EndCCPWorld.com

第54案 | 马达钦Case 54 | Thaddeus Ma Daqin

马达钦（Thaddeus Ma Daqin，1968年生于上海），佘山修院毕业，1994年晋铎，历任上海教区光启社编辑、浦东总铎，2011年被金鲁贤任命为教区副主教。2012年7月7日，他在同时获得教宗本笃十六世与中国政府批准的情况下于徐家汇主教座堂被祝圣为上海辅助主教，却在致谢辞中公开宣布退出中国天主教爱国会，并以拥抱挡下未获教廷承认主教的覆手。当晚他即被带往佘山修院，此后长期被限制在修院内：不得佩戴主教标记、不得共祭、每周上三次政治课。同年12月，官方主教团撤销其主教任命，教廷声明该撤销没有任何法律效力；2014年范忠良去世后，教廷确认他为上海教区主教——一位坐在软禁中的教区主教。2016年其博客出现与四年前表态完全相反的悔改长文，其形成过程是否自由至今受广泛质疑；2017年他被增补回爱国会并与当年拒绝共祭的主教共祭。2018年中梵协议签署后，他的处境无任何可核实的变化；2023年沈斌被单方面调任上海、教廷事后追认，他在事实上被取代。截至2026年10月，他仍被记述为限制居住在佘山修院，无获释或复职的公开记录。Thaddeus Ma Daqin (born in Shanghai in 1968), a graduate of Sheshan Seminary, was ordained a priest in 1994 and served as an editor of the diocese's Guangqi Press and dean of Pudong before Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian appointed him vicar general in 2011. On 7 July 2012 he was consecrated auxiliary bishop of Shanghai at St Ignatius Cathedral with the approval of both Pope Benedict XVI and the Chinese government — and at that Mass publicly announced his resignation from the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, blocking by an embrace the laying on of hands by a bishop the Holy See did not recognise. That evening he was taken to Sheshan Seminary, where he has been confined ever since: forbidden episcopal insignia, barred from concelebrating, and required to attend political study lessons three times a week. In December 2012 the official Bishops' Conference revoked his appointment; the Holy See declared the revocation devoid of juridical value, and on the death of Bishop Fan Zhongliang in 2014 recognised Ma, still in confinement, as Bishop of Shanghai. A blog post in June 2016 reversing his 2012 stand remains widely doubted as a free act; in 2017 he was co-opted back into the Patriotic Association and concelebrated with the very bishop he had once refused. The 2018 Vatican-China agreement brought no verifiable change in his situation, and in 2023 Joseph Shen Bin was unilaterally transferred to Shanghai and recognised by the Holy See after the fact, replacing him in practice. As of October 2026 he is still recorded as living under restriction at Sheshan, with no public record of release or restoration.

Time span

Born in Shanghai in 1968; ordained a priest on 18 December 1994; consecrated auxiliary bishop of Shanghai at St Ignatius Cathedral, Xujiahui, on 7 July 2012, where at his own ordination Mass he publicly announced that he would resign from the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, and was taken away that same evening to Sheshan Seminary, where he has been confined ever since and prevented from exercising his episcopal ministry; stripped of his bishop's title by the official Bishops' Conference and the Patriotic Association in December 2012, a removal the Holy See has never recognised; recognised by the Holy See as Bishop of Shanghai after the death of Bishop Joseph Fan Zhongliang on 16 March 2014; effectively sidelined after Bishop Joseph Shen Bin was unilaterally transferred to Shanghai in 2023; still described by multiple 2025 sources as restricted at Sheshan Seminary, with no public record of release or restoration to public ministry as of October 2026

Place

Shanghai: St Ignatius Cathedral, Xujiahui (place of consecration); Sheshan Seminary and the Sheshan Marian shrine on the city's outskirts (place of long-term restricted residence); his earlier postings in the Pudong deanery and at Our Lady of Lourdes parish, Tangmuqiao

Figures

Thaddeus Ma Daqin (born 1968), Bishop of Shanghai; Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian (1916–2013), coadjutor bishop of Shanghai who consecrated him on 7 July 2012 and died on 27 April 2013; Bishop Joseph Fan Zhongliang, the underground-side Bishop of Shanghai, who died on 16 March 2014; Bishop Joseph Shen Bin, formerly of Haimen, unilaterally transferred to Shanghai in April 2023 and recognised by the Holy See after the fact on 15 July 2023; Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun and Cardinal John Tong Hon of Hong Kong, the first senior churchmen to speak out publicly for him; Cardinal Fernando Filoni and Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai, who stated the Holy See's position publicly

Charge and sentence

No criminal charge, no indictment, no trial, no judgment. He has never been convicted by any court. Everything done to him ran through administrative and internal organisational channels: on 11 July 2012 the Patriotic Association and the Bishops' Conference announced an investigation into his ordination; in December 2012 the official Bishops' Conference revoked his appointment as coadjutor bishop for allegedly violating its rules on the election and ordination of bishops, the Shanghai diocese suspended his priestly ministry for two years, removed him as dean of Pudong and as parish priest at Tangmuqiao, and barred him from public appearances for two years. A man has been kept in a seminary for well over a decade not on the strength of a judgment but on a set of internal decisions that never had to be shown to any court — that fact belongs at the head of this file

Characterisation

Religious persecution in the form of open-ended confinement without trial: a bishop approved by both the Holy See and Beijing was stripped of office and deprived of his liberty for more than a decade for two acts at his own ordination — publicly resigning from the state-sponsored Patriotic Association and refusing to share the chalice with a bishop not recognised by Rome. The instrument was not a prison but a seminary; not a sentence but an indefinite "retreat" and course of "study." The milder the form, the clearer the substance: what was punished was not a crime but a bishop's publicly stated choice of allegiance

Current status

As of this page's check in October 2026, multiple 2025 sources still describe him as living under restriction at Sheshan Seminary, unable since 2012 to exercise the ministry of Bishop of Shanghai. After Shen Bin took over the see in 2023, Ma's place in the Holy See's listings passed to his successor, with no public improvement in his own situation. Whether he may receive visitors, what state his health is in, and when his restrictions might end are all matters of no public record; there has been no official notice of release, no record of restoration to office, and no public statement in his own voice about his present condition

Remember the man before the case — and how his case differs from disappearance

Ma Daqin's case is not Bishop Su Zhimin's case, and the difference should be stated at the outset. Su Zhimin was taken away and vanished; for twenty-nine years no one has known where he is. Ma Daqin did not vanish. The whole world knows where he is: in Sheshan Seminary, on the outskirts of Shanghai, where he has been for more than thirteen years. He has even been able to keep a blog, and to appear on approved occasions. What makes his case hard to look at is precisely that visibility. A man who was never charged and never tried sits less than an hour's drive from Xujiahui, in full view, in a situation everyone can see and no one has been able to change. He became a bishop at forty-four; that same evening he was taken away; and in all the years since, he has never celebrated a single Mass as bishop of his own diocese.

What he actually did should also be stated plainly, because it is remarkably small. He organised nothing, published no anti-government statement and handled no secrets. He did two things, both at his own consecration Mass. First, he rose and embraced the bishop who was not recognised by the Holy See, so that the man could not lay hands on his head, and he declined to share the Communion chalice with him. Second, in his speech of thanks he said that from the day of his consecration he would devote himself to pastoral work and evangelisation, and that it would no longer be convenient for him to hold his posts in the Patriotic Association. That was all. The congregation of more than a thousand broke into prolonged applause, and many wept. That evening he was taken from Xujiahui; the next morning he did not appear at the first Mass he was scheduled to celebrate as a bishop. The people who had applauded went home. He never came back.

Shanghai and Jin Luxian: the shoulders he stood on

To understand Ma Daqin, first understand the Diocese of Shanghai. It is one of the oldest and deepest-rooted Catholic dioceses in China; Xujiahui was the centre of the Jiangnan mission, and the Sheshan basilica is among the most important Marian pilgrimage sites in the country. On the night of 8 September 1955, Bishop Ignatius Kung Pin-mei of Shanghai was arrested along with several hundred priests and lay Catholics, and the Shanghai church was split in two — one half driven underground, the other half folded into the official system. That split had still not healed by 2012. The cathedral where Ma was consecrated stands at the centre of that old storm; the Sheshan where he would be confined is both the Marian shrine and the seminary. Shanghai's history had, in a sense, built the set for his personal story long before he was born.

Then there is Aloysius Jin Luxian. Born in Shanghai in 1916, a Jesuit, arrested in the same 1955 case as Kung Pin-mei, he spent twenty-seven years in prison and labour reform before his release in 1982; he rebuilt Sheshan Seminary, accepted episcopal consecration in 1985 without papal approval, and was recognised by the Holy See only in 2005 as coadjutor bishop of Shanghai. All his life he walked the narrow line of preserving space for the Church inside the official system — a course many criticised — but by 2012 the ninety-six-year-old was, beyond dispute, the central figure of Shanghai's open church. Fan Zhongliang represented the other line: the underground-side Bishop of Shanghai, kept under surveillance in his old age. The Shanghai of 2012 thus had two elderly bishops on two different registers, and one man both sides regarded as the successor: the priest Jin himself had appointed vicar general in December 2011, Ma Daqin. After two old men, who would take Shanghai? In the summer of 2012 the question received its answer. The answer's name was Ma Daqin, and the answer remained valid for exactly one day.

From Sheshan Seminary to vicar general: a man both sides had accepted

Ma Daqin was born in Shanghai in 1968 into a Catholic family. In his speech of thanks at his consecration he thanked his parents and the elders of his family by name of their role, saying they had raised him in the tradition of the Church — that detail rests on his own public words, not on later embroidery. He completed his formation at Sheshan Seminary. One connection deserves recording: Joseph Zen taught at Sheshan and other mainland seminaries between 1989 and 1996, and Ma belonged to the generation of students there in those years — a teacher-student link noted in UCA News reporting in 2012, and the plainest explanation of why, within days of the July 2012 events, the retired Hong Kong cardinal was standing outside Beijing's Liaison Office praying for him by name. That was not distant sympathy; it was a teacher standing up for a student.

He was ordained a priest on 18 December 1994. His record after that is a step-by-step rise entirely inside the open church: he served as an editor at the Shanghai diocese's Guangqi Press — one of China's two main Catholic publishing houses, the diocese's house for books and translations, a posting given to a priest whose learning and preaching the diocese valued; he headed the Pudong deanery; before his consecration he was parish priest of Our Lady of Lourdes at Tangmuqiao. In December 2011 Jin Luxian appointed him vicar general of the diocese, the clearest possible step in a line of succession. His official-system posts were equally complete: vice-chairman of the Shanghai Catholic Patriotic Association and a standing-committee member of the national Patriotic Association. Read that record from top to bottom and you will find no trace of a dissident: this was a man formed by the system, promoted by the system, and nodded through by both sides. Which is why what happened on 7 July 2012 caught everyone off guard — including the two sides that had just approved him as a bishop.

One circulating claim must be corrected here, under this page's verification rules. Some materials describe him as a former vice-rector of Sheshan Seminary. In the checkable sources consulted — UCA News, AsiaNews, Reuters and diocesan directory material — no record of that post was found. What can be verified is: Sheshan Seminary graduate, Guangqi Press editor, Pudong dean, diocesan vicar general. The vice-rector claim is recorded as unverified and is not used in this page. An archive earns its keep by deleting attractive titles it cannot source, and this one is deleted in front of the reader.

The rare dual approval: both sides had signed

The bishops-appointment dispute turns on a single question: both the Holy See and Beijing claim the right to decide who becomes a bishop, and for decades most consecrations carried one side's approval only — bishops secretly appointed by Rome whom Beijing refused to recognise, or bishops elected and ordained by the official church whom Rome refused to recognise, sometimes under automatic excommunication. Ma Daqin was one of the rare exceptions. In May 2012 the Shanghai diocese put him forward as its candidate for auxiliary bishop, and his appointment carried the approval of both Pope Benedict XVI and the Chinese government. UCA News, Reuters, the Associated Press and the Holy See's own statement of 10 July 2012 agree on this point: it was a consecration approved by both sides, and the Holy See called it encouraging and to be welcomed. The contrast inside the same week is instructive. On 6 July, the day before, Harbin had staged the ordination of Joseph Yue Fusheng without papal approval, and the Holy See declared that he had incurred automatic excommunication. In a single week Rome excommunicated one new bishop and welcomed another — and Ma was supposed to be on the welcomed side, held up as a rare moment of alignment between the two capitals. Both sides believed they had approved the same man. They later discovered they had approved two entirely different ideas of what a bishop is.

One detail, easily missed, belongs here. The Holy See's term for his office was auxiliary bishop; the official side's term was coadjutor bishop, and in canon law the two carry different weight. From the very first day, the same consecration was being read from two different ledgers in Rome and in Beijing. Nobody paid the discrepancy much attention at the time. In December 2012 the official side revoked the office recorded in its own ledger, while the Holy See went on speaking strictly from its own. To understand a stalemate that has now lasted well over a decade, start with that ledger that forked on day one.

7 July 2012: the few minutes inside St Ignatius Cathedral

On the morning of 7 July 2012, in St Ignatius Cathedral at Xujiahui, in thirty-four-degree heat, the consecration was celebrated by Jin Luxian, with Bishop Joseph Xu Honggen of Suzhou and Bishop Joseph Shen Bin of Haimen as co-consecrators. Remember Shen Bin's name: he was one of the bishops who laid hands on Ma that morning; eleven years later he would return to Shanghai by another route and take the very seat that was Ma's. Also present were Joseph Cai Bingrui of Xiamen, John Baptist Li Suguang of Nanchang, and Vincent Zhan Silu of Mindong. Zhan had been ordained without papal approval and was not recognised by the Holy See; the authorities had insisted on including him among those laying on hands, and many Shanghai priests, nuns and faithful had refused on that account to attend or concelebrate, remaining outside the cathedral. When, after Jin and the two co-consecrators had laid hands on him, Zhan's turn came, Ma rose from his knees and embraced him — and the other attending bishops with him — so that the laying on of hands was, in effect, stopped by an embrace. He also did not share the Communion chalice with Zhan. Everyone present understood the gesture: he accepted this consecration, jointly arranged by Rome and the official church, but he would not let a bishop Rome did not recognise enter it by the laying on of hands.

Then came the speech of thanks. He thanked God; he thanked the ninety-six-year-old Jin for consecrating him in the heat; he thanked the priests and faithful present and those who could not be inside. At the end, invoking St Ignatius, he said that in this moment and this place one must choose the way that gives God the greater glory; that in the light of the teaching of the Church, having become a bishop, he must devote his heart and mind wholly to pastoral ministry and evangelisation; that certain posts were no longer convenient for him to hold; and that therefore, from that day of consecration, he would no longer be convenient as a member of the Patriotic Association. The operative word, in the usual English rendering, is "inconvenient" — language so restrained it is almost polite. He condemned no one and raised no slogan; he simply said it was no longer convenient. But everyone in the cathedral understood: for the first time, a bishop of the open church, at his own consecration, before government officials, had publicly announced his resignation from the Patriotic Association. The congregation of between one thousand and twelve hundred rose in prolonged, thunderous applause, and many were in tears. The official reaction was recorded by those present too: officials walked out of the cathedral with grim faces, and the three tables reserved for government guests at the banquet after the ceremony stood empty.

Why that day was the turning point lies not in the weight of his words but in the setting and the precedent. A bishop's public statement at his own consecration is witnessed, recorded and impossible to take back. And the precedent was the thing the authorities feared most: if a bishop approved by both sides could cut himself off from the Patriotic Association on his consecration day, other bishops and other dioceses might follow. Church sources cited by UCA News said the authorities privately ranked the incident among the most serious in the Chinese church in the thirty years since religious activity had been permitted again. One sentence built around the word "inconvenient" drew a classification of that order. The reader of this archive can weigh the matter directly: what was punished — the content of the sentence, or the fact that more than a thousand people applauded it?

Taken away that evening: a text message, and an empty celebrant's chair the next day

On the evening of 7 July, Ma Daqin was taken from Xujiahui by a group of unidentified persons; where he had been taken was at first unknown. The next day, Sunday 8 July, he did not appear at the first Mass he was to have celebrated as a bishop; the celebrant's place was taken by Father Joseph Gu Zhangjun, visibly distressed, before several hundred saddened faithful. That evening the priests and nuns of the Shanghai diocese received a text message in Bishop Ma's name saying that after the ordination he felt mentally and physically exhausted, needed a break, and, with Bishop Jin's consent, was making a retreat beside Our Lady of Sheshan. The authenticity of that message was doubted from the first day: an officer of the Hong Kong diocese's Justice and Peace Commission pointed out at the time that it made no sense for a new bishop to abandon his scheduled first Mass and rush off on retreat overnight, and a notice later posted on the Shanghai diocesan website referred to him by name without his episcopal title, which observers read as a product written under pressure. This page's treatment of the message is set out in the verification note: it was issued in his name, whether it expressed his free will cannot be verified, and it is recorded only as the source text of the official "retreat" account.

The days that followed moved link by link. On 9 July, UCA News and AsiaNews established that he was being held at Sheshan Seminary, described as resting, in fact barred from any exercise of his episcopal office. On 10 July the Holy See issued its statement: excommunicating Harbin's illicitly ordained bishop on the one hand, and on the other calling the Shanghai consecration encouraging — Rome evidently had not yet grasped, or would not publicly admit, that the bishop it was praising was no longer a free man. On 11 July the Patriotic Association and the Bishops' Conference announced that the 7 July ordination was suspected of seriously violating the conference's regulations on the election and ordination of bishops, that an investigation was under way, and that the five bishops who had taken part were being summoned to Beijing to give an account; the same day, Cardinal Zen joined Hong Kong Catholics in prayer for Bishop Ma outside the Liaison Office, and Cardinal Tong soon added his public appreciation of Ma's courage and his insistence that resolving this dramatic case was an urgent necessity for China-Vatican dialogue. Later in July, United Front and religious-affairs officials met with the two national bodies to deliberate on the case. On 22 August, Sheshan Seminary — one of the largest seminaries in China — told its students that classes were suspended indefinitely, and the seminarians were sent home. From that point the punishment no longer fell on one man alone: an entire seminary was shut down alongside him, for a reason everyone understood and no one wrote down.

What kind of confinement is Sheshan?

Sheshan Seminary is not a prison. The BBC's on-the-ground report of December 2013 said so frankly: the place stands on a quiet, leafy lane on the outskirts of Shanghai, with no barbed wire and no rows of guards, only a single, rather friendly watchman at the gate. To call it a prison, on appearances, would be an exaggeration. But the same body of reporting assembled a very different daily reality: he could move within the seminary grounds; leaving required permission; he was not permitted to travel beyond the Shanghai area; he was required to attend political study sessions three times a week — in the BBC's phrase, communist indoctrination by any other name; in the first weeks after the consecration he was questioned and talked to for weeks on end with the aim of making him retract what he had said on 7 July, and he held out, which is why the December revocation followed. According to AsiaNews and UCA News reporting, he was forbidden to wear any of the insignia of a bishop — zucchetto, ring or pectoral cross; and by around 4 December 2012 he had also been barred from concelebrating Mass with the seminary's priests. His contact with the outside world was compressed into one narrow channel: a blog and a microblog carrying, in the main, reflections on the daily Gospel, passages of scripture and seasonal greetings. Reuters' special report of 31 March 2014 noted that those posts shed little light on his situation — with one exception, recorded below.

The design of this form of disposal lies precisely in its not looking like disposal. A prison produces a sentence, and a sentence has an end date; it produces a charge, and a charge can be argued with, item by item. Confinement in a seminary as a "retreat" produces none of these: no term, hence no release day; no charge, hence nothing to appeal against; no barbed wire, hence every outside condemnation can be met with the answer that he is resting. That the Sheshan hill carries the Marian shrine — a place of pilgrimage for the faithful — adds a calculated symbolism: a bishop displayed in silence at the feet of Our Lady of Sheshan, preserved in place as a lesson to other bishops. The suspended classes, the seminarians sent home, and the later reports of sisters and clergy who had assisted him being punished, add up to a single sentence that nobody needed to pronounce: the man who stands up will not pay alone; the people around him will pay with him. The empty classrooms of Sheshan Seminary were the original text of that sentence.

Reliable detail about his daily life thins out sharply after the end of 2013, and that thinning is itself part of the record. Between 2012 and 2014, UCA News, AsiaNews, Reuters and the BBC still followed the case continuously; thereafter the reporting grew sparser year by year, and its subject shifted from his conditions to his symbolism. The longer a man is restricted, the less news he generates, because his life has been arranged to contain no news: no new events, no new documents, no new photographs. The last relatively concrete account of his everyday existence that this page can verify remains the one channel of his blog, the minimum of written contact with his flock. His health, his state of mind and his daily routine after 2014 are, in the main, matters of no public record. The archive has to be honest about this: we know he is at Sheshan; we do not know how his days there are spent; and the blank between those two sentences is exactly the effect this form of disposal is designed to achieve.

December 2012: revoked by a body the Holy See does not recognise

Around 10 December 2012, the Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church in China announced the revocation of Ma Daqin's appointment as coadjutor bishop of Shanghai, on the ground that his ordination had violated the conference's regulations on the election and ordination of bishops. The Shanghai diocese at the same time suspended his priestly ministry for two years, removed him as dean of Pudong and as parish priest of Our Lady of Lourdes, Tangmuqiao, and barred him from public appearances for two years. The conference further decreed that at all future episcopal ordinations a pledge of loyalty would be required — to whom, the source material does not say, and this page records the blank as it stands. The bodies that did all this — the Bishops' Conference and the Patriotic Association — are ones the Holy See has never recognised as competent to appoint or discipline bishops. On about 13 December, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai, secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, issued a statement of unusual firmness: even a legitimately established and Vatican-recognised bishops' conference has no power to name or approve a bishop, to revoke his mandate or to impose sanctions on him, and an unrecognised body has even less; the revocation therefore lacked any juridical value, and the only thing it created was division. Hon affirmed Ma's fidelity to the Church and called on Catholics worldwide to pray for him. In the same days, Cardinal Fernando Filoni, prefect of the same congregation, wrote in the Hong Kong diocese's Tripod quarterly that some bishops and priests were being segregated and deprived of their liberty, as had recently happened in the case of the Bishop of Shanghai, Ma Daqin; the Holy See's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said the Vatican was deeply concerned and the situation serious.

From December 2012, therefore, the case displays its central legal picture. In Beijing's ledger he had been revoked and was an ordinary priest under a two-year suspension. In Rome's ledger he remained auxiliary bishop of Shanghai, and the revocation was worthless paper. Neither ledger could cancel the other, and the man himself sat at Sheshan, where neither ledger changed the place he woke up each morning. That is also why the "charge and sentence" field at the head of this page reads "none": not because material is missing, but because this case never contained a judicial proceeding at any point. He was revoked by a church body, restricted by administrative power, and tried by no court that ever sat. A man of forty-four traded one sentence containing the word "inconvenient" for more than a decade of restriction without a term — and the entire paper trail of his punishment does not include a single sheet issued by a court.

Jin dies, Fan dies: a bishop of Shanghai in confinement

On 27 April 2013, Aloysius Jin Luxian died in Shanghai at the age of ninety-six. The old man who had laid hands on Ma Daqin, and whom Ma had thanked as his mentor in the speech of thanks, died while his chosen successor sat confined in a seminary, without even the standing to mourn him in public. Jin had spent his life walking the wire between the official system and Rome; the succession he had arranged was overturned by a revocation within a year of his death. The Diocese of Shanghai passed into the care of a five-priest caretaker administration: one of China's largest and most significant dioceses, run without a bishop, while the man who was its bishop in both canon law and the Holy See's eyes sat on Sheshan hill.

On 16 March 2014 the underground-side Bishop of Shanghai, Joseph Fan Zhongliang, died. The Holy See thereupon recognised Ma Daqin as Bishop of the Diocese of Shanghai. Which is to say: from March 2014, in Rome's ledger, the man restricted at Sheshan Seminary was the lawful Bishop of Shanghai himself. Reuters' special report of 31 March 2014 recorded the only channel of contact he still had in those days: still living at Sheshan, posting regularly on his blog, mostly scripture and greetings. The report noted one post in particular: after the death of Nelson Mandela, he quoted Mandela's words that freedom is indivisible — that the chains on any one of his people were the chains on all of them, and the chains on all his people were the chains on him. Whether he chose the quotation as a message about himself cannot be proved, and this page records only the fact: a confined bishop, marking the death of a man who had spent twenty-seven years in prison, chose that sentence to send to his flock. At Fan Zhongliang's funeral he again could not appear; according to UCA News, he sent a written inscription of mourning — a bishop's way of farewelling his own diocese's predecessor was to write a few words inside the seminary that held him, and have them carried out by someone else.

The impact on his family: an almost empty public record, and the emptiness itself is recorded

On the family side, the public material in this case is strikingly thin. We know only this: he came from a Catholic family; his parents and elders raised him and handed the faith on to him; and at his consecration he thanked them in front of more than a thousand people — in what turned out to be his last public speech, on 7 July 2012. He was taken away that evening. What his family went through afterwards, the public sources contain almost nothing about: no interview with a family member, no open letter from the family, no reporting of any visiting arrangement, no record of the family appealing to the outside world. In contrast to the Su Zhimin case, where a nephew campaigned publicly for years, Ma Daqin's family has never appeared in any media report consulted for this page. This item is therefore recorded as no public record, and this page invents no detail for this family.

No public record does not mean no impact; it means the impact was not permitted to leave a record. What can be established at the level of the system is only this: he was restricted to Sheshan; whether family visits were permitted, and how often, is a matter of no public record; his means of support during his revocation and suspension, no public record; whether his family faced questioning, pressure or repercussions because of his case, no public record. A local Shanghai Catholic family watched its son become a bishop at forty-four to the applause of the whole city's church, saw him taken away the same night, and for more than thirteen years has known of him mainly from outside the seminary wall. Which parts of that picture are documented and which are inference, this page keeps strictly separate: the first half is on the record; the second half is silence. Under this form of disposal, a family's silence is usually not an absence of things to say but a price for saying them that no one can afford. What an archive can do for this family is register the silence as it is — neither decorated nor consumed.

International and Vatican response: quick praise, few levers

Within 2012, the Holy See's reaction was not slow. Its statement of 10 July praised the consecration and affirmed the appointment; in December, Cardinal Filoni publicly criticised the segregation and detention of bishops, and Archbishop Hon declared the revocation void, while Father Lombardi called the situation serious. Hong Kong's church reacted most concretely and most durably: Cardinal Zen twice within a week joined prayer gatherings for Bishop Ma outside the Liaison Office, and Cardinal Tong publicly expressed his appreciation of Ma's courage and said that China-Vatican dialogue must, as a matter of urgency, resolve this dramatic case. In Britain, Aid to the Church in Need condemned the revocation and the house arrest as undue interference, and Lord Alton raised the case publicly over the years, saying the world should not lose sight of it. ChinaAid and other organisations called for his immediate release. Set beside the twenty-nine years of unanswered questions in the Su Zhimin case, the international record here has its own pattern: the density of voices was concentrated in 2012 and 2013, and as his situation hardened into routine, outside attention receded year by year, until by the signing of the 2018 agreement his individual case was seldom itemised in public reporting at all. Whether, when and in what form the Holy See raised his case in its contacts with Beijing is a matter of no public record; its one public statement in the 2016 blog affair was confined to denying any involvement of its own, as set out below.

The gap between response and result is recorded here because recording the gap is an archive's job. Praise, prayers, statements and condemnations — all four existed. A visit, a release, a restoration to office — none of the three did. The year after his revocation, the Holy See recognised him as Bishop of Shanghai, the highest paper support Rome could give, and it did not buy him one additional public appearance. It is not that no one spoke for him; it is that every voice raised for him stopped at a seminary gate manned by a single watchman. In this case, as in Su Zhimin's, the international response ends up performing one function above all: the record itself — keeping a man under indefinite "rest" present in the archive under the title of bishop, rather than under the name the revocation had intended for him.

The blog post of 12 June 2016: why the "repentance" cannot be taken at face value

On 12 June 2016, a long text appeared on Ma Daqin's blog. In it, he expressed regret for his past errors of word and deed against the Patriotic Association, said he had been misled by outside elements, reaffirmed the Association's role, and held up the example of Bishop Jin as his guide. The text stood at exactly one hundred and eighty degrees from the public statement of 7 July 2012, and it appeared after he had spent four full years under confinement. The reaction inside and outside the Chinese church, as AsiaNews recorded it, was incredulity, distress and anger: a man isolated for four years, subjected — on the reporting — to repeated pressure and interrogation sessions and political lessons, was widely doubted to have retained the free will the text presupposed. Father Gianni Criveller of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, a leading scholar of the Chinese church, put it most sharply: to ask whether Bishop Ma had written the article himself was, he said, the wrong question, because a person kept under house arrest, under pressure and multiple interrogations and political lessons, cannot be considered free even when he writes with his own hand.

Cardinal Zen's criticism was aimed at the Holy See: he demanded that the Vatican defend the Church's reputation and Bishop Ma's, dispel the confusion, and said plainly that silence at such a moment was irresponsible. There was even speculation in church circles that someone on the Vatican side might have advised the bishop to confess in order to please Beijing. On 23 June 2016 the Holy See issued a short statement denying any involvement in the matter and saying it had no information beyond what had appeared in the media. That denial closed off one direction of speculation; it did not answer the question in the other direction — under what conditions the text had been produced. This page's characterisation, recorded here and in the verification note, is this: the text did appear on his blog; its content flatly contradicts the statement that drew a cathedral's applause four years earlier; it was published while he was under indefinite confinement; and the degree of freedom in its production cannot be verified. In the archive it is preserved as a text that surfaced under confinement — not as a free statement of a change of position. Anyone citing this page on the episode should carry this characterisation with the citation.

2017: walked back, step by arranged step, into the Patriotic Association

After the blog affair, his public trajectory produced a sequence of moves all pointing the same way. On 20 January 2017, at a meeting of the Shanghai Catholic Patriotic Association and the diocesan Catholic Administrative Commission, he was added — co-opted — as a member and standing-committee member of the Shanghai Patriotic Association: the very body he had publicly resigned from at his consecration five years earlier wrote him back onto its roster with a single procedural word. At Easter 2017 he travelled to the Diocese of Mindong and concelebrated the Easter Mass with Vincent Zhan Silu — the same bishop not recognised by the Holy See whose laying on of hands he had blocked with an embrace in 2012, and with whom he had refused to share the chalice. Read together, the signal is unmistakable: the two lines he had publicly cut in 2012 were reconnected one by one in 2017, and neither the occasions, the timing nor the counterparts look like things he was free to choose. One item in the brief for this page must be corrected openly: a claim that he made his first public appearance at a conference in June 2017. Searches of UCA News, AsiaNews and agency archives found no report matching that date and occasion. The verifiable nodes are the January 2017 co-option and the Easter 2017 concelebration; there is also a relayed reference to a rare public appearance in October 2013 whose details can no longer be traced. The "June 2017 conference" version is recorded as unverified and is not used in this page.

How the steps of 2016 and 2017 should be read remains disputed inside the Church, and there is still no consensus. One view holds that after years of confinement he compromised in exchange for pastoral space. Another holds that no statement made by a man deprived of liberty for years can be weighed as a free statement at all. A third, Father Criveller's, holds that even asking about voluntariness is the wrong question. This page does not adjudicate his inner state; it records the external facts that can be checked: every one of those steps took place while his deprivation of liberty had not been lifted, and the official system, in publicising them, never once announced that his restrictions had ended. Regret could be published, a co-option could proceed, a concelebration could be held — only freedom could not be restored. That contrast is itself the most reliable commentary on the sequence.

After the 2018 agreement: nobody at the table mentioned Sheshan

On 22 September 2018 the Holy See and China signed their provisional agreement on the appointment of bishops; it was renewed in 2020 and again in 2022, and in 2024 for a further four years, and its full text has never been published. By the day of the signing he had been confined at Sheshan for six years. The agreement existed to address exactly the structural question his case embodies: a bishop approved by both sides, confined for years over a single sentence. In the years after the signing, the public record contains no news of his release, his restoration, or any easing of his restrictions. Surveys of the situation of bishops after the agreement, in US government and human-rights reporting around 2022, still listed him among those detained at a seminary since 2012; analysts at the Hudson Institute and elsewhere placed him alongside Su Zhimin and other long-held bishops in counts of at least ten Vatican-approved bishops in indefinite detention, disappeared, or driven from their posts after the agreement. This page takes no position on those assessments beyond the part that concerns him, and that part is: between 2018 and 2022 there was no verifiable change in his restricted status.

The real change came in someone else's appointment. On 4 April 2023, Joseph Shen Bin, until then Bishop of Haimen, was installed in Shanghai as Bishop of Shanghai. The transfer had been made by the official Bishops' Conference — the body Shen Bin himself chairs, so that the instrument of his appointment issued from an institution under his own presidency — and the Holy See's spokesman, Matteo Bruni, said that day that the Holy See had been informed of the decision only a few days earlier and had learned of the installation from the media. In other words, the see of Shanghai, while Ma Daqin was still alive and had never been removed by the Holy See, was handed unilaterally to a third man, and Ma had no channel through which to say a public word about it from Sheshan. On 15 July 2023 Pope Francis recognised Shen Bin after the fact as Bishop of Shanghai, transferring him from Haimen; Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin explained that the Pope had acted for the greater good of the diocese to heal the canonical irregularity the unilateral transfer had created, while stating plainly that such a transfer, made without the Holy See's involvement, violated the spirit of dialogue and collaboration in the 2018 agreement, and that all episcopal appointments and transfers should be made by consensus as agreed. The announcement of the recognition did not mention Ma Daqin. Eleven years earlier Shen Bin had stood in the cathedral and laid hands on Ma; eleven years later Shen Bin took Ma's seat by a procedure of act first, paperwork after — and Rome, in the end, signed. In the Holy See's listings Ma thereafter figures as a predecessor, an emeritus existence, while throughout the entire process the man confined at Sheshan uttered not one public word — not because he chose silence, but because silence was the only condition he was permitted.

The coda is still running. On 15 October 2025 a new auxiliary bishop of Shanghai, Ignatius Wu Jianlin, was consecrated by Shen Bin, and several reports, in sketching the diocese's present state, added the same single sentence: the diocese's other auxiliary, Thaddeus Ma Daqin, remains confined in the Sheshan seminary, where he has been since he announced his departure from the Patriotic Association in 2012. One sentence, thirteen years. The way that sentence now appears is itself diagnostic: in the news of 2025 he has been demoted to background — not the story, but a footnote to the story.

Current status and the questions still unanswered

As of this page's check in October 2026, the confirmable status is this: he has been restricted at Sheshan Seminary since 7 July 2012 and has been unable for well over a decade to exercise the office of Bishop of Shanghai; in Rome's ledger he was Bishop of Shanghai from 2014 until Shen Bin's recognised appointment in 2023 replaced him in fact; and a voice from the Shanghai church writing in early 2025 said that two years after Shen Bin's arrival his restrictions had not loosened at all, while the faithful still hoped for a turn. That account noted that Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, head of the Holy See's negotiating team, had visited Shanghai in the autumn of 2024, and that a Hong Kong diocesan delegation led by Cardinal Stephen Chow had visited in February 2025 and celebrated Mass at the Sheshan basilica; both low-profile visits raised hopes among Shanghai Catholics that his situation might improve, and in both cases nothing followed. The unanswered questions include: whether any written decision with a term governs his restriction, no public record; his present health and daily circumstances after 2014, no public record; arrangements for family visits, no public record; whether he still resides at Sheshan Seminary — 2025 sources consistently say so, but there is no direct confirmation from the man himself or from officials; and when, and on what conditions, his restrictions might end, no public record. These blanks are listed one by one because, for a man under indefinite "rest," the list of blanks is at present the whole of the archive's reality.

Full timeline

• 1968 — Ma Daqin is born in Shanghai into a Catholic family (exact date of birth: no reliable public record).
• Around 1989–1994 — He is formed at Sheshan Seminary, during the years when Joseph Zen was teaching at Sheshan (the teacher-student link noted in UCA News reporting in 2012).
• 18 December 1994 — He is ordained a priest. He subsequently serves as editor of the diocese's Guangqi Press, dean of the Pudong deanery and parish priest of Our Lady of Lourdes, Tangmuqiao, while holding office as vice-chairman of the Shanghai Patriotic Association and standing-committee member of the national Patriotic Association.
• December 2011 — Bishop Jin Luxian appoints him vicar general of the Diocese of Shanghai, placing him in the line of succession.
• May 2012 — He is put forward as candidate for auxiliary (officially: coadjutor) bishop of Shanghai, with the approval of both Pope Benedict XVI and the Chinese government — the rare dual approval.
• 7 July 2012 — Consecrated at St Ignatius Cathedral, Xujiahui, by Jin Luxian; during the rite he blocks, by an embrace, the laying on of hands by Vincent Zhan Silu, a bishop not recognised by the Holy See, and declines to share the chalice with him; in his speech of thanks he announces that from the day of his consecration it is no longer convenient for him to be a member of the Patriotic Association, to prolonged applause from a congregation of over a thousand; that evening he is taken away by unidentified persons to Sheshan Seminary.
• 8 July 2012 — He fails to appear at his scheduled first Mass as bishop; that evening a "retreat" text message in his name circulates, its authenticity doubted from the outset.
• 10 July 2012 — The Holy See's statement calls the Shanghai consecration encouraging and to be welcomed, and on the same day declares that Joseph Yue Fusheng, ordained at Harbin without papal approval, has incurred automatic excommunication.
• 11 July 2012 — The Patriotic Association and the Bishops' Conference announce an investigation into the ordination; five participating bishops are summoned to Beijing; Cardinal Zen prays for him outside the Liaison Office in Hong Kong, and Cardinal Tong soon speaks publicly in his support.
• 22 August 2012 — Sheshan Seminary announces the indefinite suspension of classes; the seminarians are sent home.
• Around 4 December 2012 — According to church sources, he is barred from concelebrating Mass with the seminary's priests, having already been forbidden to wear episcopal insignia.
• 10–13 December 2012 — The official Bishops' Conference revokes his appointment as coadjutor bishop; the Shanghai diocese suspends his priestly ministry for two years, removes his deanery and parish posts, and bars him from public appearances for two years; Archbishop Savio Hon declares the revocation devoid of juridical value, and Cardinal Filoni publicly criticises his segregation and detention.
• 27 April 2013 — Bishop Jin Luxian dies in Shanghai aged 96; Ma cannot mourn him in public, and the diocese passes to a five-priest caretaker administration.
• 23 December 2013 — The BBC reports that he has been under confinement for almost 18 months, receiving political study lessons three times a week, and may leave the seminary only with permission and not beyond the Shanghai area.
• 16 March 2014 — Bishop Joseph Fan Zhongliang dies; the Holy See recognises Ma Daqin as Bishop of Shanghai; he remains confined at Sheshan, mourning his predecessor by a written inscription and keeping contact with the faithful only through his blog.
• 12 June 2016 — A long blog post expressing regret for leaving the Patriotic Association and reaffirming its role appears on his blog, prompting widespread doubt about the freedom of its production; Cardinal Zen criticises the Vatican's silence.
• 23 June 2016 — The Holy See issues a short statement denying any involvement in the blog affair.
• 20 January 2017 — He is co-opted as a member and standing-committee member of the Shanghai Patriotic Association at a joint meeting of the Association and the diocesan Administrative Commission.
• Easter 2017 — He travels to the Diocese of Mindong and concelebrates the Easter Mass with Vincent Zhan Silu.
• 22 September 2018 — The Vatican and China sign the provisional agreement on bishops' appointments; through its renewals in 2020 and 2022, no public news of any easing of his restrictions emerges.
• 4 April 2023 — Joseph Shen Bin is unilaterally transferred by the official side and installed as Bishop of Shanghai; the Holy See says it was informed only days before and learned of the installation from the media.
• 15 July 2023 — Pope Francis recognises Shen Bin as Bishop of Shanghai after the fact; Cardinal Parolin says the unilateral transfer violated the agreement's spirit of collaboration. The recognition announcement does not mention Ma Daqin.
• Autumn 2024 – February 2025 — Archbishop Celli and then Cardinal Stephen Chow visit Shanghai; hopes among the faithful that Ma's situation might improve come to nothing; a Shanghai church voice writes in 2025 that his restrictions of thirteen years have not loosened at all.
• 15 October 2025 — Ignatius Wu Jianlin is consecrated auxiliary bishop of Shanghai; multiple reports note that Ma Daqin remains confined in the Sheshan seminary.
• October 2026 — At this page's check, there is no public record of his release, restoration to office, or the lifting of his restrictions.

Verification note

The core facts of this page — born in Shanghai in 1968; ordained priest on 18 December 1994; the Guangqi Press, Pudong deanery and vicar-general record; the dual approval of 2012 and the course of the 7 July consecration; his removal to Sheshan that evening; the December 2012 revocation of his title and the Holy See's refusal to recognise it; the three-times-weekly political lessons and the almost eighteen months without a public appearance reported in December 2013; his recognition by the Holy See as Bishop of Shanghai in 2014; the blog dispute of June 2016; the co-option and concelebration of 2017; Shen Bin's unilateral transfer in 2023 and the Holy See's after-the-fact recognition; and his still being restricted at Sheshan in 2025 — are each corroborated by at least two independent sources, principally UCA News' continuous reporting from 2012 to 2014, AsiaNews' case record and commentary, Reuters' special report of 31 March 2014, the BBC's reporting of July 2012 and December 2013, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse reporting of the same period, the Holy See's statement of 10 July 2012 and Archbishop Hon's public statement, and the Holy See Press Office's and Cardinal Parolin's public explanations of July 2023. The main disputes and choices are these. First, the claim that he served as vice-rector of Sheshan Seminary appears in no checkable source consulted and is recorded as unverified and not used. Second, the claim of a first public appearance at a conference in June 2017 has no matching report; the verifiable nodes are the co-option of January 2017 and the Easter 2017 concelebration, and a relayed reference to a rare appearance in October 2013 whose details cannot be traced is likewise flagged. Third, the "retreat" text message of 8 July 2012 was issued in his name; whether it expressed his free will cannot be verified, and the text records only its existence and the doubts it raised. Fourth, the blog post of June 2016 did appear on his blog, but the freedom of its production cannot be verified; the text treats it as a document that surfaced under confinement, not as a free statement of position, and citations of this page should preserve that characterisation. Fifth, the congregation at the consecration is given in the sources as both about 1,000 and about 1,200; the text reads "between one thousand and twelve hundred." Sixth, the wider punitive details — the closure of the seminary, pressure on religious orders, the closing of the diocesan publishing house — rest mainly on a single AsiaNews synthesis of 2016; they are downgraded in the text, and only the suspension of classes and dispersal of seminarians, corroborated by UCA News and The Economist, are carried in the main line. Seventh, his continued residence at Sheshan rests on the consistent reporting of multiple 2025 sources, without direct confirmation from the man himself or from officials, and is flagged wherever it arises. Evidence grading: Holy See statements and the reporting of international agencies are first- and second-level; Catholic news agency and specialist-institute material is third-level, and any detail resting on a single such chain is downgraded or flagged. This page does not use unsourceable social-media material.

Our Take

Our Take is tied to this case's facts alone. First, the most glaring feature of this case is that the paperwork of approval was complete. The Holy See approved him; Beijing approved him; the consecration was celebrated with the agreed participants — and then he spoke for three minutes, and was taken away that night. A bishop's fate turned out to depend on neither side's approval but on whether, on his consecration day, he said the whole of what he thought. That tells us what approval meant in that order of things: it was never recognition of a man, only registration of an office; and the moment the man said a sentence of his own conscience beyond the registration, the registration was voided. Second, notice the shape of the punishment. The place of confinement for a bishop is not a prison but the seminary where he studied; the name of it is not a sentence but a retreat; its term is not a number of years but no term at all. The most accomplished technique in the handling of religious figures is to make punishment look like an arrangement: outsiders can find no barbed wire, the man himself can find no release date, and critics can find no accurate word to point at it. This page sets the thirteen years out year by year in a timeline precisely so that the word "arrangement" recovers its real name. Third, the sentence built on the word "inconvenient" deserves to be pinned into the record. His language was restrained to the point of deference — no accusation, no slogan, only that he must go and do pastoral work and could not conveniently hold the other posts as well. That single courteous sentence bought revocation, suspension, a closed seminary and thirteen years of confinement. The ferocity of the disposal, set beside the mildness of the wording, measures where the real red line runs: not between criticism and its absence, but between obedience and its absence — and mild disobedience and loud disobedience end in exactly the same place. Fourth, on the blog post of 2016 this page's archive treats it as a text produced under confinement, and one sentence should be added: if the authorities believed it was a sincere repentance, the most persuasive arrangement would have been to restore his freedom first and let him speak afterwards. With the order reversed — four years of confinement first, then the publication of regret — what the text proves is not repentance but the efficacy of confinement. Fifth, consider the Shen Bin transfer as a piece of bookkeeping. In 2023 the procedure was this: the Bishops' Conference chaired by Shen Bin transferred Shen Bin to Shanghai; the Holy See read about the installation in the newspapers; three months later it recognised the appointment; and at no point could anyone ask aloud what was to become of the bishop at Sheshan whom the Holy See had never removed. The man who had laid hands on Ma in 2012 took Ma's seat, while Ma could not publish a single word in reply. The agreement has now been signed and renewed through four rounds, and its fruit, in this diocese, is a method of appointment like that; anyone assessing the agreement has to walk around this page, just as they have to walk around Su Zhimin's. Finally, the sum. A man born in 1968 became a bishop at forty-four and was taken away on the first day of his episcopate; in the thirteen years since, his diocese has changed bishops, his seminary has been closed and reopened, the organisation he resigned from has struck his name off and written it back in, and his title has fought itself across two ledgers — while he himself has sat in the same place throughout. A great city's diocese can be made to run on perfectly well without its bishop: that is the outcome those who disposed of him intended. But as long as this archive stands, the man who was run over has a name, a date, and a few minutes attested by the applause of more than a thousand people.