In recent days, relations between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China have been in the news. This column by Anthony Clark at Catholic World Report is as good a recap as any of recent events. The column describes Cardinal Tong's statement, "the pope will choose from a list of proposed candidates for ordination to bishop by China’s bishops and state authorities, which would finally normalize how bishops are selected and ordained in China."
Clark quotes from the statement,
Fortunately, after working for many years on this issue, the Catholic Church has gradually gained the reconsideration of the Chinese government, which is now willing to reach an understanding with the Holy See on the question of the appointment of bishops in the Catholic Church in China and seek a mutually acceptable plan. . . . The Apostolic See has the right to choose from the recommended list the candidates it considers as most suitable and the right to reject the candidates recommended by a bishops’ conference of China and the bishops in the provinces under it.
Mr. Clark goes on to describe Cardinal Zen's reaction. Zen, the long time opponent to any compromise, wrote a response posted by AsiaNews.it. The title says it all: “My concerns over China-Holy See dialogue and repercussions on Chinese Church”
The end of Mr. Clark's column is a brief summary of Sino-Holy See relations.
The point that stands out is Mr. Clark's comparison to Vietnam, "but it should be recalled that the Vatican’s proposed agreement with China is comparable to agreements made with communist Vietnam quite some time ago. In June of 2010, Pope Benedict XVI established a similar form of diplomatic relations with Vietnam, and the Church there has continued to flourish under a circumstance that Pope Francis is now proposing with China."
Long time readers know where I stand vis-a-vis the ChiComs. They are not to be trusted. Mr. Clark's comparison to Vietnam is on the surface apt due to PRChina and Vietnam being communist, but whether the Church is truly prospering there is debatable.