EndCCPWorld.com

第48案 | 苏志民Case 48 | James Su Zhimin

河北保定教区地下主教苏志民（1932年生），1956年起因拒绝加入中国天主教爱国会至少八次被捕、入狱、劳改与软禁合计三十余年，1981年晋铎、1992年由教宗若望保禄二世任命为主教。1996年3月他在带领信众前往东闾圣母朝圣地途中被捕，一个月后脱逃、藏匿十七个月并发出致全国人大的公开信；1997年10月8日再次被公安带走后强迫失踪，官方甚至否认采取过强制措施。2003年11月15日家人曾在保定一家医院偶然见他一面——刚做眼科手术、接受心脏治疗、由警察围守——此后再无任何音讯。2020年美国国会为他举行听证，传出的却是官方属意另任保定主教的消息；中梵协议签了三轮，他的下落没有换来一个字。若仍在世，他已九十四岁；生死、下落至今均无公开记录。James Su Zhimin (born 1932), underground Bishop of Baoding in Hebei, was arrested at least eight times from 1956 onward for refusing to join the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, spending more than 30 years in prisons, labour camps and house arrest; he was ordained a priest in 1981 and appointed bishop by Pope John Paul II in 1992. Arrested on a Marian pilgrimage to Donglu in March 1996, he escaped custody a month later, spent 17 months in hiding and issued an open letter to the National People's Congress. Recaptured on 8 October 1997, he was forcibly disappeared — officials even denied that any coercive measures had been taken. His family glimpsed him once, on 15 November 2003 in a Baoding hospital under heavy guard, after eye surgery and heart treatment; nothing has been heard of him since. A US congressional hearing took up his case in 2020 amid reports that officials wanted a replacement bishop appointed; three rounds of the Vatican-China agreement have not produced one word about where he is. If alive he is 94; whether he is alive at all is a matter of no public record.

Time span

Born 1932 in the Baoding area of Hebei; arrested, imprisoned, sent to labour reform or held under house arrest at least eight times from 1956 onward, totalling more than 30 years; ordained a priest in 1981 and appointed Bishop of Baoding by Pope John Paul II in 1992; arrested during a Marian pilgrimage in March 1996 and escaped custody a month later, spending about 17 months in hiding; recaptured on 8 October 1997 and forcibly disappeared thereafter; last seen by family on 15 November 2003 in a Baoding hospital under heavy guard; no public record of his whereabouts or of whether he is alive, as of October 2026

Place

Diocese of Baoding, Hebei (the Marian shrine village of Donglu in Qingyuan County and Baoding city); the places of his early imprisonments and labour camps are largely a matter of no public record; last sighting in a hospital in Baoding in 2003, the hospital's name inconsistently reported

Figures

James Su Zhimin (born 1932), underground Bishop of Baoding; his nephew Su Tianyou, the family member who has campaigned publicly for news of him for years; Coadjutor Bishop Francis An Shuxin, the contrasting figure on the official Patriotic Association side, detained in 1996, released in 2006 and later working within the official system; the priests, nuns and faithful of the Baoding underground church

Charge and sentence

None on public record: no published charge, no trial, no judgment. His detentions over the decades rested on the label "counterrevolutionary" for refusing to join the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association; the 1996 arrest was publicly described as unregistered religious activity; after he was taken away on 8 October 1997 the authorities even claimed that no "coercive measures" had been taken against him. In legal form this is a disappearance without paperwork — no arrest warrant copy for the family, no indictment, no court, no sentence, only a man who never reappeared

Characterisation

Religious persecution culminating in enforced disappearance: repeatedly detained for more than 30 years for refusing to break communion with Rome and join the state-sponsored Patriotic Association, then held in secret after October 1997 with no accounting for his life or death. USCIRF lists him as a Religious Prisoner of Conscience; the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission adopted his case under its Defending Freedoms Project

Current status

Disappeared for nearly 29 years. If alive, he turned 94 in 2026. A 2020 report that officials had privately floated appointing a replacement Bishop of Baoding raised fears that he had died in custody; there has never been any official notification of death and no public record of remains or ashes being returned to his family. The Holy See still lists him as Bishop of Baoding. Whereabouts, health, and whether he is alive are all matters of no public record

Remember the man before the case

James Su Zhimin was born in 1932 near Baoding, Hebei, into a Catholic world that would define his whole life. Compressed into one line, his biography reads like this: a man first arrested at about twenty-four for refusing to change the allegiance of his faith, arrested and released and arrested again at least eight times, giving more than thirty years to prisons, labour camps and house arrest — and then, when he was taken away for the last time at sixty-five, nothing at all: no trial, no letter home, no release, and no notification of death. The international community has asked the same simple question for nearly thirty years — where is he? — and the Chinese government has never answered it.

To understand this case, first understand what he actually did. He organised no political movement, published no anti-government programme and handled no state secrets. On one point only he would not yield for forty years: bishops are appointed by the Pope and the Church lives in communion with Rome, and that cannot be replaced by a government-approved Patriotic Association. When the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association was founded in 1957, demanding that clergy sever ties with the Holy See, Su refused from the start. That refusal followed him for the rest of his life, written into his file under the word "counterrevolutionary." A regime spent three decades of cells and a final, total disappearance punishing an old man for his answer to the question of who appoints a bishop. This page records how that happened, in full, and the blank that remains unfilled to this day.

Baoding and Donglu: why this diocese

The Diocese of Baoding is one of the historic strongholds of Catholicism in north China, with deep roots among village faithful and a resilient underground tradition — in official language, a persistently "disobedient" region. The Marian shrine at Donglu village in Qingyuan County is among the most famous Marian pilgrimage sites in northern China; in the month of Mary, pilgrims have come in their thousands and tens of thousands. For the authorities, Donglu is both a symbol of religious fervour and a mass gathering they cannot fully control, and it has long been a focus of surveillance and periodic restriction. Su's fate intersects with Donglu twice: in 1996 he was arrested while leading the faithful toward the shrine, and in the years after his disappearance, pilgrimages there continued to face restrictions, with priests detained and pilgrims turned back in various years. Understand Donglu and you understand why Baoding's underground church was always one of the hard cases of religious control in Hebei — and why Su Zhimin was the hardest bone in it.

The Patriotic Association line needs setting out as well. Founded in 1957, it is the state's management body for Catholicism and requires the Church to cut itself off from the leadership of the Holy See. Those who refuse — the underground church — have no legal registration; their bishops are unrecognised, and their Masses, ordinations and pilgrimages can all be classified as illegal religious activity. Su, loyal to Rome and appointed by the Pope, was in official eyes doubly illegitimate: the wrong man, appointed by the wrong procedure. The conflict was structural, not a personal feud with any official, and everything that later happened to him can be traced back to that origin. The same origin produced a whole generation of Hebei underground bishops — Cosmas Shi Enxiang of Yixian and Han Dingxiang of Yongnian among them — several of whom likewise disappeared in custody or died detained; Han died in detention in 2007 and, according to widely reported accounts, his body was cremated by the authorities overnight without his family's knowledge. Those precedents are the concrete background to the Su family's fears over many years; they are noted here as background only, with the details of those separate cases not re-verified on this page.

From 1956: eight arrests, and how the "more than thirty years" is counted

The published figures for Su's early detentions differ, and an archive page should show its arithmetic before using any of them. The USCIRF and Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission figure is that before 1996 he had spent about 26 years, on and off, in prison or forced-labour camps. Catholic media and the South China Morning Post give a broader count: arrested at least eight times between 1956 and 1997, with imprisonment, labour reform and house arrest together totalling more than 30 years. A third, widely repeated figure — forty years in captivity — folds in an estimate for the secret detention after 1997. That post-1997 period has indeed now lasted nearly 29 years, but not one day of it has ever been acknowledged by the state, and writing it as "forty years served" is an estimate, not a record. This page therefore keeps the counts separate: about 26 years of prison and labour camps before 1996; more than 30 years across all forms of detention between 1956 and 1997; and the years since his disappearance counted on their own line, never merged into a sentence he was never given.

On detail, honesty is required. For the 1950s through the 1970s, exactly which years he was arrested, in which camps he was held and for how long each time: the public sources offer only fragmentary retellings, and no complete official file or personal memoir exists against which a year-by-year account could be checked. That is recorded here as no public record, and this page does not fill it in with imagination. The skeleton that can be confirmed is this: labelled early for refusing the Patriotic Association and insisting on communion with the Holy See, he was swept through the successive campaigns of the Mao era — anti-rightist, Great Leap, Cultural Revolution — spending his young and middle years moving between prison, labour teams and house arrest. A man born in 1932 was first seized by this machinery at about twenty-four; when he was finally ordained a priest in 1981, he was forty-nine. His priesthood began at the exit gate of half a lifetime of detention.

Ordained in 1981, Bishop of Baoding in 1992

In 1981 Su Zhimin was ordained a priest, some twenty-five years after his first arrest. In 1992 Pope John Paul II appointed him Bishop of Baoding; the consecration took place in secret, and the Chinese government has never recognised it. One common confusion should be corrected: he did not materialise as an underground bishop in 1992. His authority came from a formal appointment by the Holy See; it is simply an appointment that does not exist inside China's legal and administrative system. In the same period, the official Patriotic Association maintained its own episcopal arrangements in Baoding — one diocese, two authorities that do not recognise each other. That is the bishops-appointment dispute in its local, concrete form. Looking back from today, the 2018 Vatican-China provisional agreement was meant to address precisely this structure — and Su Zhimin is the man who paid the heaviest price inside that structure, while his case shows no trace in the public record of ever having reached the negotiating table.

Becoming a bishop did not improve his position after 1992; his growing influence made him a greater object of attention. Baoding's underground faithful were numerous, and as their bishop he was the spiritual centre of that community. The official demand on him never changed: join the Patriotic Association, publicly cut ties with the Holy See, and he could have legal status and an open ministry. He refused, every time. In the tightening religious climate of the mid-1990s, that refusal brought the decisive arrest.

March 1996: arrested on the road to Donglu — and out again a month later

In March 1996 Su led a procession of Catholics toward the Marian shrine at Donglu and was arrested on the way; the public description of the arrest was unregistered religious activity. On the timing, some Catholic reporting garbles the year or merges this arrest with the later recapture; this page follows the USCIRF database and the consensus of reporting: arrested on the pilgrimage in March 1996. About a month later he got out of custody and went into hiding. The Cardinal Kung Foundation's early account says he was rescued by his flock; other accounts describe an escape. Whether he escaped unaided or was helped out cannot be verified, and both versions are noted here side by side; what is confirmed is that by around April 1996 he had left custody and gone underground.

During his roughly seventeen months in hiding he did something that belongs in any archive of his life: he issued an open letter to the National People's Congress calling on the government to respect human rights and religious freedom. The Cardinal Kung Foundation and multiple organisations record this 1996 letter, written from hiding. A man being hunted did not write a plea for mercy; he wrote a demand that constitutional rights be honoured. That explains both the intensity of the hunt that followed and his weight in every international file since: he was not only a passive victim but a man who, from hiding, still spoke publicly. The full text of the letter could not be found in any verifiable public source consulted for this page and is recorded as no public record; its existence and its theme rest on institutional accounts.

8 October 1997: taken away for the last time

On 8 October 1997, after about seventeen months in hiding, Su Zhimin was recaptured by public security. What followed is most accurately described by the international-law term enforced disappearance: state agents took him; the state thereafter refused to acknowledge the detention, refused to give his whereabouts, and refused to provide any reliable information about whether he was alive or dead. The Cardinal Kung Foundation's press release of 11 October 1997 recorded the arrest in real time. Stranger still is the official line: USCIRF's materials record that, in response to repeated inquiries, the Chinese government provided no information and at the same time claimed it had taken no "coercive measures" against him. A man seized by police on 8 October 1997; a government saying no coercive measures were taken; a family that never again received a single sheet of paper. Those three sentences, side by side, are the entire legal face of this case.

One widespread dating error deserves explicit correction. Many secondary reports give 1996 as the year of his disappearance, saying he was arrested in 1996 and vanished. The accurate sequence is: arrested March 1996, out of custody in April, seventeen months in hiding, recaptured on 8 October 1997 and disappeared from that date. Moving the disappearance back to 1996 erases the hiding period and the open letter, and throws out every calculation of the years of disappearance by one year. Anyone citing this page should take 8 October 1997 as the start of the disappearance. His age cross-checks cleanly: born in 1932, he was 65 at recapture and 71 at his last sighting in 2003, matching the ages given in USCIRF's materials.

15 November 2003: one meeting in six years, in a hospital

From 1997 to 2003 the outside world knew nothing of whether he was alive. On 15 November 2003 his family found him by chance in a hospital in Baoding: he had undergone an eye operation and was receiving treatment for a heart condition, surrounded by police and public security officers. The family was allowed only a brief, hurried encounter before he was taken away again — and he has not been seen or heard from since. USCIRF's and the Tom Lantos Commission's entries agree closely on this day: the date, 15 November 2003; the place, a Baoding hospital; the reason, eye surgery and heart treatment; the heavy guard; the brief family meeting; the renewed disappearance. No consistent public reporting of the hospital's name was found, and it is recorded here as no public record rather than guessed.

Why does that one meeting matter so much? Because it is the only public evidence that he survived at least until 2003 and that he was, in fact, in state custody — custody the state denied existed. Twenty-three more years have now passed since that day without a second encounter, a photograph or a recording surfacing anywhere. A 71-year-old man with a fresh eye operation and a heart condition disappeared back into secret detention; how long he lived after that, what treatment he received and where he is now all hang in the doorway of that hospital ward, and for twenty-three years no one has been allowed a step further in. The family found him by accident. That accident was the only channel because every formal channel was sealed from the first day.

The family's twenty-nine years: Su Tianyou and the unanswered questions

On the family side, the central figure is his nephew, Su Tianyou, who has searched and spoken out for years. In May 2019 he told UCA News that he did not know where his uncle was being held or even whether he was still alive, that he wept every time he thought of the 87-year-old man, and he asked the public to pray for him. He recounted that in 2015 he had met an official named Guo Wei, who suggested the bishop might be released if Vatican-China relations improved. The agreement was signed in 2018; the improvement half-happened; the release did not, and not even a word about his whereabouts came with it. In July 2020 UCA News carried a report that alarmed the family further: according to Su Tianyou, officials had floated to the Vatican side the idea of appointing a new Bishop of Baoding, with the Patriotic Association's Coadjutor Bishop Francis An Shuxin as the preferred candidate. The family's reading was direct: if Su Zhimin were alive and still Bishop of Baoding, why appoint another? The report fed widespread fears that he had died in custody. There has never been any official confirmation or denial. Su Tianyou's words, quoted by several outlets, contain no rhetoric at all: the family still hopes to see him, whether he is alive or dead. It is the most basic demand a family can make, refused for twenty-nine years.

The An Shuxin contrast belongs in the record too, because it completes the picture of the Baoding diocese. An, the coadjutor bishop, was detained in the same year, 1996, held under house arrest for about ten years, and released in 2006, after which he moved into the Patriotic Association system and cooperated with the authorities. Many in the underground community regard him as a defector, and Su Tianyou himself has publicly called Vatican cooperation with Beijing a betrayal of steadfast bishops like his uncle. Those are positions within an internal church dispute; this page records the outline without adjudicating theology or loyalty. But one factual contrast cannot be avoided: two men arrested in the same year — one cooperated and walked out of house arrest after ten years into a recognised public role; one refused, and disappeared from the world. Baoding's history prices the choice about the Patriotic Association in the second halves of two men's lives.

International response: the same question, asked for twenty-nine years

Su Zhimin is among the longest-standing Chinese cases in the American religious-freedom archive. USCIRF has listed him for years in its Religious Prisoners of Conscience database; the Congressional-Executive Commission on China carries his entry in its political prisoner database; the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission adopted him under its Defending Freedoms Project. On 30 July 2020 the Lantos Commission held a hearing devoted to religious freedom in China and his case; its co-chair, Representative Chris Smith, opened by addressing Beijing directly: where is Bishop Su, and what have you done to him? USCIRF Commissioner Nury Turkel said the commission was deeply saddened by reports that Bishop Su might have died during his unjust imprisonment. In Britain, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and others have carried him on release lists for years, and the Cardinal Kung Foundation — which has published on his case continuously since 1997 — remains one of the earliest and fullest recorders. On the Vatican side, whether, when and in what form the Holy See has raised his individual case in its contacts with Beijing is a matter of no public record; he remains listed by the Holy See as Bishop of Baoding, as the South China Morning Post reported in 2020.

The practical effect of all this should be stated plainly. Twenty-nine years of inquiries, hearings, databases and statements have not produced a single word of official reply, let alone a visit or a release. What they produced is the record itself. Because that archive exists, a Chinese old man born in 1932 has not vanished from the earth without trace: his name, his diocese and the date he was taken are written into the formal documents of several governments. A record is not a whereabouts, and it cannot substitute for one; but against a form of disposal whose purpose is to make a person disappear, the record is the only thing family and history have managed to take back. Within the sources consulted, China's response to the whole sequence has been silence, or the denial that coercive measures were ever taken; no point-by-point reply has been found.

After the 2018 Vatican-China agreement: a name on the list, a question off the table

On 22 September 2018 the Vatican and China signed their provisional agreement on the appointment of bishops; it has since been renewed twice, and its full text has never been published. The family and the underground faithful hoped the agreement might at least buy news of Su Zhimin — the 2015 official's remark had hinted at exactly that trade. The result is there to be seen: in the eight years since the signing, the amount of information released about his whereabouts is zero. In 2019 his nephew was still telling reporters he did not know whether his uncle was alive; in 2020 what emerged was not a release but the float of a replacement bishop; a 2024 report on the persecution of Catholic bishops after the agreement still listed him as held in continuous secret detention for more than 27 years with his location undisclosed. This page offers no judgement on the agreement beyond the facts of this case, and the fact of this case is this: for a disappeared bishop, nothing verifiable changed between the day before the agreement and today. Any honest assessment of that agreement has to walk around this stone.

Then there is the arithmetic of age, which is the cruelest timeline of all. If he is alive, he was 86 when the agreement was signed, 88 at the 2020 hearing, and 94 in 2026. Survival to 94 in secret detention is not a medical impossibility, but the probability narrows every year — and because the authorities will not even confirm whether he has died, the family is denied not only his freedom but their mourning: no grave, no ashes, no funeral, no closure. That is the distinctive cruelty of enforced disappearance. It does not only take the victim's liberty; it freezes a whole family's grief and life in place, indefinitely.

Current status and the questions still unanswered

As of this page's check in October 2026, the confirmable status is only this: Su Zhimin has been forcibly disappeared since he was taken away on 8 October 1997; he was last seen by his family on 15 November 2003; his whereabouts and whether he is alive are matters of no public record; there has been no official notification of death and no public record of remains or ashes returned; the Holy See still lists him as Bishop of Baoding. The unanswered questions include: his present place of detention or the time and place of his death, no public record; the legal paperwork for the 1997 recapture, no public record; where he was taken after the 2003 hospital encounter, no public record; the case-by-case file of his eight earlier detentions, no public record; the full text of the 1996 open letter, no public record; and whether the Vatican has raised his case bilaterally, no public record. These blanks are listed one by one because, for a disappeared man, the list of blanks is at present the whole of the archive's reality.

Full timeline

• 1932 — Su Zhimin is born in the Baoding area of Hebei (exact date of birth: no reliable public record).
• From 1956 — For refusing to join the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association and insisting on communion with the Holy See, he is repeatedly arrested, imprisoned, sent to labour reform and held under house arrest: at least eight times by 1997, totalling more than 30 years including house arrest (about 26 years of prison and labour camps before 1996). A case-by-case file is a matter of no public record.
• 1957 — The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association is founded, demanding separation from the Holy See; refusal becomes the origin of everything that follows for him.
• 1981 — He is ordained a priest, aged 49.
• 1992 — Pope John Paul II appoints him Bishop of Baoding; consecrated in secret; never recognised by the Chinese government.
• March 1996 — Arrested while leading a procession of the faithful toward the Marian shrine at Donglu; publicly described as unregistered religious activity.
• Around April 1996 — He leaves custody and goes into hiding (escape or rescue by the faithful — the detail cannot be verified); from hiding he issues an open letter to the National People's Congress calling for respect for human rights and religious freedom (full text: no public record).
• 8 October 1997 — Recaptured after about 17 months in hiding and forcibly disappeared from that date; officials deny that any coercive measures were taken.
• 15 November 2003 — His family encounters him by chance in a Baoding hospital: recent eye surgery, treatment for a heart condition, surrounded by police and public security; after a brief meeting he is taken away again, and nothing has been heard of him since.
• 2006 — Coadjutor Bishop Francis An Shuxin is released after about ten years of house arrest and subsequently works within the Patriotic Association system (the contrasting line).
• 2015 — Nephew Su Tianyou meets an official, Guo Wei, who suggests the bishop might be released if Vatican-China relations improve (as recounted by the family).
• 22 September 2018 — The Vatican and China sign the provisional agreement on bishops' appointments; no information about Su Zhimin follows.
• May 2019 — Su Tianyou tells UCA News he does not know where his uncle is held or whether he is alive, and asks for prayers for the 87-year-old.
• July 2020 — UCA News reports that officials had floated appointing a new Bishop of Baoding to the Vatican, fuelling fears he had died, with no official confirmation or denial; on 30 July the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission holds a hearing on his case.
• After 2020 — No new reliable information; a 2024 report still lists him as held in continuous secret detention, whereabouts unknown.
• October 2026 — At this page's check, his whereabouts and whether he is alive remain matters of no public record; if alive, he is 94.

Verification note

The core facts of this page — born 1932; refusal to join the Patriotic Association; about 26 years of imprisonment and labour camps before 1996 and at least eight arrests totalling more than 30 years; ordination in 1981; appointment as Bishop of Baoding in 1992; arrest on the Donglu pilgrimage in March 1996; recapture and disappearance on 8 October 1997; the last family sighting in hospital on 15 November 2003; years of family appeals; the July 2020 congressional hearing — are each corroborated by at least two independent sources, principally the USCIRF Religious Prisoners of Conscience database and its case materials, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing record, UCA News reporting in 2019 and 2020, the Cardinal Kung Foundation's continuous record since 1997, and the South China Morning Post's July 2020 series. The main disputes and choices are these. First, the start of the disappearance is fixed at the recapture of 8 October 1997; the common "disappeared in 1996" version conflates the March 1996 arrest with the disappearance and is corrected in the text. Second, on how he left custody in 1996, unaided escape and rescue by the faithful both circulate and cannot be verified; only the fact of his leaving custody is used. Third, the totals of 26 years, more than 30 years and 40 years coexist in the sources; the text breaks down what each counts, and the 40-year figure, which includes estimated post-1997 detention, is not adopted as a record fact. Fourth, the 2020 suggestion that he may have died rests on a relayed report of an official approach about a successor and on family fears, with no official confirmation; it is recorded as fear, not as death. Fifth, his exact birth date, the file of his eight early detentions, the full text of the open letter and the name of the 2003 hospital are all matters of no reliable public record and are noted as such where they arise. Evidence grading: US official databases and the congressional hearing record are first- and second-level; Catholic news agency and foundation reporting 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, this case dispensed even with a charge. Other cases on this site at least have a judgment to argue with; Su Zhimin has none — no charge, no trial, no sentence, only a date, 8 October 1997, and twenty-nine years of silence after it. A state confident that a bishop had committed a crime would find it cheapest to try him in public. Choosing instead to make him vanish without a sound shows that what was being disposed of was not his conduct but what he represented: a diocese outside Patriotic Association control, and a bishop who would not cut himself off from Rome. Second, the official phrase "no coercive measures were taken" deserves to be nailed into the archive. The man was taken by police; in 2003 he was found by his family in a ward ringed by police; and the official position is that nothing coercive ever happened. That is not carelessness; it is the standard script of enforced disappearance — deny the detention first, then let time do the rest of the work. Third, the 2003 meeting was an accident, not an arranged visit. In twenty-nine years, a family's single six-years-late glimpse of its relative came down to luck. The arrangement was designed with no legal seam of contact in it at all: the family's right to know, to visit, even to confirm life or death, was never part of the design. Fourth, the Vatican agreement has been signed and renewed while his whereabouts bought not one word. In 2015 an official told the family that better relations might free him; relations did improve, and what surfaced was not the man but a floated successor. For the underground church, this case is a litmus strip: when the steadfast most needed to be named at the table, his name was not there. Fifth, do the full sum. A man born in 1932, in prison from about twenty-four, in and out for more than thirty years, taken at sixty-five and unheard of for nearly twenty-nine more. If the disappeared years are counted, he has spent more of his life in this system's cells and under its guards than he ever spent in freedom. He did nothing but decline to say that it is acceptable for bishops not to be appointed by the Pope. History will record what that sentence cost, and who set the price: the man who paid it paid with his whole life.