Early in January the mainland Chinese government fought another battle in its long campaign to stamp out religious activity outside of its control. In a deliberate snub to the Vatican, the Chinese authorities refused to the Pope's candidates for three empty bishoprics of the government-sanctioned branch of the Catholic Church in China and instead installed its own candidates on the same day the Pope ordained new bishops from all other parts of the world.

The Chinese government backed its decision by claiming that the Pope had no authority to make decisions about religious life in China. This snub, which rightly earned condemnation from the Vatican, is the most recent chapter in a long litany of abuses perpetrated against Chinese citizens who try to form religious organizations outside of the government's tight and watchful scrutiny. Although much has been made lately of the suppression of the Falun Gong movement, Catholic and Protestant churches in China have also been subjected to the repression of the Chinese government while the U.S. has barely murmured in protest.

Although official treatment of the religious in China has greatly improved in the last two decades, it remains profoundly objectionable. The Chinese government has tried to co-opt religion, especially the Christian churches, by creating state-sanctioned churches that obey official dictates and regulations.

While this appears to be a policy of tolerance, it is nothing but a crude attempt to exploit religion and transmute churches into another arm of the state propaganda apparatus. These state churches reek of the government's attempts to mold them into tools to maintain support for their regime. Their names and ideologies drip with the official mix of nationalism and support for the Communist party's authority. The official Catholic church is the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association; the principal theological seminary's mission is to train clergy who are patriotic and support the Communist Party. It is absurd for the Communist Party, whose bylaws say membership is incompatible with religious belief, to choose the new bishops for China's Catholics. That they do so only highlights their blatant manipulation of religion to reinforce their regime.

While the state's Procrustean protection mangles official religion into crude propaganda, the churches not endorsed by the government face persecution by a wide array of bureaucratic and security agencies. Their members are often harassed and bullied if they choose not to join the official churches, and even run the risk of losing jobs and having their children barred from school. The administrators of the underground churches, and especially the Catholic Church which remains loyal to the Vatican, are often jailed or sent to labor camps; a considerable number of Catholic bishops are currently detained, while another died last year under mysterious circumstances.

Despite these many crimes, the U.S. government has hardly uttered a protest. All we have done is issue the occasional Senate resolution bemoaning the problem. The only members of Congress who have spoken out are religious conservatives with links to evangelical religious groups that have been the targets of religious persecution in China. Aside from these few, the Democrats and mainstream Republicans have made a very poor showing. The issue deserves more vigorous attention than this. Not only is this an offense against human dignity, but also an impediment to social and political reform in China.

Politicians and academics are very fond of talking about fostering civil society to help create democracy and better societies; these churches have developed a vigorous and dynamic social network among their members despite the persecution of the government. Unlike political organizations that would surely be quickly and viciously squashed by the state, these churches present no clear threat to the government and could be the start of a much more vigorous civil society in China.

As in so many other things, a glance at Taiwan undercuts many of the Chinese government's arguments. Taiwan has consistently received unqualified praise in State department reports on religious freedom; independent religion has not somehow hurt patriotism or brought the country under the subtle influence of the Vatican, nor has Christianity displaced traditional religion.

Many have been reluctant to aggravate America's relationship with China by confronting the Chinese government. They argue that a confrontational stance would create antagonism that will prevent cooperation between the two countries. But religious freedom is not a core issue for the Chinese government. There is little to be gained by taking a firm and proud moral stance on democracy in China or Tibetan independence because the regime has so much tied up with those issues. But the mistreatment of Christians is not fundamental to the government's identity, nor does it present a clear and worrying danger as democratic reform would.

It is a peripheral issue, and by applying pressure the U.S. can make it clear that there is much to be lost by denying religious freedom, especially considering how little the Chinese government gains through their repression. The recent WTO negotiations would have been an ideal opportunity for the U.S. to make its feelings clear and link them to China's economic interests, instead of merely trying to exact concessions for well-connected economic sectors.

China's recent snub to the Vatican is a timely reminder of the Chinese government's unacceptable record on religious freedom, and it is an issue where the U.S. can actually have an impact. It is time for the U.S. to take a more vocal and vigorous stand to protect the rights and dignity of the religiously observant in China. In Imperial China, the government was at times open to and interested in the ideas of Jesuit missionaries; the U.S. must use its influence to move China's current government towards this tradition of tolerance and away from the cheap excuse of nationalism it now uses to rationalize repression.

Charles C. DeSimone '01 is a Crimson editor living in Dunster House.