “a law ceases to be binding once it no longer serves its intended purpose”, the question is no longer whether or not we choose to follow the law, but rather that the Code itself no longer has binding force over us. Therefore, we are under no obligation to observe it. For this reason, I believe that it is not appropriate to claim, as someone did in reference to the autonomous elections and consecrations, that we have “broken the Code” […], rather, it is the Code itself that has lost its binding authority over us. However, should the political stance of the Vatican Curia change, or should it cease using the Code as a tool to implement its political agenda, then it [this portion of the Code] could once again fulfil its original purpose of protecting the Church’s interests and regain its binding force. Accordingly, I believe our current attitude toward this part of the Code should be one of suspension and non-observance. (法典的本身与判定法典的目的是维护教会的利益，保障教会之团结及教友灵魂之得救。但就今天的现实来看，梵蒂冈恰恰利用了这部分法典而推行其政治企图，使中国天主教接受其政治路线。这样恰恰与法典本身及制定的原有目的背道而驰，使法典失掉了它的目的。根据神学家们“法律在失掉目的时，应自动停止其约束力”的定论来说，还不是我们守不守的问题，而是法典本身已经对我们没有约束力了，因而我们就根本没有遵守它的义务；因此我认为在自选自圣主教上有人提出“突破法典”的这种说法是不大妥善的 […]，而是它本身失掉了约束我们的力量。但是这部分法典，如果梵蒂冈教廷的政治态度转变或者不再利用它来作为推行政治的工具时，它[这部分法典]仍然可以获得其维护教会利益的目的而产生其约束力，那末，对这部分法典，我认为我们的态度应该是悬而不守).

(Yao 1958, pp. 25–26)

Yao’s position represented a moderate one: it did not contest the validity of the Code of Canon Law, particularly with regard to the sensitive matter of episcopal appointments, nor did it assert any deliberate intent to violate canonical norms. Yao’s statement appears to carry a dual significance: on the one hand, it served to defend the choice of autonomous consecrations against those who rejected them on the grounds that they contradicted Canon Law; on the other, perhaps more importantly, it sought to distance itself from more radical positions, such as those expressed in the Dioceses of Rehe, that called for a total rejection of the Code as a sign of a complete break with Rome. Instead, Yao framed the actions of the Chinese Church as a temporary suspension of some canonical norms rather than a willful transgression.

Starting in October, the articles authored by Lan and Yao became the target of criticism published in the very same journal, marking what may be interpreted as the definitive shift in Guangyang’s “editorial line”. In a series of articles published between October and November, Lan and Yao were directly attacked, with not only the content of their writings cited but also their names explicitly mentioned. This marked the beginning of a kind of public campaign of criticism against both authors and the so-called “reactionary Code”.

One of the likely causes of this shift was the publication of the encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis (1958)—dated 29 June but made public only in September—part of which directly addressed the issue of autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations.31 The encyclical represented a strong condemnation of the Patriotic Association and of “the position, devoid of all truth, that Catholics have the power of directly electing their bishops” (Ad Apostolorum Principis 1958). Referring also to canon 329 §2—the very same canon cited and acknowledged by Lan—Pius XII affirmed that “it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff” (ibid.). He further stated that “bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff” (ibid.) and that “acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious” (ibid.). It is noteworthy that the encyclical did not deny the validity of the illegitimate episcopal consecrations, in effect converging with the interpretation of the Code of Canon Law advanced by the “moderate” voices of Tianjin Seminary and by the first bishops ordained without a papal mandate.

The Chinese response was strongly negative, to the point that a campaign was soon launched against what was labeled the “reactionary encyclical” (Giunipero 2007, pp. 168–73). The stance taken by Pius XII, who opposed autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations, grounding his position in canonical norms, likely contributed to the marginalization of those moderate voices that had found space in the pages of Guangyang and that continued to defend the value of Canon Law, albeit with certain exceptions.

The opening salvo in the attacks on the Code of Canon Law and its defenders, Lan and Yao, came in an article by Jiang Jianwen 姜建文 (Jiang 1958), a layman of the Diocese of Zhengzhou, who argued that the early Church had relied solely on the Ten Commandments and had no need for Canon Law. Canon Law, according to Jiang, was later adopted by Rome as a means of preserving its own power and oppressing the faithful. He reiterated that the Code had been devised with anti-Soviet intentions—ignoring the fact that the 1917 Code had undergone a long period of development prior to its promulgation, certainly unrelated to the October Revolution—and renewed accusations against Cardinal Gasparri. The attacks focused particularly on the “full power of jurisdiction” granted to the pope by canon 218,32 which was portrayed as a tool for turning Chinese Catholics into instruments of imperialism and forcing them to betray their homeland. Criticism was also directed at canon 329 §2, the one cited in the encyclical and defended by Lan Luyi. Although Jiang did not name Lan explicitly, he quoted passages from Lan’s article in order to denounce those who—naively in his view—still defended these “reactionary” norms and maintained that parts of the Code—such as those concerning the sacraments—could still be salvaged. Even these, Jiang claimed, contained harmful provisions, for instance, the “seal of confession” prescribed by canon 889,33 which he accused of being used to cover espionage activities against the Communist Party. In conclusion, Jiang portrayed Canon Law as a yoke from which Chinese Catholics had to liberate themselves.

However, the main target of criticism was the article by Yao Zhengyi, which was attacked in no fewer than four articles published during the month of November (Zheng 1958; Bai 1958; A. Wang 1958; Li 1958). The first of these was authored by Zheng Deqing 郑德清 (Zheng 1958), vicar of the Diocese of Shashi (Hubei). Referring to the three positions outlined by Yao, Zheng argued that only those who advocated a total rejection of the Code were in the right, whereas those who called for its revision or for the preservation of selected parts were to be labeled as revisionists and opportunists, respectively. The latter category included Yao himself.

According to Zheng, the Code had to be evaluated in its entirety and could not be dissected into isolated canons, as Yao had attempted to do. Canon Law, he argued, was a political instrument in all its aspects; its religious content served merely as embellishment, designed to confuse the faithful. The sacraments, after all, had existed long before the promulgation of the Code and already testified to the unity of the Church. Their administration, therefore, required only adherence to the teachings of Jesus and the spirit of tradition, with no need to consult the Code. Zheng concluded by expressing skepticism about Yao’s hope that the Vatican might one day revise its hostile position toward the People’s Republic of China, claiming that such a change was highly unlikely.

The parish priest of the Cathedral of Zhengzhou, Bai Qinglan 白晴岚 (Bai 1958), further intensified the criticism by accusing Yao of concealing the reactionary and imperialist nature of the Code. To support his argument, he cited canon 1179,34 which established the right of asylum within churches: “Is this meant to protect the interests of the Church, or rather to safeguard the interests of counterrevolutionaries and social criminals?” (这是为了维护教会利益呢，还是为了维护反革命分子，社会犯罪分子的利益呢?) (Bai 1958, p. 16). The Code was thus compared to the unequal treaties that had established the system of foreign concessions: was this not, he asked, an attempt to “maintain imperialist ‘concession’ with crosses hanging over them on the soil of our motherland?” (保持帝国主义在我们祖国土地上的挂十字架的“租界地”呢？) (ibid.). In conclusion, Bai argued, “it is not the Pope who has distorted the ‘Code’, but rather the reactionary nature of the ‘Code’ itself that stems from the reactionary Roman Curia that produced it” (不是教宗歪曲了“法典”，而“法典”的反动本质是由于反动的罗马教廷产生出来的) (ibid., p. 17).

This marked a complete reversal of some of the positions that had prevailed in the pages of Guangyang until September, namely, that the Code was intended to serve the interests of the Church and that it was the Pope who had failed to uphold the very norms he himself had promulgated.

The debate was ultimately brought to a close in December 1958 with an article by Wang Xi’er (X. Wang 1958b), who offered a comprehensive critique of the Code of Canon Law in all its parts, citing numerous canons. Following an introduction in which he described the Code as the product of a long history of oppression of the people and as an instrument designed to control every aspect of the faithful’s lives, Wang undertook a systematic examination of the five books into which the Code is divided.

To demonstrate the reactionary nature of the first part, General Norms, Wang cited canon 3,35 which states that the Code does not abrogate conventions concluded with various nations. Since the states with which the Holy See had entered into agreements were all capitalist, it was not difficult to understand, Wang argued, how the pope consistently sought alliances with ruling classes, to the detriment of the Church’s true interests.

The norms found in the second book, On Persons, were said to be designed to establish a vast apparatus of control over the faithful, granting the Curia virtually unlimited powers. The system thereby created resembled a kind of totalitarianism, in which congregations, tribunals, and other bodies oversaw every dimension of the lives of believers and fostered the spread of reactionary organizations.

The third book, On Things, dealt with matters that might appear purely religious, but in reality, were anything but religious. While acknowledging that norms which derived from Jesus and the tradition of the Church should not be rejected, Wang denounced as deeply reactionary those provisions aimed at enslaving education and exercising control over thought through instruments such as the Index of Forbidden Books. The section on ecclesiastical benefices, he asserted, represented pure capitalism: “This is certainly not the law of the Church, but the law of the Wall Street bosses in the United States” (这绝对不是教会的法律，而是美国华尔街老板的法律) (X. Wang 1958b, p. 31).

The fourth book, On Procedures, was said to establish yet more punitive mechanisms to oppress the weak. However, it was, above all, the fifth book, On Delicts and Penalties, that constituted the “venenum in cauda”: according to Wang, the threat of excommunication contained therein had become the most frequently invoked tool used by Rome to attack the patriotism of Chinese believers.

The essential contents of the Code are as outlined above: after reading the brief overview provided, no matter how dull one may be, it is not difficult to grasp its true nature. The so-called Code of Canon Law is precisely such a thing. As for how one ought to approach it, that primarily depends on your political standpoint. (法典之基本内容有如上述：看了上面的简单介绍，任你是怎样的钝根，也不难看出法典的真正本质；所谓圣教法典，就是这样的东西。至于应当怎样去对待它，便首先看你站在怎样的政治立场上了).

(ibid., p. 33)

These closing remarks marked not only the conclusion of Wang Xi’er’s article but also the end of the broader debate conducted through the pages of Guangyang.36 For the Catholic reader who had followed the various reflections published in the journal—and who had likely also participated in numerous sessions of study, propaganda, and ideological indoctrination—it would not have been difficult to grasp that the political climate had led to a hardening of positions and curtailed the space for opinions that might have represented an attempt to resist the government line. In this new context, alternative positions would no longer be tolerated. Wang Xi’er’s own transition from a “moderate” voice to a staunch critic of the Code stands as a telling indication of the broader shift in the overall climate.

5. Conclusions

The analysis of the debate surrounding the Code of Canon Law in 1958 offers a specific yet meaningful vantage point from which to observe a particularly delicate period in the history of the Chinese Catholic Church. What emerges is an initial attempt to act in accordance with all canonical norms, an effort that may be interpreted as a desire to justify the validity and legitimacy of the Church’s actions while avoiding a break with Rome.

At this stage, Catholics who supported the Church Reform Movement presented the Code in a relatively positive light, portraying it almost as a kind of “constitution” that the universal Church as a whole was expected to observe. As tensions with Rome escalated—especially following the latter’s refusal to recognize the actions undertaken in China—criticism was directed not so much at the Code itself, but rather at the Holy See, which had already been the object of sustained accusations of “imperialism” and “counterrevolutionary positions” since the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Emphasizing the compatibility of Chinese actions with the Code was a strategy adopted by “patriotic” Chinese Catholics to preserve unity with the universal Church and attempt a difficult mediation between government pressure and fidelity to Rome. These individuals thus adopted a different strategy from that of those members of the clergy and laity who, fearing the risk of schism, rejected any form of collaboration with the Chinese government. In some cases, Canon Law served as a tool to demonstrate that their fundamental fidelity had not been compromised.

A review of the articles published in Guangyang up to September 1958 also reveals that the Chinese clergy possessed a thorough knowledge of the Code of Canon Law, as well as a clear awareness of the issues raised by autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations. Particularly illustrative is the case of Wang Xi’er’s explanation of the distinction between the validity and the legitimacy of episcopal consecrations. This not only points to an informed awareness of the canonical complexities involved but also attests to the effort to preserve the essence of communion with Rome. In doing so, the divine law (the validity of the sacrament) had been preserved, even when human law (the legitimacy of the ordination) had been violated. This fact, also stated in the encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, paved the way for the future recognition of several illegitimate bishops. As the Holy See itself would later acknowledge in the 1980s, the formulae and procedures used during the consecrations—despite certain additions and modifications—met the necessary requirements for the ordinations to be considered valid.

In light of this, it becomes comprehensible that even after Rome’s refusal to approve the appointments of Dong Guangqing and Yuan Wenhua, Guangyang persisted in seeking ways to justify the violation of canonical norms by invoking the exceptionality of the circumstances, without allowing this to appear as a total and categorical rejection of the Code itself. This can be seen, if not as an outright attempt to resist the government’s line, at least as an effort to mediate between adherence to Canon Law—as a symbol of unity with the universal Church—and the political pressure to proceed with autonomous episcopal elections and consecrations without a papal mandate. It seems plausible that the authors of such articles also intended to communicate indirectly with the expelled missionaries, hoping that they would be able to read between the lines and beyond the accusations shaped by the political climate, identifying the conciliatory signals embedded in the texts. In particular, references such as Wang Xi’er’s invocation of the concept of epikeia seemed to suggest, albeit implicitly, what would later become clearer in the 1980s: that many bishops had accepted ordination not only under intense political pressure, but also in the belief that this had become the only viable option, without any intention of breaking communion with Rome (Valente 2019, pp. 189–90).

At the same time, however, more radical positions began to emerge, targeting the Code of Canon Law in its entirety and moving beyond the specific issue of episcopal elections and consecrations. This approach of wholesale rejection appears to have initially taken shape within the context of political–ideological mobilization aimed at aligning clergy and faithful with the Party line, overcoming residual resistance, and attacking individuals labeled as “rightists.” The Code—previously regarded, even by its critics, as a tool for safeguarding the Church’s interests and, therefore, worthy of adherence—came to be portrayed instead as the very embodiment of the Vatican’s “imperialist conspiracies”. In this way, any form of resistance that continued to invoke the Code could be discredited and delegitimized.

Until September 1958, this tendency—likely dominant in study sessions and political-ideological campaigns—had received little attention in the pages of Guangyang. The journal appears to reflect a more moderate milieu, in which institutions such as the Seminary of Tianjin maintained more conciliatory stances.

However, the publication in September 1958 of the encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, in which the pope condemned episcopal consecrations and the Patriotic Association,37 contributed to the marginalization—already underway at the local level during the political–ideological campaigns held in the middle months of 1958—of these “moderate” voices that had previously prevailed in Guangyang. The “patriotic” Church of Tianjin aligned with the new climate, publishing direct attacks against the “reactionary Code” and those who had previously defended its legitimacy. Within the broader context of internal radicalization brought about by the developments of the Great Leap Forward, any space for a conciliatory stance now appeared to have been reduced to a minimum. One important legacy of that debate nevertheless endured: a firm determination—essentially accepted by the Chinese authorities—to ensure the full validity of episcopal ordinations, despite their illegitimacy.