I am accused of not following the “Hermeneutics of continuity” when criticizing the “Fiducia supplicans”!?

        I must confess that I have often wasted my time following the program “Reason and Theology” of Michael Lofton, this big man with a little beard (who would do well to hide his tattoo when he speaks like a theologian), I have been driven by curiosity to hear the hilarious non sense he says. This time, however, I saw that he was criticizing me. With great seriousness, he is scandalized that I, who insist so much on the hermeneutics of continuity, now dare to criticize the “Fiducia supplicans” (26-06-2024).

        This means that Mr. Lofton does not even know how to distinguish the different value of the pronouncements that come from Rome. If I remember well, Mr. Lofton has sometimes confessed that he is not a theologian, but it seems to me that he understands the differentiated authority of the Vatican documents less than anyone of my catechumens. I speak of the hermeneutics of continuity when speaking of the Ecumenical Councils, the highest degree of authority of the Magisterium.

        The Declaration “Fiducia supplicans”, instead, is obviously the work of the Most Eminent Tucho, even if rubber-stamped by Pope Francis. I dare to say rubber-stamped because a few years ago, in response to the same question about the lawfulness of blessing homosexual couples, the Pope signed a Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and there the answer was “No”, while now the answer is “Yes”. I dare to say “rubber-stamped” also because, in the “Fiducia supplicans”, as well as already in the answer to our “Dubia” before the beginning of the Synod, I cannot smell the scent of Pope Francis. I smell instead the pen of the Most Eminent Tucho, who would have done better to pursue another career (in that other gender of literature, I mean).

        It will be said that Mr. Lofton is defending the Pope, and nobody can blame him for that, but I am sure his nonsense will not help the Holy Father in any way.

        I am wasting these minutes of time, not to defend myself from Mr. Lofton’s accusations, but to invite those who frequent his site to stop wasting their time and perhaps also their money.

Comments on Dr. Taylor Marshall’s: “Viganò vs. Barron on Vatican II and Benedict XVI”

Dear everyone,

I am old and still not yet back to my best form from my recent illness. I am trying to be up-to-date about everything happening in the Church, which, you will agree, is in a terrible state of confusion (Cardinals against Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops), I only hope that what I am writing now is not going to add to that confusion.

I happened to find on my i-pad one piece from Dr. Taylor Marshall “Viganò vs. Barron on Vatican II and Benedict XVI”. It’s dated 2020, but the debate is still going on and I want to join it.

******************************************************************************

Declaration of interest

– I almost always enjoyed viewing what is on the programme of Dr. Taylor Marshall, I am decidedly a traditionalist.

– I agree on several points with Archbishop Viganò, but I would not subscribe to everything he affirms.

– I admire Bishop Barron, I would like myself and all the Bishops to be like him, so learned and so balanced in his teaching of the Catholic Doctrine (I am only a little disappointed, that he is not as outspoken as I am – to my misfortune).

– I love Pope Benedict XVI as the father of my soul. The most precious thing I keep is a volume of his “Ultime conversazioni” that he sent to me with a dedication: “In union of prayer and thought”.

******************************************************************************

I want to comment on the quotation which Dr. Taylor Marshall made from Pope Benedict XVI:

“To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council (…). We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow.

And this today of the Church is the Documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them”

First of all, the fundamental thing we must believe is: God’s revelation is to be found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition from the Apostles (“We believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”).

Then, the Tradition is guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, especially through the working of the Ecumenical Councils (“Sacrosancta Synodus”) – meeting of the whole College of Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, under the leadership of Peter. The teaching of the Ecumenical Councils constitutes the most authoritative Magisterium.

So, we must believe that, through the Documents of Vatican II, the Holy Spirit has spoken to us, believers of today.

Pope Benedict believed strongly in the continuity of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit, for him the only hermeneutics of the Council must be that of continuity, not of rupture.

I can’t understand how he can be misunderstood; the hermeneutics of continuity was constantly on his lips. Obviously, when he said: “We must remain faithful to the today of the Church“, he meant faithful to a today which is guaranteed to be faithful to the yesterday. A Council of today is faithful to all the Councils of yesterday, because the actor of today’s Council is properly the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who guided all the past Councils, He cannot deny himself.

I would like to ask a question to Dr. Marshall and Archbishop Viganò: To which ‘yesterday’ do you want to be faithful? To the First Vatican Council ? Or to the Council of Trent? You trust more the Holy Spirit of the previous Councils? Don’t you think that the Holy Spirit may have said something new to all the previous Councils and may have new things to tell us today (obviously, nothing in contradiction to previous Councils)?

We believe that this Council, Vatican II, as all other Councils, is faithful to the continuous Tradition of the Church.

******************************************************************************

May be we must asks other questions to clarify our stands: “Which Council we have in mind in our discussion?”

(A) A vague “spirit of the Council” or the Council Documents?

It is nonsense to talk about the spirit of the Council, if you ignore the Documents of the Council. Were the long sessions of fierce discussion a futile exercise? The careful analysis of sentences? Even the meticulous pondering of a single word? The Documents are the fruit of the cooperation between the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the hard work of the Council Fathers with the help of many outstanding theologians. Only through the attentive reading of the Council Documents you can get to the real spirit of the Council.

(B) “The Council itself or the situation of the Church after the Council?

Post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc. You cannot blame on the Council all the wrong things that happened after it in the Church.

The liturgical reform, for example, was maturing in the Church long before the Council, many thought that they knew what it had to be, and they simply ignored the Council Document. Then we could see so many abuses, with the consequent loss of the sense of reverence for the sacred Mysteries. When Pope Benedict appealed for the “reform of the reform”, he did not mean to repudiate the Council, but a distorted understanding of the real Council.

Distortions and amputations of Vatican II teaching abound.

The Constitution on the Church emphasizes rightly the common priesthood of the faithful, but many stop there. They forget that there is also a clear affirmation of the hierarchical teaching and governing authority in the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles. Now, with the name of XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, they killed the real Synod of Bishops as established by Pope Paul VI and created a new hybrid body, which looks absolutely like a secular democratic assembly, something that they strongly deny. Emphasizing the etymology of the word “Synod”, they forget the historical reality of the Synods which guarantee the continuation of the Sacred Tradition.

The Decree on Ecumenism, that on Religious Freedom, and the Declaration Nostra aetate were taken as encouragement for a unique, universal “world religion”, dispensing us from the duty of missionary zeal, which is even called “proselytism”, a word with negative connotations. Pope John Paul II preached strongly against such misunderstanding.

Some people complained about what they thought was ambiguous in the Documents of the Council. To make clarity, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal Ratzinger, compiled the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a vast consultation of the world Episcopate, a secure guidance for evangelization and catechesis. Nobody should, light-heartedly, touch it, at least not without an equally vast consultation of the College of Bishops. The rich and clear Magisterium of Pope Wojtiła and Cardinal Ratzinger must have sufficiently dispelled all the clouds and shown to the Christian faithful the splendor of the truth.

The seeming failure of the Council may be explained by the lack of a good plan of its execution.

The Council of Trent succeeded to really reform the Church because of the leadership of bishops like St. Charles Borromeo after the Council through the several diocesan and regional Synods.

Cardinal Wojtiła took eight years of serious catechesis to start a real ‘aggiornamento’ in his diocese.

(C) “Many say there was a ‘Council of the Media’.

From the times of past Councils to the present one, the means of communication have made enormous progress and have become, also, a terrible force in creating and spreading wrong ideas (in philosophy and in theology). Some media enjoyed the fierce battles during the Council and were happy to have those battles prolonged.

Unfortunately, there was a group of theologians, among them Alberigo, who sustained that the Council should go on, even after its conclusion. They sustained that the Council was an impetus given by the Holy Spirit which should make the Church always in a state of ongoing change.

Cardinal Ratzinger rejected such an idea. The Councils are moment of suspension, when the bishops gather together to discuss and find solutions to the problems of the times. At the end of Vatican II they reached almost unanimous conclusions. Now is time to go back to work. It is time to bring the light of Christ to the world. ‘Aggiornamento’ means this, to open the doors and the windows, to bring the Gospel to the peripheries of the world, as Pope Francis says, not only geographical peripheries, but existential peripheries (by the way, the bishops know better the existential peripheries in their particular geographic peripheries).

‘Aggiornamento’ is to let the light of Christ (Lumen) go out from the Church to reach all the peoples (gentes), and not to allow the spirit of the world to infiltrate the Church (as the organizers of the present Synod are doing when they try to introduce a pastoral method of appeasement).

Conclusion

I wish my friend Dr. Taylor Marshall to persevere in being a traditionalist, but to be also full of trust in the wisdom of Pope Benedict.

處於禮儀年中的「分水嶺」有感

剛過去的主日(5月19日)及5月20日的禮儀給我非常多的啟示。5月19日是五旬節,上午我舉行了聖神降臨節彌撒,下午我舉行了進教之佑堂的主保瞻禮彌撒,並傅堅振聖事。而5月20日是五旬節後常年期第一天,大家或會奇怪,每逢大瞻禮後也一定會緊隨著八日敬禮,為何五旬節後並沒有八日敬禮?這其實有特別意義,因為在教會禮儀年裡,有將臨期、聖誕期,稍後便是四旬期、復活節,直到五旬節,在這段日子中,教會已將耶穌救恩的中心事蹟敍述過,也將祂的勝利介紹給我們了。現在常年期,象徵我們這個在旅途中的教會,要跟隨耶穌的道路走下去,直至祂在末日,光榮地再來時。

這段常年期的開始,也正有一個很有意義的瞻禮,叫「教會之母」,這個其實與進教之佑非常有關係;從歷史知道,「進教之佑」,即是對教會整個團體的助佑,而非單單對每個領洗者的助佑。

當時歐洲天主教會面對回教軍隊厲害的威脅,其間經歷兩次打仗:一次是Lepanto海戰,另一次維也納(Vienna)給他們圍困。其時如果歐洲被回教軍隊長攻直下攻破,整個歐洲也會被侵佔。當時教會一起祈禱求聖母,在戰鬥力較弱的情況下,最後居然獲勝,自此他們恭敬聖母為「進教之佑」,有些地方也稱聖母是「勝利之后」,尤其法國更多以後者稱呼。

到了教宗比約七世(Pope Pius VII),拿破崙(Napoleon)於法國稱帝。他非常驕傲的認為教宗也須聽從他,但比約七世沒有遵從,拿破崙遂將他軟禁起來,後來認為軟禁亦未夠,甚至將教宗送去法國囚禁,當時教友們熱心祈禱,誦唸玫瑰經懇求聖母,最後拿破崙失勢,教宗得到䆁放,於5月24日當天返回羅馬,亦就定了當天為進教之佑的瞻禮日。

這個「教會之母」瞻禮,是教宗保祿六世(Pope Paul VI)於梵二大公會議時定下的。因為保祿六世認為,大公會議是聖母對整個教會的照顧,面對大公會議後的這個世界,所以他訂定這個瞻禮非常有意思——耶穌於十字架上,將教會交給聖母;而於聖經中,開首創世紀有一位「女人」,結尾默示錄也有一位「女人」,這兩章節是很關鍵的,我們可以看到,聖神來臨與聖母使命有著密切關係。


從禮儀上的安排已經可以看到,五旬節、聖神降臨可以說一個禮儀年中一個分水嶺,清晰地讓我們看到,之前耶穌已完成了祂的救恩,以後則交由我們這個旅途中的教會去完成——我們接受了祂,但是有挑戰的,我們不單只自己接受祂,也要將祂的福音傳揚到整個世界。

這是個新開始,旅途中的教會以後會不斷遇上挑戰,但也因著耶穌已完成救恩而得到保證。在世界之初已有預言,亞當厄娃因為魔鬼的引誘犯了罪,天主遂懲罰了魔鬼(蛇),對蛇說:「我要把仇恨放在你和女人,你的後裔和她的後裔之間,她的後裔要踏碎你的頭顱,你要傷害他的腳跟。」所以這是一場鬥爭,那條蛇想咬女人的腳跟,要害死她的後裔,但這位女人及其後裔會與魔鬼戰鬥,女人會踏碎魔鬼的頭顱,以上是《創世紀》的預言。

默示錄》亦如是說:「有一位女人,身披太陽,腳踏月亮,頭戴十二顆星的榮冠」,又說「現在天主的權能與國度已得到勝利,而且天主顯示了基督的權柄」,那條大龍很憤怒,尤其是對這女人,因為這女人是耶穌的母親,所以牠與女人的後裔,即是「那些遵行天主聖意(誡命),且為耶穌作證的人去交戰。現在是在戰爭的階段。耶穌已得勝,教會也好幾次取得勝利,現在即要我們繼續下去。所以我覺得,這個要我們準備去「打仗」的信息非常清晰


你也許會說,我們參與教會是要尋求和平、安寧。當然,這方面我們可以完全放心,但做教友不是要我們坐在世間,等待天堂。耶穌從來沒有欺騙我們,神父為人領洗的時候會問,堅振的時候亦會重新再問:「你是否棄絕罪惡?是否棄絕魔鬼?是否信耶穌?是否能為死而復活的耶穌作見證?」所以參與教會是充滿希望的,是有基礎的,但也是具挑戰的。於佘山最初的聖母像,其實就是法國人所說的「勝利之后」。聖母幫助我們取得勝利,我們可放心依靠她,依靠耶穌,依靠聖神,但我們也須遵從天主的誡命,做耶穌的證人。

教會亦有一件聖事,叫堅振聖事。年輕人在成長過程中,會面對很多挑戰,所以需要一件聖事去堅強他們,鞏固他們的信仰(Confirmation)。

我於5月18日開始了一個哲學講座,為什麼?因為今天這個世界處於混亂之中,充滿了無神的哲學,很多現代的哲學也偏向無神主義,這實在非常可惜。當然天主教會的哲學可以給他們圓滿解答,但並非所有教友也認識,教友亦不會意識到我們正生活在這些無神論哲學的影響下。當然,你也許不需要深究各種哲學的理論,但你需要嗅得出哪些哲學道理是錯誤的,如果你持續祈禱,參加聖事,天主聖神會賜予你本能去分辦;縱使你未能做到十全十美,至少也應該是位虔誠教友,否則會很危險,因為很多哲學家的名稱你雖未聽過,但他們的哲學思想其實正在影響著世界,影響著你。所以今天的危機不再是回教對教會的攻擊、戰鬥,而是在世上這些危險的哲學思想,尤其是為年輕人。無疑,這些哲學家均是天才,他們的理論深具吸引力,如果教友不熟悉教會道理,便會被那些哲學思想所蒙蔽、欺騙,從而認為教會的信仰很膚淺。其實,膚淺的是我們對天主教信仰未有深入認識,所以,容易因那些哲學思想而被動搖。我希望大家可以學習多些教會道理也對哲學有所認識,去迎接今天的挑戰。


適值5月24日進教之佑瞻禮,集禱經祈求天主讓我們能抵抗「內外」的挑戰。有什麼內外挑戰?外來的挑戰除了前面所提及,回教國家的軍力還有另類國家政治的勢力。

我們今年紀念剛恆毅樞機(Celso Costantini)到中國帶領中國全國主教在上海舉行「主教會議」的一百週年紀念,他是第一個被教宗派到中國的代表(聽說在羅馬、澳門也有相關百週年紀念會議,可惜我未被邀請,無緣參加)。

百年前的危機是什麼?教會將保護中國教會的任務交給了法國,然而,將此任務交給一個國家政府,免不了會受政治影響,法國政府首要優先維護自己國家的利益,不會太關心教會事務,所以教宗秘密派遣他的代表剛恆毅樞機到中國,扺達之後才讓大家知道。當時中國政府非常歡迎教宗直接派遣代表到來,因為不需要再當法國人是教宗的代表。

教會初期在教難中渡過300年後,很多國家的皇帝信奉天主教會。當然他們會大力幫助教會,但有時也會插手教會事務,譬如教會歷代的大公會議好多次也被皇帝騷擾。教宗保祿六世在梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議舉行時曾說:『各位兄弟,我們多謝天主,幸好「教宗國」已沒有了,如果仍有的話,會帶來很大麻煩,現在沒有了,我們反而非常自由,由我們自主地進行會議。』—— 這是第一次,我們的大公會議再沒有任何政權來插手。

然而,少了政治上的勢力影響,卻有思想上的干預,在我們這個所謂的自由世界中,有很多不同哲學思想,對教會裡的人也成了很大的誘惑。教會裡神學思想也混亂了,這就成了教會內在的挑戰。


五旬期當天彌撒之中,第二篇讀經有兩個選擇,一個是《致格林多人前書》(第十二章),這篇為我們今天的教會非常重要,當中說「身體只是一個」,即基督的奧體,「卻有許多肢體」,每個人均有其任務,有猶太人、希臘人……。放諸今天,即可解釋作:不同職業的人,有不同學問的人,但最重要的,如聖保祿所說,有些是宗徒,有些是幫宗徒教書的人,當中有很多不同的神恩,尤其第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議講得很清楚,教會裡面是有系統的,第一屆大公會議肯定了教宗不會錯,即在一些信德的道理上教宗不能錯。但梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議延續第一屆未開完的部份時,繼續討論教會的結構。伯多祿被耶穌選為教會的磐石,但大家若細讀聖經,尤其是《宗徒大事錄》,便知道耶穌並非單單將教會交給伯多祿一個,他雖是宗徒之長,是一個很重要的中心,但教會並非只交予伯多祿一個人,而是交給宗徒們。梵二《教會憲章》的重點是宗徒們的「團體性」(collegiality

我們於5月14日才慶祝過聖瑪弟亞宗徒慶日,因為猶達斯出賣耶穌,所以猶達斯的懸空位置需要選出另一位宗徒補上,這就是瑪弟亞。耶穌選了十二位宗徒,這傳統一直繼續,猶太有十二個部族,我們的教會則從十二個宗徒開始。《宗徒大事錄》時常說「宗徒們」,而在聖神降臨時的祈禱,聖經也列出所有宗徒們的名字,聖母與他們一起祈禱,當然也有其他人,但其中最重要的卻是宗徒們,這概念非常重要。

最近主教會議的舉行形式卻似乎疏忽了這一點,會議讓很多其他人參與,甚至讓他們投票,成了並非純粹主教參與的會議,這實在非常危險。耶穌選了十二個宗徒,他們雖然並不是很堅強的人,且於耶穌受難時大部份都離開了,伯多祿甚至三次否認耶穌,只有若望緊隨耶穌;但耶穌沒有放棄他們,祂仍然倚重這十二位宗徒。而在祂復活後,仍與他們同席共飲,又給予伯多祿重新機會,三次問他是否愛祂,伯多祿這時記得,他曾否認耶穌三次,耶穌現在重複問他三次,就是要給他懺悔的機會。所以伯多祿答:「主,你知道我愛你。」雖然他曾一時軟弱、害怕,但其實一直也忠信地跟隨耶穌。

所以,整個教會也應該如此,主教們是宗徒的繼承人,就似宗徒與伯多祿是兄弟,主教們與教宗也是兄弟。而教宗不是單單有個名銜,是真的有特別權利,但他仍是主教們的兄弟,所以他需要多些採納他們的意見。大公會議是最具權威的,很多次也是由教宗發起的,最後的結論也須由他通過的。教宗保祿六世於梵二大公會議結束時,他訂定了一個「主教會議」,給教宗一個特別機會,大概每三年聚集一些主教代表;大公會議參與者有二千多人,很難時常聚集一起,而這個主教會議邀請二百多位主教代表,多數由主教團選舉出來,他們會聚集一起商量一些指定的題目,提供意見給教宗。

但那正在進行的會議卻已變質,當然,教宗可以叫任何人到來作諮詢,但這並不再是主教會議,他們甚至將「主教會議」此名稱改變,在羅馬手冊中主教會議的秘書處名字也由「Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops」改成「Secretariat of the Synod」,「Bishops」一字消失了,那麼,這是什麼Synod?這實在引起不少混亂。

Synodality 是源自Synod這希臘字的根源,譯作「共議同行」,但Synods是教會二千年來的傳統,它代表主教們開的會議,天主聖神曾應承保護宗徒們與教宗一起,現在主教會議變了質,造成教會的混亂,實在危險

「內來的挑戰」也是講每個人的內心,我們細看五旬節第二篇讀經的選擇《致迦拉達人書》(第五章),當中很精采地指出有些人跟聖神,有些人跟隨自己的私欲偏情,所帶出不同的效果就是:「本性私慾的作為,是顯而易見的:即淫亂、不潔、放蕩、崇拜偶像、施行邪法、仇恨、競爭、嫉妒、憤怒、爭吵、不睦、分黨、妒恨、兇殺、醉酒、宴樂」。你可以如此區分,崇拜偶像,即拜邪神,不信天主;淫亂、不潔、放蕩、醉酒,即肉體的享受;更明顯看到的是,你如果不跟隨聖神,你便會變成一個自私的人,所以有仇恨、競爭、嫉妒、憤怒、爭吵、不睦、分黨、妒恨,甚至兇殺。殺人、打仗,這些可以是源於個人的自私,或是民族的自私,所以若不跟隨天主聖神,而投向私欲偏情,這個世界便會非常混亂

我們教會需要堅守天主給她的制度,所以有大公會議。教宗保祿六世曾說:我要開一些會議,規模雖不及大公會議,但會叫做主教會議(Synod of Bishops)。希望教宗方濟各不要拋棄這個Synod of Bishops,希望他採納許多不同的意見之後,也要將這會議交給主教們,以聖經,以聖傳去辨別及答覆一些現在需要釐清的問題。但是很明顯的,這些是從人的內心開始的,那些聽從聖神的話的人,效果是什麼?「仁愛、喜樂、平安、忍耐、良善、溫和、忠信、柔和、節制」,所以世界上有兩類人——跟聖神的,或跟自己私欲偏情的。跟隨私欲偏情,後果就是你們現在所看到的世界;如何混亂

上一篇讀經《致格林多人前書》教會中有不同肢體,耶穌定了宗徒們,宗徒的繼承人去處理教會內部發生的事,剛才我已說,世界上的思想很混亂,特別是關於倫理道德的,現在不知道教宗是出於同情心或愛心,認為那些對於有關性的倫理道德與教會不相符的人很可憐,稱那些同性戀者也彼此相愛,切不可排擠他們;其實我們絕對沒有排擠他們照耶穌的教訓我們與他們做朋友,讓他們接受我們,從而規勸他們,表示這個傾向本身不是罪,但當中的危險就是若照著這同性傾向作出性行為,便不合乎天主計劃,所以希望他們明白,要跟隨耶穌的旨意去行

其實我們每個人也有不同的誘惑,沒有同性傾向也會有誘惑,未結婚的有未婚者的誘惑;結婚者有其誘惑;發聖願,表明不結婚的就算經過多年訓練,也會有其誘惑⋯⋯故我們需要求天主,求聖母保佑,從這裡開始,從自己開始去積極參與教會。既然教宗如此喜歡詢問全世界人的意見,我們當然也希望他讓主教們也有機會表達他們的意見,幫助聖統階級一起去執行天主給宗徒們的使命教全世界的人去遵守耶穌的誡命:「你們往普天下去,向一切受造物宣傳福音。」

主教會議如何繼續,如何收場?

     這個討論“Synodality”的主教會議的前一半已完成。但令我們非常驚奇的是,大會的「評導員」Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich 說大會仍未能為“Synodality”賦予一個定義。他說:「我們仍在學習的階段,“Synodality”並不是一個概念,而是一個經驗、一個程序,這程序在會議中好像進行得不錯。」

     如果沒有一個清晰的概念,他是依照什麼標準說Synodal process進展得不錯?教會正在漸漸變成Synodal?

     這個會議的主題是“Synodality”,照其希臘文字源(字的根源),意思「共議同行」,而它又有一個副主題,「參與、團結去執行福傳的使命」(Participation, Communion for Mission)。

     為很多語言(中文也不例外)根本不可能直接翻譯“Synodality”這個字,所以現在唯有用這個字源的意義,來代替它:「共議同行」。我們也假設副主題忠實地講出了主題。這樣香港教區便很勤力地討論了「如何能夠透過共融去參與教會的福傳使命」。

     有人恐怕還會猶疑:一方面大會的領導人說「這個“Synodality”是教會的必要因素」。這看來理所當然,我們的教會是至一、至聖、至公,從宗徒傳下來的,「參與」是教會生命中一個恆有的因素。但另一方面又說「“Synodality”是天主特別對今天教會的期待」,這是否意味它是一件新的事物?這兩個說法有否矛盾?

     當然我們沒有理由假設有矛盾。也許這個“Synodality”並不是全新的,只是要求我們更新,給予一個新的動力,使能更深化這種參與的精神,加強福傳的使命。

     這樣瞭解了主題,香港教區便積極地對於今次主教會議的題目進行討論。我們的教區並不屬於任何主教團,不屬於國內的,也不屬於台灣的。在教區內舉行這大會的第一階段(地方教會)時,不分教區和主教團的兩個層次。


     我們的教區舉行了十三次公開討論會,有1200人參加;又舉行了170次小組神修對話,有930多人參加;還有發出的書面問卷,有1278個回覆,來自150個團體,加起來也有2000多人。所有收集到的意見,以一個科學方法將它綜合起來,最明顯的結論就是,我們需要培育,這包括神父、教友,尤其是青年人的培育。什麼方面的培育?關於勇敢發言和細心聆聽,關於共負責任及服從權威,關於和其他宗教及社會各方面的對話。


     在這裡我想補充一下:香港教區是最多華人教友的教區之一,人口密集也有助溝通及參與。其實,我們教區的信友一直都很積極活出「共議同行」的精神。於二千年開始之初,即我們剛回歸中國的時候,我前任主教胡振中樞機領導我們,舉行了一個教區會議(1999-2001)。

全體成員約200多人:

25位當然成員,即教區的領導;

45位由負責牧靈的神父選出;

20位男修會及傳教會;

30位修女;

78位平信徒,其中

     58位堂區選出;

     10位教區委員會代表;

     10位公教信徒善會代表;

10位主教任命

開會程序:大會分成七組,每組負責研究一個題目

1. 教友培育與職務

2. 青少年牧民

3. 關社(僕人及先知色)

4. 傳揚福音(向教外人)

5. 婚姻與家庭牧民

6. 教育與文化

7. 教區司鐸的聖召栽培及持續培育

討論步驟:

     第一步:首先我們會觀察,針對每一個題目在教區裡現狀如何。第二步:就是評估,依照教會的道理和原則,評估這現狀是否符合我們教會牧民及福傳的方向;最後一步就是決定,需要做什麼。這可以說是沿用「天主教國際工青會」會祖創始而很多公教團體沿用的程序。see, judge, act的三步曲。

     這會議表決了一些很有智慧的建議,使我接任教區主教時,祇需遵從那些決議,不必設計一套自己的牧民計劃(希望大家還能找到《天主教香港教區會議文獻》來閱讀)。


     前面我們說:教區對今次會議的題目作了積極的討論。但因為“Synodality”這個字不易翻譯,我們祇是從字源的籠統意義,對「共議同行」作出了研究。這卻遠離了“Synodality”在教會內的實質意義,Synod(與Council通用)在教會內是一件歷史事實,Synodal, Synodality都來自Synod。

     「共議同行」?當然應該,但在教會內,誰同誰「共議同行」?同行的目的地是哪裡?有否領導人保證大家不會迷路?

     正為解答這些問題,教廷信理部委任其屬下一個國際神學小組撰寫了一份文件,名為《教會在生活中及執行福傳時的“Synodality”》。該小組從2014年到2017年寫成了這文件,由信理部部長確認,並得教宗方濟各批准而在2018年5月2日公佈。

     這文件當然被列在對主教會議有關的資料中,但主教會議秘書處卻並不多用(奇怪!)。


     對照信理部的那文件和主教會議秘書處的文件,我們可以發覺有兩種絕不相同的教會觀。【前者】從新約證明教會是耶穌在宗徒們身上建立的,由宗徒的繼承人及領受聖秩的神職人員領導,大家邁向天上的耶路撒冷前進。【後者】說教會的主要特質是“Synodality”(又說不清楚那是什麼),說它是領了洗者的民主集團(領了洗者?他們還去教堂嗎?他們從聖經學習道理,由聖事取得力量嗎?)。

     【後者】若被認同,那末教會裡什麼都可以改變了:信仰道理可以變,倫理道德的紀律也可以變。

     有人會說:這不是指控大會秘書處有陰謀(conspiracy)嗎?有agenda(預定而不說明白的目的)嗎?

     他們當然否認有agenda,但我們不能太天真,看看最近幾個主教會議:兩次討論家庭的主教會議後,在《愛的喜樂》勸諭中有一個註解,讓神父們可以按環境決定,准許離婚而再婚者也可以領受聖體。在Amazon會議中有一條決議支持“viri probati”,那些德高望重的教友,雖結了婚、有家庭,也可准他們做神父。雖會議後的宗座勸諭並沒有認同這決議,但留下這議題,鼓勵繼續討論。這些不是agenda嗎?

     看看這次主教會議召開前,在德國已進行一個所謂“Synodal Path”,一群不知有什麼代表性的教友,和已佔多數而未夠三分二的主教們,高談神職「性侵犯」,說其根源是「神職主義」(神職霸權),表示教會的制度大有問題,需要徹底的改革(把那金字塔倒轉來),教會的性倫理也該追上現代的文化。教廷至今還沒有堅決喝止他們。其實梵二後不久,在荷蘭教會內也有了類似的運動(竟出版了一本「全新的」《天主教教理》),那運動使今天的荷蘭教會幾乎瀕臨死亡的邊緣。這一切不使我們擔憂嗎?

     這裡我以為談談聖公會內發生的事也不離題。最近,一個代表全球聖公會85%的Global Anglican Future (GAF) Conference寫信警告Westminster的大主教,說:除非他悔改(不再堅持承認同性婚姻),否則他們再不會接受他的首席權。

     恐怕有些人在主教會議秘書處第一份厚厚的文件中,沒有特別注意到,他們竟說『推行“Synodality”精神的最大阻礙將是「神職主義」』!?他們也強調「神職主義」是性侵犯的基本根源。那真荒謬之極。「性侵犯」、這大災禍、的根源當然是現代的「性文化」、性氾濫,它也滲入了教會,甚至滲入了栽培神職的修院。

     在那文件中還有長長的「清單」,列出世界上、教會裡,一切可能所有的問題,似乎是說:祇有“Synodality”才能幫助教會面對這些問題。但我「本能地」以為他們關心的是那「清單」的尾項:那些因特殊性傾向而被教會排擠的(LGBTQ這名詞竟堂堂登上了教會文件!)。

     終結這大會的第一、地方性、的階段,究竟在推動者的眼裡算不算成功?我以為並不成功。他們希望的應該是收集很多動人的經驗,讓大家看到被教會排擠的人是多麼可憐,在這事實的基礎上建設革新的“Synodal”教會。但首先,很多教友根本不明白他們的這計劃,其次,參與諮詢者的數量也不理想(按可靠的統計,參與者祇有教友的1%左右)。這也難怪誰,諮詢時間不夠長,covid 19也使集會很有困難。他們勉強扮樂觀,說大家對他們的指示都作了踴躍的回應。


     進入第二階段(此階段是以大洲作單位)。他們將之分成七個聚會,中央秘書處主任及Cardinal Relator親自去領導,他們又帶了幾位所謂Facilitator(協調員)參加了七個聚會中的六個。

     代表我們亞洲的當然是The Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC),香港、澳門雖不屬任何主教團,但也是FABC成員。

     參加這會議第二階段的是在第一階段曾參與推進會議者,現在是由中央來到的人領導。開會的內容仍是分享經驗,尤其是因性生活或婚姻狀態不正規,而被團體排擠的,他們是「不在場」者。會議先是分小組,在圍住圓桌的櫈有一張是空的,提醒大家要記得那些不在場者,與會者轉述他們悲慘的經驗,描寫他們怎麼不被團體接納。教會不是應該歡迎所有的人,「所有的」,「所有的」,一個也不能缺?這些分享當然會引起同情。

     他們用了一個很特別的方法,稱之為“Conversations in the Spirit”(在聖神中對話),不斷叫人祈禱,祈禱之後分享,分享之後再祈禱,再分享,這方法強調要聆聽別人,再將自己分享的內容改善。他們說:爭論不好,因為爭論造成分裂。

     這不是等於說不要討論?但開會其實是需要解決問題,正因為有問題才需要討論,討論當然該以聖經和聖傳為基礎。而討論之後才有結論,那個會議才算成功。至於祈禱當然重要,開會前該已累積了許多祈禱,開會時期每天的祈禱也該更熱切,但不該用掉太多開會的時間來祈禱。這第二階段仍是強調分享,僅有非常少的討論,所以只能說,這第二階段也純粹屬於準備性質,並未進入開會討論的模式。

     一位加拿大耶穌會士,額我略大學的教授Fr. Tony Lusvardi說:這“Conversation in the Spirit”並不來自聖依納爵,是來自加拿大耶穌會士。這方法並不是用來作「辨別」,祇是用來使大家平靜心情,避免一開始討論就爭論得面紅耳赤。而且也不是什麼問題都需要辨別,都可以辨別的,假如一件行為已肯定是罪惡,怎麼能辨別是否可以做它?再者,在耶穌會內祇有長上有責任、有權作出決定,會士必須聽命“perinde ac cadaver”(如屍身一般)。

     強迫用這方法不正是為了避免討論?全是心理學、社會學,沒有信仰道理,沒有神學分析!

     在分享中提到的一些問題顯然有爭論性,在全體會議中看來也有人特別關注,這樣至少也已有了一個討論的開始。

     FABC是一個非常有效的組織。於2022年,為慶祝FABC成立50周年,他們舉辦了一個很大規模的“Conference”,綜合這幾十年來亞洲教會的經驗,發展的程度,尤其是目下需要面對的問題。

     中央有人來領導會議,但FABC會後的報告,其實資料取自那2022年Conference的,比那數天開會的資料更多。為那些從羅馬有目的來領導開會的人,那報告可能沒有太大幫助。但這些領導人這次也扮樂觀,向外表示大家也很接受了他們的領導。

     從大洲階段會議後的大會報告,也就是所謂「主教會議上集」的“instrumentum laboris”,我們至少終於看清楚大會關心的問題是:改革教會的制度及性倫理的問題。


     在進入第三階段,即全球性真正主教會議(上集)時,我認為如果再用第二階段的方法(即程序)的話,沒有充分討論,不能解決問題,最後可能一無所成,或倉猝收場、敷衍了事。所以會議開始之前我寫了一封信給某些與會的樞機及主教,希望他們不要被動地接受那方法。可惜,會議仍用了那方法;我明白,那幾位樞機和主教都很有禮貌,沒有向大會作出反對。而且參考上次主教會議的經驗,抗議也沒有用,因為秘書處所定的程序也是教宗同意的,不能改。

     我以為大會應該回到以前已長期遵照的程序,不是因為我愛守舊,是因為那程序能幫助解決問題。先在全體會議中大家聽大家,使大家能看出哪些需要討論的問題,以聖經和聖傳為基礎開始認真討論。最後在語言小組裡結束討論並草寫簡明的決議,經投票通過後,不公開,呈交教宗,作為他的主教兄弟們貢獻給他的意見。

     除了那程序大大限制了討論的空間,也有另一個對言論自由的限制。這次開會之初教廷傳播處再三叮囑要嚴守秘密,就算自己發表的意見也不該傳出去,說是為避免給傳媒機會說三道四。但這樣封鎖新聞不正是違反“Synodality”的精神嗎?其實每天還是有記者招待會,但有機會受訪問的祇是那些由facilitator挑選來的「乖孩子」。

     不過看來他們不能完全取消大會的全體會議,在那有限的幾分鐘發言中,與會者雖未能盡情討論,至少也有了機會對整個程序及大會的agenda提出了質疑(大會的「總結」中,連LGBTQ這代名詞也不見了)。


     大會的成員和以前幾十年的傳統也大有不同。教宗保祿六世創立的主教會議,成員主要是由每個國家或每區主教團選出的代表。也有幾位神職男修會總會長們選出的代表,他們(類似主教們)有不少受聖秩祝聖的司鐸在他們的管轄下。

     這次教宗卻選了很多其他主教(有人說是為「平衡兩個陣線」,那是很政治化的觀點)。以前也有少數神父、修士、修女和教友被邀請參加,但都是以旁聽和專家的身份,不參與投票。

     嚴重的改變是:今次有很多男女教友,以有投票權的身份參與大會,徹底地改變了這主教會議的性質。

     主教會議(The Synod of Bishops)是教宗保祿六世在梵二大公會議結束時建立的,目的是使教宗能定時、對關於某些個別問題、諮詢他的兄弟主教們。是Collegiality運作的工具。有「非主教」一起投票,這會議已不是主教會議了(真如一枝美酒加了一些水份,已不能當那美酒出售了)。

     教宗當然可以召開這樣的或任何其他諮詢性的會議,但不再是主教會議。如果2024年開的會議也如2023年的一樣,那末教宗方濟各是否取消了教宗保祿六世所創的主教會議?如果是,那末就不要稱這個是主教會議,免引起誤會。

     看到在教廷手冊(Annuario Pontificio)以前的Secretariate of Synod of Bishops已變成了Secretariate of Synod,那是什麼Synod?大公會議也是Synod,教區會議也是Synod,都有聖教法律清楚規定。現在這個「混合性的」諮詢會議是什麼Synod?

     正式的主教會議正式被取代了?教宗必然該向大家交代。難道他不再需要他的主教兄弟們的意見?梵二大公會議不是正強調了教宗和主教們的Collegiality(教宗和主教們是繼承宗徒團體的主教團體)。

     有人說我們羅馬教會忘了“Synodality”,東方教會卻把它保存了,那是一個大誤會。一位天主教Byzantine禮儀的主教Manuel Nin O.S.B.說:「為東方教會Synod一向是主教的事,Synod這字並不是關於天主子民的同行,是關於主教們和主耶穌同行(我們要記得的是:東方教會的大主教並不等於我們的教宗,他們作任何重要的決定時,一定需要主教們同意)」。


     其實現在把情況「正規化」並不難。所謂「主教會議的上集」並沒有作任何決議,所以還是屬於準備階段,那末祇有「下集」才是正式的主教會議。

     讓主教們正式討論已放上議程上的那些問題,由他們(不必由facilitator領導)作出決議,呈交教宗。參加了「上集」的「非主教」成員或可一樣回來參與,也可要求發言,當然代教宗主持會議的都該是主教;「非主教」成員不能和主教一起投票。


     更重要的是全體天主子民要積極參與準備今年十月開幕的主教會議。一方面補足準備方面的不足;主教們對那些需要討論的問題的現況,要和神父、男女修會和教友們,進一步瞭解,把「羊群」的氣味帶去羅馬(教宗不可能嗅到全球羊群的氣味)。

     主教應該帶領天主子民瞭解主教們在會議中會怎樣,按什麼標準評估這些現況,為作出信仰的結論,來幫助教宗領導天主子民和基督一齊同行,邁向天上的耶路撒冷。

     這是艱巨重要的工作,需要主教動員神父、男女修會和全體子民。除了加深對聖經的認識,對教會的聖傳也不能或缺,其中最重要的是梵二大公會議的《教會憲章》。

     信理部那份文件也很寶貴(似乎還沒有官方中文譯本,本人正在負責一個「非官式,非賣品」的譯本,歡迎大家向本人索取,請附上回郵地址,寄香港堅道2-8號 明愛大廈C座一樓  教區檔案處  馮小姐收)。

     信理部2014年發表過另一文件「教會內的Sensus fidelium」(教友的「信德本能」),並不是領了洗就保證擁有,需要參與教會的生活,勤閱聖經、勤領聖事、積極參與教會團體的生活才會有這寶貴的恩寵。


     聖誕前信理部出了一個「聲明」,《Fiducia Supplicans》(出於對天主信賴的請求),關於在某些情形下,神職人員可以祝福同性伴侶。

     「神職人員能否祝福同性伴侶」這問題,因有些地區竟已擅自作出決定,在教會內形成混亂。這次主教會議開幕前,已有五位樞機向教宗呈上「疑問」(Dubia),希望他給一個答案,可以避免在會議中浪費時間來討論一個不需討論的題目。教宗在翌日就給了一個很長的答覆(那不可能是教宗自己寫的。照Cardinal Fernández慣用的說法,「你聞不到教宗的氣味」),更可能是這位樞機和主教會議領導人已預備好,為在會議中反駁「異見者」的「子彈」。

     這「聲明」一方面說:同性婚姻絕不可能;但又說在某些情形下,聖職人員可以祝福同性的伴侶。那五位樞機,按教會傳統,希望教宗能給一個「是」或「否」的答案,但教宗再沒有回覆。

     這次的「聲明」來得既突然,又無理。突然,因為這問題在主教會議中已進入了討論,當然大家以為在十月再開會時會詳細討論。在這「兩集」會議之間,信理部搶先出這文件,為自己的立場作了煩長的、詭辯的解釋,明明想不再讓會議去討論,那是非常強橫且不尊重會議的主教們。

     他們說他們的做法是為避免混亂,但其效果正是一個大混亂,甚至引起一個大分裂的危機:許多主教及主教團都反對,不准神父們給這類祝福,幾乎全體非洲主教及其他許多主教及主教團都反對這「聲明」。

     一月四日信理部又出來解釋,說瞭解有人還需要一些時間來明白十二月的「聲明」,也等於說暫時可以不執行十二月的「聲明」,但很多神父和學者要求教廷收回那製造混亂的「聲明」。

     我說得很多了,祝大家新年(農曆新年)快樂,不要忘了努力準備十月又將展開的主教會議,真正的主教會議,但由我們全天主子民支持的和主教們一起準備的主教會議。

陳日君樞機

2月15日  聖灰禮儀翌日

附:

(1) 今天彌撒第一篇讀經來自申命紀(30:15-20):「我今天將生命與幸福,死亡與災禍擺在你面前……我今天指着天地向你們作證:我已將生命與死亡,祝福與詛咒,都在你面前。」

(2) 常年期第四主日彌撒的第一篇讀經來自申命紀,最後兩句(18:19-20):「若有人不聽信他(先知)因我的名所說的話,我要親自同他算賬。但是,若一位先知敢擅自因我的名說我沒有吩咐他說的話,或因其他神的名說話,這位先知應該處死。」

這兩段話應警醒我們大家。

(3) 我看到在主教會議上曾頌唱那美麗的祈求聖母歌“Sub Tuum Praesidium”。如果有兄弟姊妹學了頌唱這支歌,聖母一定會祝福你們為主教會議所做的一切努力。

How will the Synod continue and end?

     Looking at how the First Session of the Synod on synodality ended, we cannot help but be amazed, because they tell us that it is not yet clear what synodality is. The Cardinal Relator of the Synod tells us that “we are still learning, synodality is not a concept, it is a process and it seems to be progressing well”.

     But if there is no clear concept of synodality, with what criterion is it stated that the process was synodal and that the Church is becoming synodal?

     Starting from the etymology of the Greek word – “walking together” – synodality was given as the theme of this XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops; a sub-theme was also given: “Participation and communion for the mission”.

     Since it is not possible in many languages (including the Chinese language) to directly translate the word “synodality”, it is assumed that the sub-theme is a faithful explication of the theme. So, without directly studying the synodality, we began to study “how to dialogue together to walk together on the path of evangelization”.

     There is a doubt to be resolved. They tell us that synodality is a fundamental constitutive element of the life of the Church, but at the same time they emphasize that synodality is what the Lord expects of us today. Participation and communion are obviously permanent characteristics of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But doesn’t saying that synodality is “the thing that the Lord expects of us today” mean that it is something new? In order not to see a contradiction in it, we must understand this invitation to synodality not as having to do something completely new, but as giving a new impulse to something that has always existed in the Church.


     With this understanding, our Diocese has actively undertaken this first phase of the Synod, the local one (not belonging to any episcopal conference due to the political situation, we only have the diocesan level of this phase and not that of the Episcopal Conference).

     The Diocese conducted 13 consultation assemblies with approximately 1,200 participants; small group “spiritual conversations” were conducted 170 times, with 930 participants; there was then an online questionnaire and in six months 1,278 responses were collected from 150 communities, the participants must have exceeded 2,000. Through scientific methods, a synthesis done of all this work shows that the most important thing for the Diocese is to promote the training of priests, faithful and especially young people. The themes of this training include: parrhesia in expressing oneself and attention in listening; responsible participation in discernment and decisions by the established authorities; dialogue in the Church, with society and between religions.


     Here I allow myself to open a parenthesis.

     The Diocese of Hong Kong is one of those in the world with a very large number of Chinese faithful. The population density in the city favours communication. At the turn of the two millennia and shortly after the return of the city under the sovereignty of the Nation, my predecessor Cardinal John Baptist Wu promoted a diocesan Synod.

The members were around 200:

25 ex-officio;

45 chosen from among the priests in care of souls;

20 religious and missionaries;

30 nuns;

78 representatives of the faithful, of which

     58 from the parishes,

     10 from Diocesan commissions,

     10 from the Associations of the faithful;

10 appointed by the Bishop.

The members were divided into 7 groups responsible for organizing the study of 7 themes:

(1) formation and ministries of the faithful

(2) youth pastoral

(3) social awareness

(4) missions ad gentes

(5) marriage and family

(6) education and culture

(7) training of vocations and ongoing training of diocesan priests.

     The method of the synodal process was the one started by the JOC Movement (Jeunesse Ouvrière Chrétienne) and then adopted by many Catholic organizations: see, judge, act.

     This diocesan Synod reached very wise resolutions, so that I, who succeeded Cardinal Wu as Bishop of Hong Kong, only had to follow them, without needing to have my own plans in my episcopal service (I hope the volume of the Synod Proceedings is still available) .


     I was saying that the Diocese did a very good job in the first preparatory phase of the Synod, but it did not study the exact meaning of the word “synodality”. By focusing the study on the generic sense of “walking together”, no reference was made to the word “synod”, but Synod or Synods are a historical reality. The adjective “synodal” and the abstract noun “synodality” come from the word “synod”.

     Walk together? Yes, but in the Church who walks together with whom? What is the goal of this journey? Is there a guide that ensures the right direction?

     Precisely to answer these questions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had commissioned its International Theological Commission to draw up a document entitled: “Synodality in the life and mission of the Church“. The Commission worked between 2014 and 2017; the text was approved by the Prefect of the Congregation and published on 2 May 2018 with the approval of Pope Francis.

     This document is obviously listed among the documents that concern the theme of this Synod. But, strangely, the Synod Secretariat makes little reference to it.


     Reading the aforementioned document and the voluminous first introductory document of the Secretariat of the Synod, I cannot dispel the perception that we are faced with two opposing visions of ecclesiology. On the one hand, the Church is presented as founded by Jesus on the Apostles and their Successors, with a Hierarchy of ordained ministers who guide the faithful on the journey towards the heavenly Jerusalem. On the other hand, there is talk of an undefined synodality, a “democracy of the baptized” (Which baptized people? Do they at least go to church regularly? Do they draw faith from the Bible and strength from the Sacraments?)

     This other vision, if legitimized, can change everything, the doctrine of faith and the discipline of moral life.

     Someone will cry: “conspiracy theory!”.

     They say there is no agenda, but this offends our intelligence, how can we forget that Note in Amoris Laetitia after the two Synods on the family? And that resolution on the “viri probati“, even if it was not included in the Post-Synodal Exhortation of the Amazon?

     How can we not worry when we look at the “synodal path” in Germany. A group of lay faithful, self-proclaimed representative of the Catholic people, together with a majority, but less than 2/3 of the bishops, almost smugly mention “sex abuses”, blaming them on clericalism; from there they conclude that there is a serious problem in the structure of the Church, which would require its complete overhaul (overturning the pyramid?) and the sexual ethics of the Church need to be updated to the modern culture. This synodal path has not yet been decisively repudiated. Let’s remember also the movement which exploded in Holland in the aftermath of Vatican II (with the new Dutch Catechism) which led the Church of that country to languish today as if moribund?

     It does not seem out of place to mention the case of the Anglican Community. The poor Archbishop of Canterbury has received a warning from the Archbishops of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAF, which includes 85% of the world Anglican Community), to repent of having legitimized homosexual unions, otherwise they will no longer recognize his position as an authority.

     In the voluminous document of the Secretariat, perhaps not everyone has noticed that terrible but gratuitous statement that the most feared obstacle to synodality is clericalism. Clericalism is often tendentiously considered as the main cause of sexual abuse, while it is obvious that the sexual revolution has also entered in the Church and even in seminaries.

     And that long list of problems that only synodality would be able to help us address, is it there simply as an inventory? Reading it, I mischievously suspected that what the drafters of the document were interested in was what was mentioned at the bottom of the list, that is, minorities with particular sexual tendencies who would be discriminated against, despised and cruelly marginalized by the Church. (Thus the acronym LGBTQ entered for the first time, solemnly, in a Church document!)

     Concluding what has been said so far about the first preparatory phase of the Synod, I think that for the promoters of the Synod this first phase was a great failure. From this phase, apparently, they wanted to gather an abundance of experiential facts as a foundation for all subsequent construction of the edifice of synodality.

     But, first of all, many, as well as our people in Hong Kong, did not even understand what the promoters wanted. Moreover, the quantitative participation of the faithful was also discouraging. Reliable statistics say that it barely reached 1%, which is understandable, if we think of the insufficient time given for the consultation and of the difficulties created by Covid-19. Promoters tried to put a good face on bad luck, saying that there had been an enthusiastic response from all sides.


     The second phase arrives, the continental one. Finally, promoters have more ability to direct the operation. The Secretary General and the Cardinal Relator, together with some “facilitators”, went in person to 6 of the 7 continental meetings to lead the consultation.

     For Asia, the FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, which also includes the Dioceses of Hong Kong and Macau which do not belong to any Episcopal Conference) was obviously representative. The people summoned were those who had animated the work of the first phase, but who were now well guided towards particular themes of dialogue and with a particular method.

     The emphasis is still on sharing experiences, listening to the experiences of people who have no voice in the Church (the absent, symbol an empty chair at the table around which in small groups painful experiences of people excluded from the community are told). These experiences obviously arouse emotions, feelings of compassion. These are especially experiences of minorities with particular sexual tendencies and with situations of irregular “marriages”, for which they are not accepted, that is, are excluded, while the Church should welcome everyone (todos! todos! todos!)

     The peculiar method used is the so-called “conversation in the Spirit”. We pray and then everyone shares their experience, everyone listens. We pray again and talk again, but integrating what everyone had heard. Then we pray again and check points of convergence and points of divergence. Conversation, not discussion!

     But without adequate debate, how will the problems be resolved? There are problems, so we need to debate. Obviously the discussion must be based on the Word of God and the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The Holy Spirit will guide the discussion to consensus conclusions as in the Second Vatican Council. The prayers must have been accumulated already before the meetings; in the meetings, the Spirit is there to guide everyone in the discussion.

     Father Tony Lusvardi, a Canadian Jesuit, professor at the Gregorian University, says that the method of “conversation in the Spirit” does not come from St. Ignatius, but from the Canadian Jesuits. This method is not used for discernment, but to pacify the spirits before discernment, so that we do not immediately start arguing with excited souls, but by opening ourselves to the inspirations of Heaven. Moreover, he says, one cannot discern things that are already certain (if an action is already evidently sinful, one cannot discern whether one can commit it or not). Among the Jesuits, after all, the Superiors command and the subjects obey perinde ac cadaver (“as if they were corpses”).

     Imposing this method on the Synod proceedings is a manipulation aiming at avoiding discussions. It is all psychology and sociology, no faith and no theology.

     Since several things mentioned were controversial, a beginning of discussion was still able to emerge in the little time left for dialogue in the Assembly with the few minutes given to anyone who wanted to speak.

     The Final Report on this phase of participation made by the FABC, rather than responding to the issues which interested the facilitators, draws heavily on the results of the recent General FABC Conference on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of foundation of the FABC. This General Conference was a true general mobilization. It carefully reflected on the needs present in the Church in Asia. The time coincided exactly with the beginning of the Synod process.

     It seems that even this second, continental phase, still preparatory to the Synod itself, must not have satisfied the promoters of the Synod. But from the synthesis they made of it, in the Instrumentum laboris for the actual Synod, we at least finally have the clear perception that the problems posed for discernment are the structures of the Church and the problems of sexual ethics.


     The third, global, phase, with those two big problems facing it, was supposed to be the real Synod that had to provide the solution to these problems. I hoped that they would return to the procedure tested by many past Synods, that is, to start with the Assemblies, where everyone hears everyone and the status quaestionis can emerge clearly; then to proceed to the laborious discussion (but without the help of the facilitators); then to conclude with the linguistic circuli minores, where concise deliberations are thrashed out to be offered to the Holy Father, in a confidential manner, as advice from his brothers in the episcopate.

     It was my great disappointment when I saw that this phase had begun with the same method as the continental one, a method that does not favour the solution of problems. Foreseeing this eventuality, I had, as you know, attempted to incite some Synod Fathers (Cardinals and Bishops) to insist on the procedure, but in vain, they are gentlemen and reluctant to any gesture of opposition.

     There was also a very severe warning regarding secrecy (almost pontifical) to avoid, they say, a lot of media chatter. There was, yes, a daily meeting with journalists, but only the “good guys”, chosen by the facilitators, spoke to the journalists. To avoid media chatter, the faithful were kept in the dark about a Synod that was intended to be a model of synodality.

     Among the members of the Synod with the right to vote, in addition to the bishops elected representatives of the Episcopal Conferences, there were also a large number of bishops appointed by the Pope, evidently with the aim of “balancing the two sides”, then there were religious men and women, while in the original system there were also the elected representatives of Major Superiors of clerical male congregations, who, similarly to bishops, have a considerable number of ordained ministers under their jurisdiction.

     But there is something more serious: a large number of lay people, men and women, participate in the Synod with the right to vote (while previously there had also been religious and lay people, but as experts and observers, without the right to vote); this means that this is no longer a Synod of Bishops (just as a bottle of wine to which a lot of water has been added is no longer what it should be).

     Someone said that we had forgotten synodality, while the Orientals had always maintained it. But this is a big misconception. About this His Excellency Monsignor Manuel Nin Güell, O.S.B., apostolic exarch for the Catholics of the Byzantine rite in Greece, says that for the Orientals the Synod is always exclusively of the bishops; the word “Synod” is not used to mean the walking together of all the People of God, but is used to mean that the bishops are walking together with Our Lord Jesus Christ (we must know that the Patriarchs in the Eastern Churches are not the equivalent of our Roman Pontiff, since, for every important decision, they must have the consent of the Synod of Bishops).

     The Pope can convene any kind of assembly to give him the advice he wants. But in the Synods of Bishops only Bishops vote. Calling the recent hybrid assembly the First Session of the Synod of Bishops involves a serious misnomer.

     Matter of serious concern is the fact that in the Pontifical Yearbook (Annuario Pontificio) the Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops is re-named the Secretariat of the Synod. Which Synod? An Ecumenical Council is also a Synod. There is also a diocesan Synod. From now on, will there also be this hybrid consultation assembly with the name of Synod? Meanwhile, the true Synod of Bishops has been eliminated, the one established by Pope Paul VI at the conclusion of Vatican II as an instrument of collegiality, that is, as a body through which the Pope receives advice from his brother bishops in the Episcopate!

     At the end of this session there were no deliberations. A second session had already been scheduled. Then the first session must not be understood as a proper Synod, but only as a further preparation for the Second Session which alone can properly be called the Synod of Bishops, which will conclude with resolutions voted only by the Bishops.

     The lay people already present at the “first session” may also be welcome at this true Synod, but as observers and experts, and will not vote together with the bishops. They will also be able to make interventions in the discussion, but at the invitation of the Presidency, perhaps upon prior request; it is obvious that the President Delegates must all be bishops.

     What I have pointed out so far can be considered a problem of mere confusion of terms, but it is a dangerous confusion. It is convenient to call everything with its proper name, and this will also clarify the task during this year of intermission for all of us in the Church.


     We can and must all take an interest in the coming Synod, that is, the Synod of October 2024 by organizing study sessions on the problems that the previous phases have brought to the table; study that must be done with the help of everyone (priests, men and women religious, competent lay people), indeed, with the assiduous presence of the Bishop; study accompanied by a supplement of experiences of concrete facts, so that our Bishops can bring to the Synod the smell of their sheep (only they are able to bring to the Synod the true situation of their Church, the Pope cannot get the smell of all his sheep in the world, especially if these are in the periphery…)

     But above all in this year there is a need for a study that will help true discussion at the level of faith; knowledge of the Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium) of Vatican II and of the aforementioned document on synodality of the International Theological Commission will be of utmost importance.

     There would also be a document from the International Theological Commission (“Sensus fidei in the Life of the Church”, 2014), which explains the true meaning of the sensus fidelium.


     Before Christmas, December 18, 2023, came the Declaration “Fiducia supplicans” from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which justifies blessing of homosexual couples in certain circumstances. The signatory is the Prefect of the Dicastery, with the signed consent of the Holy Father. It was first a surprise and then a great confusion follows. A Press Release, of January 4, 2024, looked like half a-retraction of the previous Declaration.

     Surprise, first of all. Before the start of the Synod, we five Cardinals had asked Pope Francis five questions or Dubia, to which we hoped to have a clear answer, thus saving discussion time at the Synod. Within 24 hours, with incredible speed, a long answer came. The author could not be the Holy Father himself, but had to come from the arsenal of the Secretariat of the Synod prepared to counter contrary opinions. The Declaration Fiducia supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings merely develops that already long response to the Dubia.

     A most unpleasant surprise. Since the problem had already come to the table, it was more than reasonable to wait for the next Session of the Synod, after serious discussion, to provide a solution. Pre-empting such a discussion is an act of incredible arrogance and disrespect for the Synod Fathers.

     Despite the repeated protestation in the Declaration that confusion must be absolutely avoided in such matters, the Declaration has inevitably caused great confusion, and threatens a serious division never before seen in the Church.

     At the end of this long disquisition of mine, all I can do is wish “Good work!” to everyone and may the Lord bless us!

     Your brother,

     Card. Joseph Zen

15 February 2024  Day after “the ashes”

 

P.S. The first reading of the Mass of the Fourth Sunday of Ordinary Time that we have recently celebrated is from the book of Deuteronomy, the last two sentences sound a severe warning to all of us: “If anyone does not listen to the words that [the prophet] will say in my name , I will ask him to account. But the prophet who presumes to say anything in my name that I have not commanded him to say, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die” (Deut 18:19-20 ).

I am consoled by seeing that the beautiful prayer “Sub tuum praesidium” was sung during the Synod. I hope that many will learn it (even by heart) and that it will accompany us throughout the time that we will dutifully spend working for the true success of the current Synod.

Come proseguirà e come si concluderà il Sinodo?

     Guardando a come si è conclusa la Prima Sessione del Sinodo sulla sinodalità non possiamo che rimanere sbalorditi, perché ci dicono che non è ancora chiaro che cosa sia la sinodalità. Il Cardinale Relatore del Sinodo ci dice che “stiamo ancora imparando, la sinodalità non è un concetto, è un processo e sembra che proceda bene”.

     Ma se non c’è un chiaro concetto di sinodalità, con quale criterio si afferma che il processo è stato sinodale e che la Chiesa sta diventando sinodale?

     Partendo dall’etimologia della parola greca – “camminare insieme” – la sinodalità venne data come il tema di questa XVI Assemblea Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi; venne dato anche un sotto-tema: “Partecipazione e comunione per la missione”.

     Non essendo possibile in molte lingue (compresa la lingua cinese) tradurre direttamente la parola “sinodalità”, si suppone che il sotto-tema sia una fedele esplicazione del tema. Allora, senza studiare direttamente la sinodalità, ci siamo messi a studiare “come dialogare insieme per camminare insieme sulla via della evangelizzazione”.

     C’è un dubbio da risolvere. Ci dicono che la sinodalità è un elemento costitutivo fondamentale della vita della Chiesa, ma nello stesso tempo enfatizzano che la sinodalità è quello che il Signore aspetta da noi oggi. Partecipazione e comunione sono ovviamente caratteristiche permanenti della Chiesa Una Santa Cattolica ed Apostolica. Ma dire che la sinodalità è “la cosa che il Signore aspetta da noi oggi” non vuol dire che si tratta di una cosa nuova? Per non vedervi una contraddizione, dobbiamo intendere questo invito alla sinodalità non come a dover fare qualcosa di completamente nuovo, ma a dare un nuovo impulso a qualcosa che è sempre esistito nella Chiesa.


      Con questa comprensione la nostra Diocesi ha intrapreso attivamente questa prima fase del Sinodo, quella locale (non appartenendo ad alcuna conferenza episcopale per la situazione politica, di questa fase abbiamo solo il livello diocesano e non quello della Conferenza Episcopale).

     La Diocesi ha condotto 13 assemblee di consultazione con circa 1,200 partecipanti; ha condotto 170 volte dei piccoli gruppi di “conversazione spirituale”, i cui partecipanti erano 930; c’è stato poi un questionario on-line e in sei mesi si sono raccolte 1,278 risposte provenienti da 150 comunità, i partecipanti devono aver superato i 2,000. Attraverso metodi scientifici, una sintesi di tutto questo lavoro mostra che la cosa più importante per la Diocesi è di promuovere la formazione dei preti, dei fedeli e specialmente dei giovani. I temi di questa formazione includono: parresia nell’esprimersi e attenzione nell’ascoltare; responsabile partecipazione nel discernimento e decisioni da parte delle autorità costituite; dialogo nella Chiesa, con la società e tra le religioni.


     Qui mi permetto di aprire una parentesi.

     La Diocesi di Hong Kong è una di quelle che hanno un maggior numero di fedeli cinesi nel mondo. La densità della popolazione nella città favorisce la comunicazione. A cavallo dei due millenni e poco dopo il ritorno della città sotto la sovranità della Nazione, il mio predecessore Card. John Baptist Wu ha promosso un Sinodo diocesano (1999-2001).

I membri erano circa 200:

25 ex-officio;

45 scelti tra i sacerdoti in cura d’anime;

20 religiosi e missionari;

30 suore;

78 rappresentanti dei fedeli, dei quali

     58 dalle parrocchie;

     10 dalle Commissioni diocesane;

     10 dalle Associazioni dei fedeli;

10 nominati dal Vescovo

I membri sono divisi in 7 gruppi incaricati di organizzare lo studio di 7 temi:

1. formazione e ministeri dei fedeli

2. pastorale giovanile

3. coscientizzazione sociale

4. missioni ad gentes

5. matrimonio e famiglia

6. educazione e cultura

7. formazione delle vocazioni e formazione permanente dei preti diocesani.

     l metodo del processo è quello iniziato dal Movimento JOC (Gioventù Cattolica Operaia) e poi fatto proprio da molte organizzazioni cattoliche: vedere, giudicare, agire.

     Questo Sinodo ha raggiunto deliberazioni molto sagge, cosicché io, succeduto al Cardinale Wu come Vescovo di Hong Kong, avevo solo da seguirle senza bisogno di avere i miei piani nel mio servizio episcopale (spero che il volume degli Atti del Sinodo sia ancora a disposizione).


     Dicevo che la Diocesi ha fatto un lavoro molto buono nella prima fase preparatoria del Sinodo, però non ha studiato il senso esatto della parola “sinodalità”. Concentrando lo studio sul senso generico del “camminare insieme”, non si è fatto più nessun riferimento alla parola “sinodo”, ma il sinodo o i sinodi sono una realtà storica. L’aggettivo “sinodale” e il sostantivo astratto “sinodalità” vengono dalla parola “sinodo”.

     Camminare insieme? Sì, ma nella Chiesa chi cammina insieme con chi? Qual’è la meta di questo cammino? C’è una guida che assicura la giusta direzione?

     Proprio per dare risposta a queste domande, la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede aveva incaricato la sua Commissione Teologica Internazionale di redigere un documento intitolato: “La sinodalità nella vita e nella missione della Chiesa“. La Commissione ha lavorato tra il 2014 e il 2017; il testo è stato approvato dal Prefetto della Congregazione e pubblicato il 2 maggio 2018 con l’approvazione di Papa Francesco.

     Questo documento è ovviamente elencato tra i documenti che interessano il tema del presente Sinodo. Ma, stranamente, la Segreteria del Sinodo vi fa poco riferimento.


     Leggendo il documento summenzionato ed il voluminoso primo documento introduttivo della Segreteria del Sinodo non riesco a cacciare via la percezione che siamo davanti a due visioni opposte di ecclesiologia. Da una parte la Chiesa viene presentata come fondata da Gesù sugli Apostoli ed i loro Successori, con una Gerarchia di ministri ordinati che guidano i fedeli nel viaggio verso la Gerusalemme celeste. Dall’altra parte si parla di una sinodalità non meglio definita, una “democrazia dei battezzati” (Quali battezzati? Vanno almeno regolarmente in chiesa? Attingono fede dalla Bibbia e forza dai Sacramenti?)

     Quest’altra visione, se legittimata, può far cambiare tutto, la dottrina della fede e la disciplina della vita morale.

     Qualcuno griderà alla “conspiracy theory”.  

     Dicono che non c’è un’agenda, ma questo offende la nostra intelligenza, come possiamo dimenticare quella Nota nell’Amoris laetitia dopo i due Sinodi sulla famiglia? E quella deliberazione sui “viri probati“, anche se non entrata nella Esortazione Post-sinodale di Amazzonia?

     Come possiamo non preoccuparci quando guardiamo al “sentiero sinodale” in Germania? Un gruppo di fedeli, non si sa con quale titolo di rappresentatività, insieme a più di metà, ma meno dei 2/3 dei vescovi, parlano quasi con compiacenza degli “abusi sessuali”, indicandone la causa nel clericalismo, segno che la costituzione della Chiesa ha gravi problemi ed ha bisogno di un radicale rifacimento (rovesciare la piramide) e l’etica sessuale della Chiesa ha pure bisogno di adeguarsi alla cultura moderna. Questo “Sentiero sinodale” non è stato ancora decisamente ripudiato. Ricordiamo anche quel movimento che esplose in Olanda all’indomani del Vaticano II (con il nuovo Catechismo olandese) che ha condotto la Chiesa di quel paese a languire oggi come moribonda?

     Non mi sembra fuori luogo menzionare il caso della Comunità Anglicana. Il povero Arcivescovo di Canterbury ha ricevuto un ammonimento dagli Arcivescovi della Global Anglican Future Conference (GAF), che comprende 85% della Comunità Anglicana mondiale, perché si penta di aver legittimato l’unione omosessuale, altrimenti non riconosceranno più la sua posizione di autorità.

      Nel voluminoso documento della Segreteria forse non tutti hanno notato quella terribile ma gratuita affermazione che il più temuto ostacolo alla sinodalità è il clericalismo! Il quale è sovente tendenziosamente ritenuto come la causa principale degli abusi sessuali, mentre è ovvio che la rivoluzione sessuale è entrata anche nella Chiesa e perfino nei seminari.

     E quella lunga lista di problemi che solo la sinodalità sarebbe in grado di farci affrontare è lì semplicemente come un inventario? Leggendola, maliziosamente sospettai che quello che interessava agli estensori del documento è quello che era menzionato in fondo alla lista, cioè le minoranze con tendenze sessuali particolari che sarebbero discriminate, disprezzate ed emarginate crudelmente da parte della Chiesa. (L’acronimo LGBTQ è entrato per la prima volta, solennemente, in un documento della Chiesa!)

     Concludendo il fin qui detto sulla prima fase preparatoria del Sinodo, penso che per i promotori del Sinodo questa prima fase sia stata un grande insuccesso. Da questa fase volevano raccogliere un’abbondanza di fatti di esperienza come fondamento per tutta la costruzione seguente dell’edificio della sinodalità.

     Ma, anzitutto, molti, come pure i nostri di Hong Kong, non hanno neanche capito quello che i promotori desideravano; ma anche la partecipazione quantitativa dei fedeli è stata scoraggiante. Attendibili statistiche dicono che essa arriva appena a 1%, il che è comprensibile a causa sia del non sufficiente tempo dato per la consultazione e sia a causa delle difficoltà create dal Covid-19. I promotori si sforzano di fare buon viso a cattiva sorte, dicendo che c’è stata una entusiasmante risposta da tutte le parti.


     Arriva la seconda fase, quella continentale. Finalmente, i promotori hanno maggiore possibilità di dirigere l’operazione. Il Segretario generale e il Relatore, insieme ad alcuni “facilitatori”, sono andati in persona a 6 dei 7 raduni continentali a guidare la consultazione.

     Per l’Asia era ovviamente rappresentativa la FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences) che include anche la Diocesi di Hong Kong e quella di Macau che non appartengono ad alcuna Conferenza Episcopale. Le persone convocate sono quelle che hanno animato il lavoro della prima fase, ma che adesso sono ben guidate verso particolari temi del dialogo e con un peculiare metodo.

     L’accento è ancora sulla condivisione di esperienze, ascoltare le esperienze di gente che non hanno voce nella Chiesa (gli assenti, simbolo una sedia vuota al tavolo attorno al quale in piccoli gruppi si raccontano esperienze dolorose di gente esclusa dalla comunità). Queste esperienze ovviamente suscitano emozioni, sentimenti di compassione. Si tratta specialmente delle minoranze con tendenze sessuali particolari, di situazioni di “matrimoni” irregolari, per cui non sono accettate, cioè escluse, mentre la Chiesa dovrebbe dare il benvenuto a tutti (todos! todos! todos!)

     Il metodo peculiare usato è la cosiddetta “conversazione nello Spirito“. Si prega e poi ognuno condivide la sua esperienza, tutti ascoltano. Si prega di nuovo e si torna a parlare, ma integrando quello che ognuno aveva ascoltato. Si prega di nuovo e si verificano i punti di convergenza e i punti di divergenza. Conversazione, non discussione!

     Ma senza un adeguato dibattito come si risolveranno i problemi? Ci sono i problemi, perciò bisogna dibattere. Ovviamente la discussione deve basarsi sulla Parola di Dio e sulla Sacra Tradizione della Chiesa. Lo Spirito Santo guiderà la discussione a conclusioni concordi come nel Concilio Vatican II. Le preghiere devono essere già accumulate prima delle riunioni, lì lo Spirito è pronto proprio a guidare tutti nella discussione.

     Padre Lusvardi, un Gesu ita canadese, professore all’Università Gregoriana, dice che il metodo della “conversazione nello Spirito” non viene da Sant’Ignazio, ma dai Gesuiti canadesi. Questo metodo non serve per il discernimento, ma per pacificare gli spiriti prima del discernimento, affinché non si cominci subito a discutere con animi eccitati, ma aprendosi alle ispirazioni del Cielo. Del resto, dice, non si discerne su cose già certe (se un’ azione è già evidentemente peccaminosa, non si discerne se la si possa commettere o no). Presso i Gesuiti, poi, comandano i Superiori ed i sudditi obbediscono perinde ac cadaver (“come fossero dei cadaveri”).

     Imporre questo metodo è una manipolazione per evitare le discussioni. Tutta psicologia e sociologia, non fede e teologia.

     Siccome diverse cose menzionate erano controverse, un inizio di discussione ha potuto ancora emergere nel poco tempo lasciato al dialogo nell’Assemblea con i pochi minuti concessi a ciascuno che volesse intervenire.

     La Relazione finale su questa fase di partecipazione da parte della FABC, più che rispondere alle questioni sulle quali verte l’interesse dei facilitatori, attinge abbondantemente dai risultati della recente General Conference in occasione del 50° della fondazione della FABC. Questa General Conference è stata una vera mobilitazione generale. Si è riflettuto accuratamente sulle necessità presenti nella Chiesa in Asia. Il tempo coincideva esattamente con l’inizio del processo del Sinodo.

     Sembra che anche questa seconda fase, continentale, ancora di preparazione al Sinodo propriamente detto, non deve aver soddisfatto i promotori del Sinodo. Ma dalla sintesi che ne hanno fatto, nell’Instrumentum laboris per il vero Sinodo, abbiamo almeno finalmente la chiara percezione che i problemi posti al discernimento sono le strutture della Chiesa ed i problemi dell’etica sessuale.


     La terza fase, mondiale, con davanti a sé quei due grossi problemi, doveva essere il vero Sinodo che avrebbe dovuto dare la soluzione a questi problemi. Speravo che si tornasse alla procedura collaudata da tanti Sinodi passati, cioè, cominciare con le Assemblee, dove tutti sentono tutti e può emergere chiaro lo status quaestionis. Si procede, quindi, alla laboriosa discussione (senza però l’aiuto dei facilitatori). Si conclude poi con i circuli minores linguistici, dove si concretizzano delle concise deliberazioni da offrire al Santo Padre, in modo confidenziale, come consigli dei suoi fratelli nell’episcopato.

     Fu un mio grande disappunto, quando vidi che questa fase era cominciata con lo stesso metodo di quella continentale, un metodo che non favorisce la soluzione dei problemi. Prevedendo questa eventualità, avevo, voi lo sapete, tentato di sobillare alcuni Padri Sinodali (Cardinali e Vescovi) di insistere sulla procedura, ma invano, essi sono gentiluomini e riluttanti a qualunque gesto di opposizione.

     C’è stato anche un severissimo monito riguardo il segreto (quasi pontificio) per evitare, dicono, il gran chiacchierare dei media. C’è stato, sì, un quotidiano incontro con i giornalisti, ma solo i “buoni ragazzi”, scelti dai facilitatori, hanno parlato ai giornalisti. Per evitare le chiacchiere dei media, i fedeli sono stati tenuti all’oscuro di un Sinodo che voleva essere modello di sinodalità.

     Tra i membri del Sinodo con diritto di voto, oltre ai vescovi eletti rappresentanti delle Conferenze Episcopali, c’era anche un gran numero di vescovi nominati dal Papa, evidentemente con lo scopo di “bilanciare i due schieramenti”, ci sono poi religiosi e suore, mentre nell’ordinamento originale c’erano anche rappresentanti eletti tra i Superiori Maggiori delle Congregazioni maschili clericali, i quali, analogamente ai vescovi, hanno un considerevole numero di ministri ordinati sotto la loro giurisdizione.

     Ma c’è qualcosa di più serio: un gran numero di laici, uomini e donne partecipano al Sinodo con diritto di voto (mentre prima c’erano stati pure dei religiosi e dei laici, ma come periti ed osservatori, senza diritto di voto), allora, questo non è più un Sinodo dei Vescovi (come una bottiglia di vino a cui è stata aggiunta un bel po’ di acqua non è più quello che deve essere).

     Qualcuno diceva che noi abbiamo dimenticato la sinodalità, mentre gli Orientali l’hanno sempre mantenuta. Ma questo è un grosso malinteso. Sua Eccellenza Mons. Manuel Nin O.S.B., esarca apostolico per i cattolici di rito bizantino in Grecia, dice che per gli Orientali il Sinodo è sempre esclusivamente dei vescovi; la parola “Sinodo” non è usata per significare il camminare insieme di tutto il Popolo di Dio, ma si tratta dei vescovi che camminano insieme a Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo (dobbiamo sapere che i Patriarchi nelle Chiese Orientali non sono l’equivalente del Romano Pontefice per noi, per ogni decisione importante devono avere il consenso del Sinodo dei Vescovi).

     Il Papa può convocare qualunque specie di assemblea per dargli i consigli che egli vuole. Ma nei Sinodi dei Vescovi solo questi votano. Chiamare la recente ibrida assemblea col nome di Prima Sessione del Sinodo dei Vescovi è stata un serio equivoco.

     Preoccupa il fatto che persino nell’Annuario pontificio la Segreteria del Sinodo dei Vescovi è ri-nominata la Segreteria del Sinodo. Quale Sinodo? Anche un Concilio Ecumenico è un Sinodo. C’è anche un Sinodo diocesano. D’ora in poi ci sarà anche questa ibrida assemblea di consultazione col nome di Sinodo? Intanto è stato eliminato il Sinodo dei Vescovi, quello costituito da Papa Paolo VI alla conclusione del Vaticano II come strumento di collegialità, cioè come organo attraverso il quale il Papa riceve consigli dai vescovi suoi fratelli nell’Episcopato!

     Alla fine di questa sessione non c’è stata nessuna deliberazione. Si era già programmata una seconda sessione. Allora la prima sessione non deve essere intesa come Sinodo proprio, ma solo come ulteriore preparazione alla Seconda Sessione che sola potrà chiamarsi propriamente Sinodo dei Vescovi, il quale si concluderà con delle deliberazioni votate dai soli Vescovi.

     I laici già presenti alla “Prima Sessione” siano pure benvenuti a questo vero Sinodo, ma come osservatori e periti, e non voteranno insieme ai vescovi. Potranno anche fare interventi nella discussione, ma su invito della Presidenza, magari dietro previa richiesta; è ovvio che i Presidenti delegati devono essere tutti vescovi.

     Quello che ho fatto notare fin qui può considerarsi un problema di mera confusione di termini, ma è una confusione pericolosa. Conviene chiamare ogni cosa come è, e questo chiarirà anche il compito durante questo anno di intervallo per tutti noi nella Chiesa.


     Tutti possiamo e dobbiamo interessarci del prossimo Sinodo, cioè del Sinodo dell’ottobre 2024: organizzando sedute di studio sui problemi che le fasi precedenti hanno messo sul tappeto; studio che si deve fare con l’aiuto di tutti (sacerdoti, religiosi e religiose, laici competenti), anzi, con l’assidua presenza del Vescovo; studio accompagnato da un supplemento di esperienze di fatti concreti, cosicché i nostri Vescovi possano portare al Sinodo l’odore delle loro pecore (solo essi sono in grado di portare al Sinodo la vera situazione della loro Chiesa, il Papa non può mica avere il fiuto di tutte le sue pecore nel mondo, specialmente se si tratta della periferia…)

     Ma soprattutto in quest’anno c’è bisogno di uno studio che aiuterà la vera discussione a livello della fede; sarà di massima importanza la conoscenza della Costituzione sulla Chiesa (Lumen gentium) del Vaticano II e del summenzionato documento della Commissione Teologica Internazionale.

     Ci sarebbe anche un documento della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede intitolato “Sensus fidei nella vita della Chiesa” (2014), nel quale si spiega il vero significato del sensus fidelium.


     Prima di Natale, 18 dicembre 2023, venne la Dichiarazione “Fiducia supplicans” del Dicastero della Dottrina della Fede, che giustifica la benedizione di coppie omosessuali in certe circostanze. Il firmatario è il Prefetto del Dicastero, col consenso firmato del Santo Padre. Fu una sorpresa anzitutto e poi una gran confusione segue. Un comunicato stampa, del 4 gennaio 2024, sembra una mezza ritrattazione della precedente Dichiarazione.

     Sorpresa, anzitutto. Prima dell’inizio del Sinodo, noi cinque Cardinali avevamo rivolto a Papa Francisco cinque domande o Dubia, a cui si sperava di avere una risposta chiara, per così risparmiare tempo di discussione al Sinodo. In 24 ore, con incredibile velocità, venne una lunga risposta. L’autore non poteva esserne il Santo Padre, ma doveva venire dall’arsenale della Segreteria del Sinodo preparato per controbattere opinioni contrarie. La Dichiarazione Fiducia supplicans non fa che sviluppare quella già lunga risposta ai Dubia.

     Una sorpresa disgustosa. Dato che il problema era già venuto sul tappeto, era più che ragionevole aspettare che la prossima Sessione del Sinodo, dopo seria discussione, ne desse una soluzione. Prevenire tale discussione è un atto di incredibile prepotenza e di mancanza di rispetto per i Padri sinodali.

     Nonostante la ripetuta protestazione, nella Dichiarazione, che in simile materia bisogna assolutamente evitare ogni confusione, la Dichiarazione ha causato, inevitabilmente, una grande confusione, e minaccia una seria divisione, mai vista nella Chiesa prima.

     Alla fine di questa mia lunga disquisizione, non mi rimane che augurare “Buon lavoro!” a tutti e che il Signore ci benedica!

     Vostro fratello,

     Card. Giuseppe Zen  

15 Feb. Giorno dopo “le ceneri”

 

P.S. La prima lettura della Messa della Quarta Domenica del Tempo ordinario che abbiamo da poco celebrato è dal libro del Deuteronomio, le ultime due frasi suonano un severo ammonimento a tutti noi: “Se qualcuno non ascolterà le parole che [il profeta] dirà in mio nome, io gliene domanderò conto. Ma il profeta che avrà la presunzione di dire in mio nome una cosa che io non gli ho comandato di dire, o che parlerà in nome di altri dei, quel profeta dovrà morire”(Deut 18:19-20).

Mi consola il vedere che si è cantato durante il Sinodo la bella preghiera “Sub tuum praesidium“. Spero che molti la imparino (anche a memoria) e che essa ci accompagni in tutto il tempo che doverosamente impiegheremo lavorando per il vero successo del Sinodo in corso.

分享彌撒讀經

        雖然我忙着寫一篇很長的文章,但我還是放下它,用幾分鐘與大家分享我這兩日的彌撒讀經:常年期第五週星期一、星期二,都來自列王紀上第八章。

        星期一,撒羅滿在耶路撒冷建了聖殿,將上主的約櫃從達味城搬來,這段聖經我當然讀過多次,但這次有一句使我特別注意到:「約櫃內除了兩塊石版外,沒有別的東西」。天主的約櫃原來只有這兩塊石版,就是天主在山上寫了十誡交給梅瑟的。在寶貴的、黃金的約櫃內就只有這兩塊石版,約櫃又是聖所內天主的寶座,就是聖殿裡,神聖的聖所內,最神聖的地方。

        十誡也稱為「天主的十句話」,等於天主的真正臨在。以色列民族說天主沒有給其他民族這樣充滿智慧的話。

        記得我們少年時唸早課時也唸天主十誡。這是祈禱嗎?是的。祈禱是我們與天主的對話,唸天主向我們說的那十句重要的話,當然是祈禱。

        這十句話在某些國家曾高高掛在法庭裡,其實天主已把它們刻在我們心上,這是天主與人類結盟約(結婚)的恩物。這十句話指示我們做人、做天主的子女的道路,離棄它我們就會迷路、迷失去天堂的方向。

        十誡是否沉重的負擔?為有罪根的人是沉重的。但耶穌說:「我給你們的擔子是輕鬆的」,因為有祂陪着我們一齊行十字架的路。

        十誡的前三誡當然更重要,但十誡之中任何一誡都不能缺;如果有人以滿足情慾為最高價值,他怎能愛天主在萬有之上呢

        星期二,固然耶穌對撒瑪黎雅婦人說過,真正朝拜天主者不是在這座山或那座山,而是在心神和真理朝拜。但耶穌還樂意去聖殿(祂父親的家)祈禱。

        撒羅滿在祝聖聖殿的那天這樣祈禱說:「上主,請俯聽你僕人在你面前所發的呼號和祈禱!願你的眼睛晝夜垂視這座殿宇。」我在意大利讀書時學了一首拉丁歌,它在撒羅滿的話上還錦上添花:「天主,請你日日夜夜,睜開眼睛注視這座殿宇;張開耳朵聽我們的祈禱。」

        我們當然要學習在任何地方都要祈禱,但在聖堂裡,尤其在耶穌聖體前,我們會更感覺到天主的臨近。沒有聖堂、或不能入聖堂將是信仰的極大考驗,那時天主會給我們特別的助佑,絕不要做所謂「一生三次進聖堂的教友」:領洗、結婚以及由人抬入行喪禮!不慣入聖堂的,怎麼敢稱自己為教友

關於“Fiducia Supplicans”

  本人收到了天主教社會傳播處(下稱傳播處)2023年12月23日公布的『《懇求的信心》「聲明」的牧民祝福』(闡釋12月18日教廷信理部發布的「聲明」)。傳播處那短文也再登上了12月31日的《公教報》。

  本人發覺在兩個關鍵的地方,傳播處的短文有犯錯誤(其實《Sunday Examiner》卻沒有犯錯,為什麼《公教報》不和它對一對呢?)

  1. 原文說:請求祝福的是「同性伴侶和其他處於不符合基督信仰的關係中的人。傳播處卻說請求祝福的是「同性伴侶及其他不符合基督信仰的關係」。

  原文清楚地說:受祝福的是「人」,不是那類「關係」。

  2. 「聲明」原文的第38節說施給祝福的神職人員能為他(她)們祈求平安,健康,容忍逆境,彼此溝通,彼此看護,且求天主光照他(她)們,使他(她)們有力量,能圓滿承行天主的聖意

  固然,「聲明」的別處祇說「生活得更好」、「生活圓滿」。祇說「生活圓滿」並不足夠,他(她)們或許以為同性結合的生活也已可以是圓滿的,但38節有說「完滿承行天主的聖意」。

  本人沒有將以上的質疑傳給傳播處,因為就算按字句改正了,那「聲明」還是很有問題。

  但過了兩三天見到有一位羅袁慧霞女士,正因為看到了傳播處錯誤的報告,作出了一些很嚴重的疑慮,並請傳播處釋疑。至今我沒有見到傳播處的回覆。

  其實這是個重要的問題,為什麼教區竟讓傳播處處理?不是至少該由教區秘書長過目。很多教區和主教團作出了很重要的闡釋和負面的回應。


  

  正因為這些回應不斷陸續在網上出現,我等到現在才決定寫一些我的看法(雖然我對教區的行政已沒有任何關係,但對於維護教會的道理還是有責任的)。

  教廷信理部的「聲明」雖重複強調:任何祝福不該使人誤會,教會絕不認同同性的或不符合教會信仰的男女「性結合」為另類婚姻。但那「聲明」卻又說:出於牧民愛德,在某些情形下可以祝福同性伴侶及其他生活在不合規的關係中的男女。

  繁長的「聲明」留下很多疑問,且又說不會再作任何解說(par. 41)。

  很多主教及主教團(尤其非洲及東歐)嚴正命令神父們不要執行這類祝福。

  信理部部長在今年1月4日又出了另一份「聲明」,一方面強烈否認12月18日的「聲明」違反教會道理,另一方面承認主教及主教團有理由對那「聲明」有某些疑慮,看來他們需要長些時間去研究,而暫時未能准許神父們執行那「聲明」,教廷是瞭解的。這等於說1218日的聲明暫時無效

 


  在這情形下我們可以放心討論那兩份「聲明」,我在此向鐸兄鐸弟貢獻我的一些觀點:

  1. 我們先該瞭解「聲明」所說。我不知道那12月18日及1月4日的「聲明」是否已有中文譯本,港、澳、台教會缺乏翻譯人手,似乎至今還沒有那兩份「聲明」的中譯本。這兩份「聲明」也其實很複雜。「聲明」中說blessing有由下向上,有由上向下;其實中文由下向上的根本不是祝福而是「讚頌」,由上而下的才是「降福」。

  「聲明」中的“Spontaneous” 不該譯成主動,因為主動的反面是被動,申請祝福當然是主動的,這裡看來“Spontaneous”應該譯成「隨機」,「不特別安排的」,在一個機會上「自然」發生的。

  「聲明」中說「例如祝福一個朝聖團」。神父根本不可能也不必澄清朝聖團中有否生活在那些「不正常」性關係的伴侶。「聲明」中論到的是那「一對一對的伴侶」。雖不是特別安排,但明顯是生活在那些關係中的couples。

  2. 「聲明」中(§38)說那些couples要求祝福時「可能」也要求天主給與恩寵力量,使他(她)們有能力全面遵行天主的聖意。如果真是這樣,那末神父很容易給他們介紹天主的聖意。但問題是:「聲明說神父不該去審查他(她)們有沒有這樣的意向。那末神父不能確定他(她)們有這意向,或有理由懷疑他(她)們根本沒有這意向,那麼神父怎麼能給予祝福?

  3. 「聲明」說這類祝福是出於牧民的愛心,但聖經不是說牧者該保護壯健的羊,醫治損傷的,領回迷途的?那「聲明」像是說他們來時是「一對」,祝福後還是「一對」回去;那不是等於說他(她)們,至少暫時,還能在那「不正規」即有罪的方式生活下去?

  福音裡有時有人求耶穌醫病,祂卻先說了「你的罪赦了」。祂最關心的是把人從罪惡中解放出來(當然祂也已經給了他們認罪的恩寵)。神父如果不能肯定他面對的「一對」有意全面遵守天主所規定的方式生活,或肯定他們根本不承認自己生活在罪惡中,他不是應該用最有愛德的態度,給他(她)們介紹天主的意願嗎?

  4. 這樣的祝福給別人的印象事實上製造混亂

  「聲明」多次強調要避免製造混亂,但「聲明」所鼓勵的祝福,事實上免不了會製造混亂。

  世俗的傳媒當然會故意增加混亂,但教會內那些支持LGBTQ的牧民者如Fr. James Martin, S.J. 或 Sr. Jeannine Gramick不是也故意製造混亂或根本,像德國和其他某些教區一樣,不遵守「聲明」中指示的一些規則,教廷為何不喝止他們?在這重要的問題上製造混亂,是符合牧民的原則嗎?

  在很多地區,特別是教宗常提到的「邊緣地帶」,他們的文化極反對縱容同性關係,甚或在法律上與以懲罰。信理部是否真不知情?

  5. 最嚴重的是:信理部的「聲明」說:同性關係的性行為也有它的善,可以「進步」,可以「成長」。同樣,教宗(更可能是信理部部長)答覆五位樞機的疑題時,也說同性的性愛和婚姻的愛是「類似」的!這是絕對主觀的錯誤。按客觀的真理,那行為是嚴重的罪,絕不能有任何的善。

  教宗本篤說過:「如果沒有真理為基礎,愛就成了一個空殼,放什麼入去都可以。」

  信理部部長以一個嚴重的罪為「善」,豈不是犯了異端,那末部長豈不應該辭職或被革職?

  最後:其實,全球主教會議不是正在進行中嗎?希望今年十月的會議中主教們終於能自主地(不必由facilitators領導)辯論這些問題,並由聖神領導達至一致的結論了。信理部搶先作了「聲明」,是嚴重藐視主教們(宗徒的繼承人,教宗的兄弟)的職份!

“Transform the teaching Church into a listening Church” (???)

  我真不敢相信《Sunday Examiner》真想這樣說。那末我們教會的官方刊物也跟隨世俗的潮流用sensational heading來推銷自己?外國人看到了會不會以為香港教區已不屬天主教?我細閱S.E.十二月十七日版的全篇報導見不到周樞機說過這句話,那末《Sunday Examiner》豈不是陷周樞機於不義?

  Transform也就是說徹底改變她,也就是說:「聖統階級已不再是教會的領導,而要聽從教友」?這推翻了耶穌的計劃,祂對宗徒們說:「你們去教誨全世人民,遵守我吩咐了你們的一切」。

  當然,宗徒的繼承人,領受聖秩的牧者,應該認識自己的羊。主教、神父要多多聆聽教友,明白他們的處境,照顧他們的需要,梵二大公會議之後,教會內有許多架構幫助教會生活出這共議同行的精神。

  教宗大聲疾呼要眾人、眾人、眾人出聲,要眾人、眾人、眾人聆聽,似乎是指出還有很多人沒有、或未能,參與這共議同行的大隊。不論這問題是否真的這麼嚴重,加強這共議同行的精神當然是一件好事。

  教宗和主教會議秘書處負責人有時也會說要「倒轉教會的金字塔」,但不可能是真的要推翻基督為教會定下的制度。教宗、主教、神父要服務的既是大眾教友和全世人類,那麼一切牧民和福傳行動都該從「大眾」開始:瞭解大眾實在的需要,然後才能保護健康的羊、醫治傷殘的、找回迷途的。這可以說是從金字塔的底部開始而不是從頂上下來。其實避免用「倒轉金字塔」的說法更好,免得讓人們認為我們的教會已變了質。

  “Transform the teaching Church into a listening Church”的確使人們不得不誤會,以為我們的教會真的變了質。誰負得起這責任?

讀經又有感 常年第卅二週 星期三

第一篇讀經智慧篇,讀了就算,我不敢多講,似稍有「煽動性」,怕有一日智慧篇會從舊約全書中被刪除。

福音中耶穌醫好十個癩病人,祇有一個回來感謝祂。耶穌問:其他九個在哪裡?

有人說:有些教友一生三次入聖堂,第一次是受洗,第二次是結婚(聖堂內的婚禮很美:有電子琴奏的 5 1–1 | 1 – | ……有在聖堂前拍照……),第三次是別人抬他入去(安息彌撒)。那九個似不似這類教友?這種教友還算真正的教友嗎?

以 Synodality 為題的 Synod(主教會議)中常強調:「領了洗的有什麼什麼神恩。」但『「教友」信仰本能』(sensus fidelium)的「教友」當然不是指這些教友,說他們和主教同樣是「領了洗的」未免太簡化了。

梵二大公會議的《教會憲章》對主教、神父、教友之間的關係有非常詳細及平衡的交代。有些人常講梵二的「精神」,卻恐怕還未讀過這個文件。在2024年主教會議再開時,希望大家已熟識這文件,可以避免很多費時的爭論。