Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-Kiun of Hong Kong has been outspoken in defense of the rights of the roughly 7 million people of the territory that has been under Beijing's control for six years.

As bishop of Hong Kong since September, he has spoken out against proposed anti-subversion laws that, some observers warn, could be used against the Catholic Church. Those laws could be enacted next month.

A member of the Salesian order, Bishop Zen was ordained in 1961. He has taught in seminaries in Hong Kong and, before being named coadjutor bishop there in 1996, in seminaries throughout the People's Republic of China. Those seminaries are under the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, which appoints bishops without regard to Rome.

In a two-part interview, Bishop Zen spoke to Register correspondent Thomas Szyszkiewicz by phone from Hong Kong.

Having taught in seminaries throughout China from 1989 to 1996, you must know the situation of the Church there quite well.

Oh yes; that was a wonderful experience because by living there I could see and hear many things. Actually, I enjoyed much freedom in teaching at the seminaries. … Especially satisfying was to find that even the priests and the seminarians in the so-called official Church — they are just as we are. The government prefers them, but in their hearts, they are all loyal to the Pope.

Is there any kind of rivalry or bitterness from the people in the “underground Church” toward those in the “Patriotic Church,” which was set up in the 1950s?

The situation differs from place to place. For example, in Shanghai there is a strong underground church and there is a strong official church. But we may say that fundamentally, they coexist peacefully. Then there is, for example, the situation in Xi'an, where there is no real underground church, but the official church is led by a very good bishop. He was one of the first to be recognized by Rome. So though he is a member of the official church, now in his heart he is just like the one underground.

Then there is the situation in Wuhan — both the underground bishop and the official bishop … are Franciscans; they both have an agreement; the Holy Father recognizes the official one and they cooperate together.

But that is not [the case] in other places like Shijiazhuang, where there is very strong opposition between the official church and the underground church. But also not completely, because, for example, in the seminary, which is the official church seminary, even Mr. Liu Bai Nian — the one whom we call the “pope” of the official church — sometimes said there is no real official church; they are all underground. He meant that even in the official church, many are of the same sentiments of the underground.

Interesting statement for him to make.

An interesting thing is happening in Shenyang. The bishop has a big cathedral, but he also has a small chapel. He functions in the big cathedral and allows the underground church to use the small chapel.

By now you know the great majority of bishops in the official church have already been recognized by Rome.

Yes, I understand there are about two-thirds or so who have reconciled with the Holy See; at least that's the report in the United States.

That's why the government is very nervous and is trying to exert pressure on these bishops and priests.

What kind of pressure?

You remember the campaign against the canonizations [of the Chinese martyrs, Oct. 1, 2000]? According to me, that was just for this purpose. They did not react strongly to the announcement of the canonizations, but when the date approached, they started a political campaign, and I'm most sure the purpose was to force the official church to declare its loyalty.

As part of the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic, China drew up a mini-constitution for Hong Kong to have a so-called one country, two systems principle. Article 23 of this “Basic Law” deals with security issues like subversion and treason, and you have spoken out against the proposal. At what stage of the process is Article 23?

Article 23 was inserted into the Basic Law after the [1989] Tiananmen Square incident. But then after that incident several years passed before the handover and by that time everybody could see Hong Kong was peaceful, so they didn't have to be worried. So for the first five years nobody talked about that [law]; there was no urgency to make that the law — and because we have the [People's] Liberation Army [in Hong Kong], nobody would dream of a revolution.

But now, after six years, they start proposing a very bad law. It's very comprehensive and vague, so everybody can fall into one of those crimes.

Little by little everybody was made conscious of the dangers of this legislation. And we also have to be very grateful to the barristers for trying to show where the dangers are.

After three months of consultation, there were a lot of people who opposed the legislation, and in December, before the end of the consultation, there was a big rally with 60,000 people [against the legislation], which exceeded every expectation.

Then both the local boys and the international opinion asked for a white-paper draft. That means an exact formulation of the proposed law so people can make more exact comments on it. But the government refused that. Very soon, though, they published a blue paper — that means it's already in the legislative council. Now they are discussing this in the commission before it goes to the full assembly.

The commission happens to be a very big commission because everybody was so concerned about this. Out of 60 legislators, 50 joined the commission, so the blue paper draft is still in the commission.

But they're pushing it. Everybody says the aim is to have the law pass in July, because that's the time before the summer recess.

The way the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region discusses it on its Web site, Article 23's laws against sedition, secession and treason all look pretty normal. The part about foreign entities not being able to establish in Hong Kong is worrisome, though. Is that the one part of the law you are most concerned about?

There are many general points that are threatening because of the very vague way they put the description of those crimes. So even your speech may be classified as treason, sedition. Even to possess a book, for example, with a title How to Succeed in a Revolution — you are already guilty.

The mass media are very much concerned because of the texts about state secrets. In China, everything can be classified as a state secret, so it is very dangerous for the mass media.

But we Catholics — and also the [Buddhist meditation movement] Falun Gong — see danger, especially in this mechanism by which they can proscribe the association in Hong Kong just because it is declared as endangering state security in China.

So this connection is very dangerous. This brings everything from mainland China to Hong Kong and is threatening the “one country, two systems” principle.

We don't feel they are going to use this against the Catholic Church in Hong Kong in the next year, but surely when they pass the law — then we will feel threatened and surely our people will not dare to do the normal things we are doing now; we would have to change, both the official and the underground church.

There seems to be an all-out effort from the government to say to the people of Hong Kong, “Look, this Article 23 isn't as bad as people are saying, so don't worry about it.” Is that having any effect on the debate?

As I said, at the very beginning the people were not very alarmed about all this. I think even now the great majority of people may think surely they will not be targeted by the law because they don't make any protest against the government; they're just quiet citizens.

But there are a lot of people who are angry at this, people from rather vast categories. First of all, the barristers, then several Catholic and Protestant groups, many scholars, mass media, university students, even librarians and the people of the business sector because they are very much concerned about the limitation of information, because business depends on information. It is very difficult to calculate how much of the people are working against it, but a considerable number are.

Do you sense that if the law passed, you would have to go underground?

No, no, no, it's not that serious. But everything's possible. Maybe in five years' time, but not in the near future. But probably they are going to use it against Falun Gong.

Do you consider it part of your pastoral duties to speak out against Article 23?

Oh sure. Actually, when I was appointed, I didn't expect to have such a role. But little by little, it was clear the Catholic Church must take a stand and must speak out. It started so as to have the right of a vote and there are many other things connected to that, like the schooling of the children without [Hong Kong-issued identity] cards, the arson case where people went to immigration and a fire broke out in that office and seven people were condemned very, very harshly; and then the Falun Gong business, and the campaign against the canonization, now this Article 23, and in a few days' time, the schools, the change of the system of the management committee for the schools — and we have so many schools. All those are issues on which we must speak out.

There are people, not only outside the Church but also in the Church, who don't understand that nowadays the Church must be concerned not only about what happens to the Church itself but also about human rights, about freedom, about justice. So I think it should be obvious that this is part of our faith.

In your sermon at your installation, you quoted from St. Gregory's Pastoral Guide and you said, “Honesty does not always please.” At the end, you prayed for the wisdom to know when to speak and when to be silent. Do you think you've gained that wisdom?

I feel that fundamentally, yes. But maybe in some details, the way I say things I could do better, but I think I need to address the subjects on which I talk.

You told Time magazine that Beijing won't let you into mainland China because you said you wouldn't be there as a tourist. What would you like to do if you were able to get to the mainland?

Oh, if I go to the mainland, I would like to visit the seminaries, meet some bishops, some priests, my friends. But surely at this moment they will not allow me to do that.

Because they're afraid of what you might say?

Yes. The Beijing government is used to being more tolerant with people who speak outside China; but inside China, it's much more serious.

Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz writes from Altura, Minnesota.