The National Catholic Register, a portal often echoing the sentiments of the post-conciliar establishment, published a commentary by George Weigel on June 10, 2026, titled “The Strength of Jimmy Lai and the Weakness of Emperor Xi.” The article discusses the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai, a Hong Kong pro-democracy media mogul, and President Trump’s efforts to secure his release. Weigel describes Lai’s solitary confinement, his health struggles, and his deep Catholic faith, evidenced by his religious sketches, particularly of the Crucifixion. He notes Lai’s conviction under the National Security Law as legally and morally invalid, comparing it to Christ’s condemnation by Pontius Pilate. Weigel also highlights an internal conflict within the Chinese communist regime regarding Lai’s fate, with the foreign ministry favoring exile and security hardliners preferring continued imprisonment. He criticizes Xi Jinping’s intransigence, suggesting it reveals the emperor’s weakness. Finally, Weigel urges fellow Catholics to pray for Lai, pressure the US administration, and calls upon Cardinal Stephen Chow of Hong Kong to provide pastoral support, noting Chow’s previous silence on the matter. This commentary, while ostensibly advocating for a persecuted Catholic, reveals a profound theological and ecclesiological void characteristic of the post-conciliar era, failing to anchor its pleas in the immutable social reign of Christ the King and instead relying on secular political mechanisms and a deficient understanding of true martyrdom.
The Illusion of “Democracy” and the Absence of Christ the King
George Weigel’s commentary, while expressing sympathy for Jimmy Lai’s plight, fundamentally operates within a framework that prioritizes secular political solutions over the divine order. His call to “urge the administration to continue to press for Jimmy’s release” and to “urge our representatives and senators to press the Administration to keep pressing the Chinese regime” reveals a reliance on human political machinations rather than a profound trust in God’s providence and the ultimate triumph of His Kingdom. This approach, common in post-conciliar Catholic thought, often substitutes the spiritual weapons of prayer and penance with the temporal tools of lobbying and diplomatic pressure, implicitly denying the full scope of Christ’s dominion.
The very premise of “democracy” as the ultimate good, for which Lai is said to have fought, is a concept that, while not inherently evil in its practical application when ordered towards the common good under God, becomes a dangerous idol when elevated above the divine law. The Church, before the modernist turn, consistently taught that the best form of government is one that explicitly acknowledges the Kingship of Christ and orders society according to His law. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally states: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” Furthermore, he asserts, “The state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men.” The ultimate happiness and peace of any society, including Hong Kong, can only be found in its submission to Christ the King, not merely in the adoption of democratic processes, which, divorced from divine law, can easily devolve into mob rule or, as history has shown, pave the way for totalitarian regimes.
Weigel’s focus on “freedom” as a secular political objective, rather than the freedom to live according to God’s commandments and the teachings of His Church, is a hallmark of the modernist error. The Church has always taught that true freedom is found in obedience to God, not in the absence of all constraint. As Our Lord Himself said, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:31-32). The “bedlam” that Xi Jinping accuses Lai of causing, which Weigel dismisses as “communist talking points,” is, from a Catholic perspective, a just demand for the recognition of fundamental human rights, which are ultimately derived from God, not the state. However, the pursuit of these rights must always be ordered towards the establishment of Christ’s social reign, not merely the perpetuation of a secular, often godless, political order.
The Ecclesiological Vacuum: A “Cardinal” AWOL and the Nature of True Pastoral Care
Perhaps the most damning aspect of Weigel’s commentary is his call for Cardinal Stephen Chow, SJ, to “remember that Catholicism’s premier political prisoner is his diocesan congregant, and that this white martyr deserves every pastoral support the Church in Hong Kong can offer as he faces the possibility of red martyrdom.” This statement, while seemingly supportive of Lai, exposes a profound ecclesiological confusion and a misunderstanding of the true nature of the Church and her ministry.
Firstly, the very title “Cardinal” and “Bishop” within the post-conciliar structure is highly questionable. The legitimacy of the current occupants of these offices, derived from the modernist Council and its subsequent “popes,” is a matter of grave theological debate. The “bishop of Hong Kong,” Stephen Chow, SJ, operates within a structure that has systematically undermined the faith, promoted false ecumenism, and embraced religious liberty – all condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. Pope Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors, explicitly condemned the idea that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). The post-conciliar Church, in its pursuit of “dialogue” and “reconciliation” with the world, has precisely done this, often at the expense of doctrinal clarity and the spiritual welfare of the faithful.
To expect a “cardinal” from this compromised structure to provide authentic pastoral support, especially in a matter involving persecution for the faith, is to misunderstand the current state of the “Church” in Hong Kong and elsewhere. The true Church, the one founded by Christ, endures in those who profess the integral Catholic faith and are led by bishops with valid sacraments and validly ordained priests, even if they are few and often hidden. The “pastoral support” offered by a modernist “cardinal” would likely be a watered-down, ecumenical gesture, devoid of the spiritual fortitude and doctrinal clarity that a true shepherd of souls would provide. It would be a support that, at best, acknowledges Lai’s suffering without pointing him unequivocally to the supernatural means of grace and the ultimate hope of heavenly glory, and at worst, might even subtly undermine his faith by promoting a false sense of unity with his persecutors or a relativistic view of truth.
Furthermore, Weigel’s characterization of Lai as a potential “red martyr” or “white martyr” requires careful theological scrutiny. True martyrdom, as defined by the Church, is the supreme witness to faith, endured for the sake of Christ and His Church. While Lai’s suffering is undeniably unjust and his faith admirable, the cause for which he is imprisoned – “democracy” and “freedom” in a secular sense – is not, in itself, a directly theological cause. His suffering, while potentially meritorious, does not automatically constitute martyrdom in the strict theological sense, which requires death or persecution in odium fidei (out of hatred for the faith). The Church has always been precise in her canonization of martyrs, distinguishing them from those who suffer for political or other causes, even if those causes are just. To conflate the two risks diluting the profound significance of true martyrdom and misdirecting the faithful’s understanding of what it means to witness to Christ.
The Peril of “Religious Freedom” and the Call for True Justice
Weigel’s commentary, by focusing on “freedom” and “democracy” as the ultimate goods, inadvertently aligns itself with the very errors condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. The post-conciliar Church’s embrace of “religious liberty,” as articulated in Dignitatis Humanae, represents a significant departure from the constant teaching of the Church. Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Proposition 15). The Church has always taught that the Catholic Church is the one true religion, and that the state has a duty to recognize and promote this truth, while tolerating other religions only under specific circumstances and for the sake of the common good, not as a matter of inherent right.
The call for Jimmy Lai’s release, while understandable from a humanitarian perspective, must be framed within the context of the Church’s social teaching. True justice demands not merely the absence of political oppression, but the presence of the reign of Christ the King in all aspects of society. The “freedom” that Catholics should seek for Hong Kong, and indeed for all nations, is the freedom to live according to God’s law, to practice the true faith without impediment, and to establish a social order that reflects the divine will. This is the “peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ” that Pope Pius XI spoke of, a peace that can only be achieved when “individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior.”
The silence of “Cardinal” Chow, while lamentable, is consistent with the post-conciliar Church’s general retreat from confronting secular powers on matters of faith and morals, especially when it involves challenging communist regimes. This silence is a symptom of the modernist apostasy, where the Church’s prophetic voice is muted in favor of “dialogue” and “engagement” with the world, often at the expense of her divine mission. The true Church, the one that endures, would never remain silent in the face of such injustice, but would unequivocally condemn the persecution of the faithful and call for the establishment of Christ’s social reign, even if it meant facing persecution herself.
Conclusion: A Call to True Catholic Action
In conclusion, while George Weigel’s commentary expresses a commendable concern for Jimmy Lai’s suffering, it ultimately falls short of a truly Catholic analysis. By relying on secular political solutions, embracing a deficient understanding of “democracy” and “freedom,” and expecting authentic pastoral care from a compromised modernist structure, the commentary exemplifies the theological and ecclesiological bankruptcy of the post-conciliar era. The true strength of Jimmy Lai, and indeed of all Catholics, lies not in the shifting sands of political power or the empty promises of secular humanism, but in the unchanging truth of the Catholic faith and the sure hope of Christ’s ultimate victory.
Catholics are called to pray for Jimmy Lai, yes, but also for the conversion of his persecutors, for the establishment of Christ’s social reign in Hong Kong and China, and for the restoration of the true Church, free from modernist errors. The “weakness of Emperor Xi” is but a symptom of a world that has rejected its true King. The answer to this weakness is not more political maneuvering, but a return to the immutable principles of Catholic social teaching, a reaffirmation of the Kingship of Christ, and an unwavering commitment to the integral Catholic faith, which alone can bring true peace and justice to individuals and nations alike. The “bedlam” that the world perceives as disorder is often the necessary upheaval that precedes the establishment of God’s order, and the true “strength” of the Church lies not in her accommodation to the world, but in her steadfast witness to the truth, even unto death.
Source:
The Strength of Jimmy Lai and the Weakness of Emperor Xi (ncregister.com)
Date: 10.06.2026