Cardinal Zen: Pope Leo's consistory a ‘very welcome breakthrough’
Cardinal Zen warmly praised Pope Leo XIV for holding the consistory, hoping also that organizational issues will be improved for June's meeting.
(PerMariam) — Cardinal Joseph Zen has expressed his “deep gratitude” to Pope Leo XIV for re-instigating the once regular practice of consistories and being “a leader who knows how to listen,” while also raising some concerns about the influence of “Pope Francis’ ‘henchmen.’”
The return of an extraordinary consistory to the life of the Church has been warmly welcomed by many, not least by Cdl. Zen, the emeritus bishop of Hong Kong. After the last such meeting took place in 2014, many in the College of Cardinals have been long desirous of the chance to meet and discuss issues amongst themselves and with the pope.
Leo’s first consistory afforded that opportunity, albeit but briefly, and his calling of a second in June before starting an annual such event next year has been warmly received.
Demonstrating his keen loyalty to the Pope and the Church, Cdl. Zen made the lengthy journey from Hong Kong to Rome in time for the consistory, finding time also to celebrate Mass for parishioners at his titular church and also meet privately with Leo XIV.
Of that papal audience Zen commented that Leo “was very cordial and spoke with me for half an hour. I spoke much; he listened much. He truly is a leader who knows how to listen!”
Zen’s full prepared intervention for the consistory is now well known, given his critique about the Synod on Synodality. He noted today that “in the meeting very few spoke, and even those who spoke did so very ‘politely.’ Unfortunately, I became the only ‘bad child.’”
The cardinal also mentioned that while “it seemed that some people gave me dirty looks” following his speech, individuals known as “traditional” greeted him warmly and thanked him.
Zen praised the decision to hold consistories annually, expressing the hope also that “the procedures will certainly be improved, so that the Pope may listen extensively to the loyal opinions of his brothers.”
The full report of his time in Rome, along with the text of his consistory speech, is produced below courtesy of Cardinal Zen’s office.
I Am Back
Dear brothers and sisters,
I have been back in Hong Kong from Rome for a week now. You must have been wondering why I still have not spoken to you online about how I spent those two weeks. You have waited patiently; forgive me, forgive me.
The week in Rome was truly wonderful.
Because during my previous two trips abroad my conduct was deemed satisfactory, this time the police did not require a guarantor nor any bail money. They issued my passport to me directly. What a blessing—what a blessing! I left with ease on the evening of the 4th, and arrived safely in Rome at noon on the 5th. Naturally, there I was taken care of by Fr. Carlos Cheung. I stayed at the Salesian Pontifical University, and the Rector’s hospitality was meticulous in every respect.
On the morning of January 6th, the Solemnity of the Epiphany, I went to celebrate Mass at my titular church, the Church of Santa Maria Madre del Redentore, which gave me the feeling that I truly am a parish priest in the Diocese of the Pope. On the morning of the 7th, I celebrated Mass inside St Peter’s Basilica, asking the Lord to bless the meeting of the Cardinals which was to begin that afternoon.
On the morning of the 7th the Pope granted me a private audience. He was very cordial and spoke with me for half an hour. I spoke much; he listened much. He truly is a leader who knows how to listen!
The Consistory began on the afternoon of the 7th. Originally four topics had been set:
(I) Evangelii Gaudium (Pope Francis’ first Apostolic Exhortation)
(II) “Synodality”
(III) The reform of the Roman Curia (see Praedicate Evangelium)
(IV) The Tridentine Mass and the post–Vatican II Mass
At the last minute, due to lack of time, it was decided that everyone should discuss and vote to select only two topics for discussion. In the end, topics (I) and (II) were chosen. [In my view, an entire afternoon was wasted.]
8th
Morning: Concelebration of Mass with the Pope
Discussion on topic (I)
Lunch with the Pope
Afternoon: Discussion on topic (II)
What was supposed to be a two-day gathering became one day. Even more serious: the format of the meeting was like a replica of the recent “Synod.” Everyone sat around round tables to talk; the time for discussion in the plenary assembly was very limited—only two sessions of 45 minutes, and each time only fifteen people had the opportunity to speak.
Furthermore, before the meeting began, that “preacher” from the Synod addressed the Cardinals with a homily. The Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith also distributed a document. The Secretary General of the Synod Secretariat also spoke. Even though topic (IV) was not to be discussed this time, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship still distributed a document. It seemed that some people regarded this Consistory as a continuation of the “Synod on Synodality.”
I tend toward “conspiracy theories,” and I suspect that this meeting was hijacked by Pope Francis’ “henchmen.” They did their best to prevent the Cardinals from expressing their views. Yet is this not the very opposite of the purpose for which Pope Leo convened the Consistory?
After the meeting, quite a few Cardinals also remarked that there were serious problems with the arrangements. However, unlike me, they did not tend toward “conspiracy theories.” Some said that perhaps it was simply because there were too many events at the end of the Jubilee Year, and Pope Leo was therefore unable to personally oversee the preparation of the Consistory.
I had prepared a text to contribute to the discussion on topic (I), but because each speech was limited to three minutes, I could not read it in full and could only present the key points. Afterwards, however, I handed the full text to several Cardinals, and it quickly found its way into the hands of journalists.
The Pope encouraged everyone to speak frankly. I used rather sharp wording to criticize the “Synod” and its so-called measures regarding the “implementation phase.” [See the full text at the end of this post.]
I know that quite a number of Cardinals had, in the past months, expressed views similar to mine. Yet in the meeting very few spoke, and even those who spoke did so very “politely.” Unfortunately, I became the only “bad child.”
After my intervention, it seemed that some people gave me dirty looks. Yet both inside and outside the meeting, many brothers and sisters of the “traditional camp” expressed their appreciation.
I did not pay attention to the Pope’s reaction. But I know and firmly believe that he is a leader who knows how to listen.
So what is my overall impression of this meeting? Deep gratitude.
The Pope’s decision to convene a Consistory is a very welcome “breakthrough.” Immediately afterwards he announced that another Consistory will take place at the end of June; and from then on, one will be held each year, and for a longer duration. The procedures will certainly be improved, so that the Pope may listen extensively to the loyal opinions of his brothers.
May the Lord bless Pope Leo XIV.
After returning to Hong Kong, why have I delayed until today to share all this with you? What have I been busy with?
Aside from resting, I have been busy eating “birthday meals.” Many people, out of love, treated me; and I accepted—half resisting, half consenting.
I had been ill for a year and lost ten kilograms. Gradually I regained seven kilograms, but for some reason my weight has now stopped increasing. The doctor wants me to regain another three kilograms. He said, “Don’t restrict your diet—gain weight first.” Listening to the doctor cannot be too wrong, can it?
Here I express my heartfelt gratitude to all the brothers and sisters who prayed for me. (Thanks be to the Lord for the graces He has given me over these 94 years. May the Lord forgive me for the sins and faults of my life. As for the days He still grants me, I will not refuse them—haha.)
Full Text of Cardinal Joseph Zen’s Prepared Intervention before the Extraordinary Consistory
{Attachment: Pope Francis’ note accompanying the Synod’s “Final Document”}
The Pope stated that he is transmitting to the entire Church the directives contained in the “Final Document,” in order to embody the fruits matured over these years (2021–2024) through “listening” (listening to the People of God?) and “discernment” (discernment by the body of bishops?).
I raise the following questions:
Can the Pope truly listen to the entire People of God?
Do the lay persons in attendance truly represent the People of God?
Do the bishops chosen as representatives by the episcopal conferences truly have the opportunity to carry out discernment (and such discernment should include “discussion” and “judgment”)?
The strict control exercised over the whole process is an insult to the dignity of bishops.
The constant appeals to the Holy Spirit appear all the more absurd, and even verge on blasphemy (they are expecting the Holy Spirit to bring “surprises”; what surprises? Are they expecting the Holy Spirit to deny everything He has revealed through the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition?)
The Pope bypasses the worldwide episcopal college and directly listens to the People of God, claiming this to be “an appropriate interpretative model” for understanding the hierarchical ministry?!
The Pope stated that the document belongs to the Church’s Magisterium and requires local Churches “to make decisions consistent with the directives contained in the Final Document”; but at the same time he stated that the document “does not strictly regulate… and still requires multiple interpretations in order to be implemented.” Local Churches “should implement the authoritative guidelines of the Final Document in different situations.” “The Church must remain consistent in teaching and practice, but this does not prevent us from using various ways to interpret these teachings.” “Each country or region may, according to its own culture, and taking into account its particular traditions and local needs, seek more inculturated solutions.”
I raise the following questions:
Can the Holy Spirit guarantee that different regions will not arrive at contradictory interpretations (especially since the document contains many ambiguous and tendentious formulations)?
The document states that the results of these “experiments and tests” (for example, “initiating new ministries in novel ways”) must be submitted to the Synod Secretariat and the Roman Curia for judgment. Are these bodies more capable than local bishops of discerning the concrete situations of their local Churches?
Will these divergent interpretations and experiments not lead our Church toward the very same divisions (schism) experienced in the Anglican Communion?
On the Prospects for Ecumenism
Given that the Anglican Communion has already undergone a tragic rupture of communion, are we to unite ourselves with the Archbishop of Canterbury (who now represents only about 10% of Anglicans worldwide), or rather stand with the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which maintains communion with roughly 80% of the faithful?
And what about the Orthodox? Their bishops will never accept a “Bergoglian” synodality. For them, synodality means “the importance of synods of bishops.” Pope Francis (Bergoglio) abused the name “Synod,” yet in reality he caused the Synod of Bishops established by Pope Paul VI to disappear.
I just love this guy!