Let me finish my business with DW News

We are entering the last two weeks of the Liturgical Year, the reading of the book of Revelation brings us to the last days of human history, in which we are living. “Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the appointed time is near.” (RV. 1:3)

Today (on Nov 16th morning) we read the message St. John transmitted to the angel of the Church in Ephesus: “I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked, you have tested those who call themselves Apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.” (RV. 2:2)

Forgive my lack of humility, I am too promptly identifying myself with this angel of the Church of Ephesus. But don’t worry, I am going to meditate also, even more seriously, on the second part of the message “yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first…Repent, and do the works you did at first.” (RV 2:4-5) (I surely prayed more and better when I was a novice and later as a young priest)


The first part of the message brings me back to the unfinished business with DW News.

They interviewed me and had my views ‘corrected’, then the ‘corrected’ version went viral. Actually, commonplaces are being repeated the hundredth time by so many ‘expert parrots’, those are lies from the ‘not so holy’ Holy See, to be more precise, from Cardinal Parolin.

Lies repeated one hundred times, especially from so solemn rostrum, can pose a risk to become truths. So bear with me if now I come to tell you for the hundredth time that those are lies.

The discussion began with a question: “should the ‘Agreement of 2018 between Beijing and the Vatican regarding nomination of Bishops in China’ be renewed?”

But how can we know the content of the agreement which remains secret? Not to mention we can form an opinion on the subject. Parolin says it is a good agreement, but we have reason to fear that it is a bad one, by judging from all the facts before, during and after the signing of the Agreement.

(1) Before the signing of the Agreement. The signing of the Agreement was a conclusion of a long process, the Ostpolitik, which is the policy of compromise, (and its final goal a diplomatic success – the reestablishment of Sino-Vatican relation). In the past twenty years or so a group of power in the Holy See supported the Government-controlled Church in China and neglected the “underground” Church, which was against the direction of Pope JPII and Pope Benedict.

The two popes who had the experience of living under totalitarian regime had no faith in Ostpolitik.

Now Pope Francis, with very different experience, has sympathy for the communists. In South America they are often persecuted by the Government. But the communists in China are persecutors of the Church, just like Nazis and Communists in Europe, where the Ostpolitik was a failure.

Given these many years of appeasement policy, we could only expect an agreement which is not good. They say it could not be perfect, but imperfect doesn’t mean ‘bad’. (Parolin even said that a bad agreement would be better than no agreement! This is beyond my understanding).

We don’t know the content of the Agreement, but we can reasonably have a conjecture of  it from the compromise strategy of Vatican for almost 20 years.

The Holy See approves ‘secretly’ one or two names of ‘acceptable’ candidates for Episcopacy, the communist Government ‘secretly’ finds them also ‘acceptable’, a fake election of the named is staged, the Holy See approves the elected, then the Ordination is performed (the ‘Pontifical Bulla’ of nomination is not read during the Ordination, but before it, in the sacristy). In this way illegitimate Ordinations can be avoided.

But these ‘secret’ deals are no guarantee. How many times, under pressure, the Vatican may have accepted the names chosen by the Chinese Communist Party? There are cases when it would have been too much for the Holy See to surrender, and you still have the illegitimate bishops.

So, a written agreement would be better? But what kind of agreement is it?

In the present situation, as we have just reviewed, the best you could expect was an agreement similar to that the Holy See made with the Hungarian Government, described by a Hungarian theologian Andràs Fejérdy in this way: “…the Holy See accepted a solution that did not formally violate the canonical principle of free appointment, but in practice gave the Regime a decisive influence in selecting candidates”.

Besides, have our Vatican first-class diplomats forgotten the lesson of history: the concordat signed with Napoleon and the one with Hitler? You cannot trust the words of totalitarian powers, they believe that their power dispenses them from honoring their words.

While carrying on a dialogue with the Vatican, the Chinese Communists never relented from their persecution of the Church. What little signs the Vatican got to justify their optimism? The Chinese Government even refused to talk about bishops and priests under their detention (some elderly bishop ‘disappeared’ for more than twenty years! Some priest is reasonably believed to have been ‘suicided’!)

With such reality before the signing of the Agreement there was no justification to hope that the agreement would make any progress for the freedom of the Church. It’s not the beginning of a journey in the right direction, as Parolin keeps saying, but the final fall into the pit from a slippery slope!

(2) Something terrible happened in the occasion of the signing of the Agreement, something seemingly not connected with the Agreement, was made to happen in the occasion: they legitimized seven ‘bishops’ ordained without the consent of the Pope, illegitimate and excommunicated.

Many legitimizations were granted by JPII when Card. Tomko was the Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelization, starting from the end of the seventies. Given the new open door policy of the Chinese Government and the easier communication with the Vatican, several bishops in China ordained illegitimately before Cultural Revolution made petition to the Holy Father for legitimization. After due investigation, they were certified to be good priests who accepted to be ordained bishops illegitimately only under heavy pressure (resistance to the Party could lead to imprisonment or Labor camp detention where many died). They were finally pardoned by the Pope and promised to be good shepherds of their flock, and the faithful were happy to see their bishops legitimized.

But the seven in question are much different. They were not under heavy pressure and for many years they acted defiantly, used the sacred power they have usurped to ordain deacons and priests, and to take part in Ordinations of other illegitimate bishops. Two of them notoriously do not live in celibacy.

Now the Holy See did not only lift their excommunication, but recognized them as bishops of seven dioceses, of which two originally had their legitimate underground bishops but were asked to step down and give way. Unbelievable! How could the Holy See assign such wolves to be shepherds of the flock.

They show no public sign of repentance, no gratitude for Holy Father’s forgiveness but go around chanting victory because they were clever to side all these years with the government, to which they eagerly and loudly profess their loyalty.

Apparently their legitimization must have been the condition the communists imposed on the Vatican in order to accept the Agreement, but connecting the two things together conveys an impression that the seven are patterns of bishops to be nominated according to the Agreement. If so, God’s house is going to become the ‘robbers’ den’! Where is the new possibility for evangelization?

(3) Facts after the signing of the Agreement

The Agreement is secret, but from leaked pieces of information, we learn that the process would start from China and not from the Vatican: ‘democratic’ election and presentation of the elected by the so-called ‘Bishops Conference’ to the Holy See (all this within a freedom ‘Chinese style’). The initiative now is in the hands of a atheist totalitarian regime.

– ‘Parolin & Co.’ says, “the last word belongs to the Pope, the Chinese Government has finally recognized the Pope as the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church!”

I don’t believe such words would be found in the Agreement, unless they show me the chinese text of it (we chinese are masters in playing with words!).

Even if the Pope is granted the power of veto, how many times he can use it without embarrassment? And, after a veto the choice of another name is still in the hands of the Government. It is obvious that the written Agreement is worse than the unwritten compromise practiced before.

– Parolin says “the Agreement is only about the nomination of bishops, we should not confuse it with other things”.

How can you make such abstraction? Do you think an Agreement can exempt the Catholic Church from being a target of the war waged against all religions?

I don’t mean that all the facts happened in these two years are caused by the Agreement, but they happened in spite of the signing of the Agreement.

By the way, as a matter of fact, the Agreement itself caused nothing, no appointment of a single bishop took place. The two Ordinations have been approved long before the Agreement (It is ridiculous to say that the Agreement has been working smoothly).

With an agreement you might expect a more friendly relation and a more kind treatment, but just the opposite. At the time the Agreement was signed, a new wave of persecution started: regulations restricting religious freedom, once ‘dormant’, were revived and harshly enforced: minors under 18 years are no more allowed to take part in any religious activity, underground places of worship were shut down, Masses in private homes were no more tolerated, those caught on the spot were punished with heavy fine and imprisonment.

The worst thing comes from the secret nature of the Agreement: being secret it became the convenient tool in the hands of the Government to demand everything from the catholic faithful, e.g. telling the underground to come up and join the Patriotic Association, the independent (schismatic) Church, telling them that it is in the Agreement, it is the will of the Holy Father.

Card. Filoni came out and told the people “not to be cheated, it is not in the agreement” (Probably this was the reason he got fired just two years before he would reach the retirement age).

Parolin could not contradict Filoni but did something much more ‘radical’, he did what was not in the Agreement, inviting everybody to register with the Government by signing a form declaring one’s participation in the ‘national’ Church (Pastoral guidelines, concerning the civil registration of clergy in China, 28 June 2019).

Obviously Parolin drafted the document. It was issued in the name of ‘the Holy See’ without specification of the competent department and without signature (neither his nor that of Card. Filoni, who was at that time still the Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelization). A document with such heavy theological implication was not even submitted to the examination by the Congregation for Doctrine!

I took a flight to Rome immediately and put my “dubia” into the hands of Pope Francis, I sent copies of the dubia to all the Cardinals. As response came the ridiculous letter of the Dean of Cardinals, G.B. Re.

All this, they say, is my personal view! However I believe I am stating facts!

What is their view?

– Parolin says the Agreement is a great achievement, “it is only possible to sign now, but the draft has been already approved by Benedict XVI.”

This is a blatant lie and an insult to our Pope Emeritus. I am sure Benedict XVI refused to sign it in 2010.

– “The Agreement is a breakthrough. All the bishops in China are now legitimate, the Church is one.”

Many bishops are legitimate only because you put on them the label ‘legitimate’, but they openly profess their loyalty to the State authority according to the principle of Sinicization i.e. absolute obedience to the Chinese Communist Party. Unity is now achieved in a ‘bird cage’!

– “There will be illegitimate bishops no more!”

There is no guarantee, an atheist totalitarian regime doesn’t keep promises. Even worse, the virus of Ostpolitik may still cause the Vatican to allow unworthy persons to be ordained as bishops (better unworthy bishop than no bishop?).

– “Bishops, priests and sacraments are essential for a normal life of faith!”

Yes when we are in the normal situation, but we are under persecution now. In time of persecution you may be forcibly deprived of the sacraments, but you cannot renounce your faith!

“Back to the catacombs!” This is what I tell my desperate brothers in China, “God is in your heart, in your family, when you (taking some risk) pray together. Let’s wait for better times, they may not be very far”.

Mr. Martin Gak, the religion expert at DW News avoids the word ‘Ostpolitik’, but puts it as ‘engagement’. Does he not realize that the whole world is in a state of awakening before the danger of “engagement” with an evil system?

– He says that with engagement you can have your man on the spot to help your people.

Obviously, he doesn’t know that the Papal Nuncio in Budapest needed the permission from the Government to meet any member of the local Church.

– He says again “no agreement would leave the faithful in an unfavorable situation, at the mercy of the Government”.

How can he ignore that everybody in China is at the ‘mercy’ of the Party?

– Finally he describes the firmness in Faith as ‘a comfortable posture of spiritual pride”.

He simply doesn’t know what is faith.

– “Dialogue, not confrontation”!

True dialogue is possible only when the two are on equal ‘sitting”’. If you are on your knees, you are in no position for a dialogue. The defeated (in a war) can never get a fair peace accord! Your long-time astounding silence on many human rights violations has put you on the seat of the defeated.

Then, can you hold the rabbit guilty of confronting the lion? We believe firmly: The Lamb of God will take care of both the lion and the rabbit!

Card. Zen

finished writing on the

vigil of the Feast of Christ the King.

His Kingdom is Kingdom of truth and life,

                             Kingdom of holiness and grace,

                             Kingdom of justice, love and peace.

令人遺憾的德國媒體報導!

兩個星期前我接受了DW (Deutsche Welle) News的錄影訪問,這是眾多外地傳媒訪問的其中一個。之後因著自己太忙,未有密切跟進這些訪問的報導。

今天,偶然於 YouTube 發現這個訪問,看畢後我感到失望及憤怒——訪問竟變成整篇報導的上半部,下半部份即是 DW News 訪問的所謂「我們的宗教通訊記者」;事實上他的言論明顯是要「糾正」我的「個人觀點」,這安排實在無異於惡意地玩弄著一位友善的老人家。我並非要指責那位記者,卻是譴責這報導的編輯及此機構的指引。

若貴台不認同我的意見與立場,你在上載報導時可先作聲明,甚至可選擇歉意地只將訪問片段傳給我而不去報導。

如果你早有打算攻擊我的看法和立場,根本很容易便能在網上搜尋到我之前的講話以作回應。

但現在你要求先採訪我,而基於DW News是個有聲望的機構,我當然不會拒人千里;但你繼而安排別人(鸚鵡學舌般重複著梵蒂岡的說話)針對我訪問中的說話及立場作出反駁,並以此作結,未有再讓我捍衛並加以闡釋自己的意見,這是徹底的可恥且不誠實!

當然,我可以繼續保持緘默,假裝從未知悉自己在此事上的過份天真;但我認為自己有責任去提醒其他人:切勿重蹈我的覆轍!

好奇一問:貴傳媒其實是由德國政府還是中國政府資助?

A very disappointing German DW News!

Two weeks ago I was interviewed (video recording) by DW (Deutsche Welle) News, which was one of the many interviews, that I granted to different foreign agencies.  After then, I have been very busy and could not follow up closely with these interviews.

Today, I incidentally came across this interview on YouTube, and I felt disappointed, even enraged.  My interview came out as the first half of a news piece, the second part was the interview with a so-called “our religion correspondent”, what obviously turned out to be the “correction” of my “personal views”, it was a malicious manipulation of a friendly old man.  I am not accusing the reporter, but the editor of the news piece and the Direction of the Agency.

If you found that my position did not correspond to yours, you could have declared it when sending the piece out, or even sent it back to me apologizing for not able to use it.

If you had a plan in the first place to fight against my views, you could have easily cited my quotes online.

Instead, you requested an interview which I could not refuse (to a so prestigious agency) , but then you let someone negate my words and position (by parroting what the Vatican said), leaving no room for me to defend my ideas.  This is utterly disgraceful and dishonest!

I could keep quiet and pretend not to have realized my own naivety, but I think it’s my duty to help others not to repeat the same mistake.

Just out of curiosity: is your agency financed by your Government or by the Chinese?

為了真理,我決不沉默

我讀了教廷國務卿帕羅林樞機(Cardinal Parolin)10月3日在米蘭發表的講話。真令人噁心!他當然不愚蠢也不無知,他就是睜著眼睛講了一大堆謊言。

最令人反感的是他對受人尊敬的榮休教宗本篤十六世的侮辱,說他曾同意那個教廷在兩年前和中共簽署的協議,因為他知道我們最寬容、最溫柔的本篤肯定不會出來否認。而「無辜」的雷若翰樞機(Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re)再次被利用來支持尊貴的國務卿的虛假言論,也是十分荒謬和對他不恭。

帕羅林知道自己在撒謊,他知道我知道他是個騙子,他知道我會告訴所有人他是個騙子。他除了厚顏無恥,還膽大妄為。其實現在他還有甚麼事不敢做呢?我想他甚至不會害怕面對自己的良心。

我更恐怕他甚至沒有信仰。我有此印象是源於帕羅林, 那時已是國務卿,在紀念卡薩羅尼樞機(Cardinal Casaroli)的演講中,讚揚他成功地在歐洲共產國家建立教會聖統制時說:「當我們尋找主教人選時,我們是在尋找牧者,不是像羅馬鬥獸場的角鬥士,不是那些逢政府必反對的人,不是那些喜歡在政治舞台上出風頭的人。」

我寫信給他,問他是否有意這樣形容維辛斯基樞機(Cardinal Wyszynski)、敏真諦樞機(Cardinal Mindszenty)、貝蘭樞機(Cardinal Beran)?他的回答沒有否認,只是說:如果我說的話讓任何人不高興,那麼對不起。一個鄙視信仰英雄的人是沒有信仰的!

歷史

讓我們看看帕羅林如何總結歷史。

一開始便循例地提到利瑪竇(Matteo Ricci),利氏似乎成了中國教會傳教史上最非凡的人物,我卻不敢苟同,許多在人民中間傳福音的傳教士,都同樣令人欽佩(我當然並不否認對自己在上海接受耶穌會士傳授的信仰而感到自豪)。

帕羅林將嘗試對話的大功追溯到教宗比約十二世。幸好,他指出比約十二世終於放棄了這一嘗試,卻又補充說:『這造成的「互不信任」,標誌著後來的歷史。』

這似乎是說「不信任」導致了隨後三十年的整段歷史!歷史可以這樣一筆帶過嗎?是不是忘記了全部傳教士被公審,被譴責為帝國主義者、中國人民的壓迫者,甚至殺人犯之後,被驅逐?宗座代表也被驅逐,許多主教在獄中多年後被逐離!

他們驅逐了「帝國主義壓迫者」就來對付被壓迫者、基督徒和中國神職人員,他們的罪狀就是不肯背棄從那些「壓迫者」學到的宗教!

教會的一半人立即被關進了監獄和勞改營。想想那些年輕的聖母軍成員,他們十幾歲便進了監獄,(除了在牢獄中去世者)獲釋時都四十來歲了。

教會的另一半人終於也被關進了監獄,但他們是在文化大革命被紅衛兵折磨後才下獄的。然後是沉默的十年。

你說我們不懂得忘記過去的苦難嗎?我個人沒有遭受任何苦難(我自1948年起便一直在香港),但我的家人和修會兄弟都吃過苦。

教會不是說該淨化記憶?當然原諒過去所受委屈是要的!但也要忘掉歷史?歷史不是「人生的老師」嗎?

帕羅林提到埃切加雷樞機(Cardinal Echegaray)開始了「起起落落中」的一段新道路。對於認識他的人來說,埃切加雷是一位極度樂觀主義者。他非常熱愛中國,但很少人知道共產黨如何對待了這位老朋友。他在一個不幸的時刻拜訪他們(逢到那場反對宣聖中華殉道者的運動),他接受了一個小時的辱罵和羞辱(宗座外方傳教會一位神父見證了這件事實,他還健在)。

這條「起起落落」的道路其實是一條直線,從未改變!在帕羅林之前擔任談判代表的克勞迪奧.切利蒙席(Monsignor Claudio Celli)抱怨說,中方代表不是來進行談判,他們祇是像錄音機一樣重覆:「簽協議啦!」

今天,切利總主教對在中國的獨立教會的神職只有一個經常用的詞:同情。然而,真正的同情必須是讓奴隸擺脫奴役,而不是鼓勵他們好好地做奴隸。

教廷的東方政策

沒錯,與共產黨的對話從很久以前已經開始。教宗若望二十三世主持的梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議已有來自共產國家的主教代表出席。教宗保祿六世隨後派卡薩羅尼蒙席到那些國家,在那裡重建聖統制。

(正如卡薩羅尼說)那是在黑暗中摸索的工作,因為對實際情況一無所知。聖統制?傀儡主教像政府官員多於羊群的牧者。但是,在那些基督宗教歷史悠久的國家,他們不會表現得太差(我兩年前到了布達佩斯、布拉迪斯拉發和布拉格去了解他們的一些歷史)。

對話在教宗若望保祿二世和教宗本篤任內繼續進行,但這個通常被稱為「東方政策」(Ostpolitik)的策略產生了甚麼結果?

且看摘自《本篤十六世──最後的談話》(Benedetto XVI – Ultime Conversazioni,第161-162頁)

〔伯多祿.塞瓦爾德(Peter Seewald)〕問道:「你有否贊同及支持過教宗(若望保祿二世)的『東方政策?』」

本篤回答說:「我們有談論過。很明顯,卡薩羅尼樞機所執行的政策,雖然目的良好,但事實上是失敗的。教宗若望保祿二世的新方針是來自他親身和那些政權交手所得的經驗。

當然,那時誰也想不到(歐洲的)共產黨會這麼快倒台,但很明顯的(教會面對那些政權)不應該妥協和讓步,但要強力對抗到底。這是若望保祿二世基本的看法,我也同意。」

東方政策在中國的應用

教宗本篤在2007年的牧函中明確指出了每個對話必須持守的原則,那就是不能不惜一切代價來達至成果,因為好的成果取決於雙方的意願。

「與合法的政權持續衝突並不能解決現存的問題。但同時,當政權不恰當地干涉教會的信仰和教律時,我們亦不能就此屈從。」(第一部份,第四章的末段)

教宗方濟各在指導對話的必須原則上也很明確。在韓國舉行的亞洲青年節之時,他告訴聚集在當地的亞洲主教們:「對話有兩個條件,首先要忠於自己的本質(不能放棄我們的教會學和基本紀律),其次是有必要敞開心扉來傾聽。」

連續性?

可惜,實際上,本篤和方濟各之間並沒有連續性,連續的是一個人──帕羅林。

在我的書《為了熙雍,我決不沉默》中,我講述了梵蒂岡內的一個權力集團在與北京政府解決問題時,如何偏離教宗本篤的主張。

有人會問:一位以堅韌聞名的教宗(他們甚至給他起綽號為「天主的洛威拿」)會容忍這種事?是的,教宗本篤是世界上最溫和、最害羞的人,很不情願施用他的職權。

有一天,我這個大罪人噘著嘴對他說:『你叫我協助你關心中國教會的事務,「那些人」都不聽你的話,你又不干涉,那要我做甚麼?貝爾托內(Bertone)也不幫我,為甚麼?』他回答說:「有時候你不想得罪任何人嘛。」他指的是時任萬民福音傳播部部長迪亞斯樞機(Cardinal Dias),以及與北京談判的教廷代表帕羅林蒙席,兩人都熱衷於東方政策。

有人或會說,我把私下的談話透露出來,會令相關人士感到尷尬。是的。不過我認為,讓無辜的教宗承擔批准一個壞協議的責任更是嚴重。

令人奇怪的是,在唐高樞機(Cardinal Tomko)擔任萬民福音傳播部部長期間,(非正式)談判的代表會向定期的秘密會議的成員報告談判的進展情況。當教宗本篤成立了一個頗有規模的中國教會事務委員會後,委員們反而被蒙在鼓裡。

在2010年間,有傳言說協議已經準備就緒。但到了某個時候,忽然一切都靜下來。帕羅林被派往委內瑞拉,由巴列斯特雷羅(Ballestrero)取代其位。韓大輝甚至在迪亞斯樞機退休之前,便加入了萬民福音傳播部。從這一切可以推測,教宗本篤在最後一刻否決了協議,並改變了談判方針。

當教宗方濟各從委內瑞拉召回帕羅林並任命他為國務卿,帕羅林所做的第一件事就是使中國教會事務委員會無聲無色地消失,而對中國的東方政策很快便大門洞開了。與敵人對話,有的;但在我們之間卻沒有!教宗方濟各顯然將中國教會的事務完全交給了他的國務卿。

對東方政策說「不」的本篤,跟對東方政策說「好」的方濟各,兩人之間是沒有連續性。帕羅林辦東方政策是連續的:以前,他沒有跟隨本篤的方針;現在,方濟各跟隨他行事。

有人會問我:你說帕羅林操縱教宗?是的,我不知道為何教宗允許自己被操縱,但有證據令我相信這一點,使我批評教廷時沒有那麼猶疑和痛苦。

在讓七個被絕罰「主教」合法及地下團體兩位合法主教被要求辭職的過程中,韓大輝總主教獲教宗接見。教宗說了三句話:「這樣做不好」,「為什麼他們沒有與我一起討論?」,「我會關注這事」。

後來,在教宗方濟各接見我的時候,我問他是否有機會關注這個問題?他立即回答:「有,我告訴了他們(教廷的高官)不要製造另一個敏真諦事件!」(不幸的是,事情的發展正如敏真諦樞機的情況一樣。兩位主教被迫把自己的權柄交給兩個不堪當的人。)

從梵蒂岡出來的決定都是來自帕羅林(顯然得到了教宗的同意)!

協議的效果

你為何會說協議不好?沒有看過協議文本,尤其是中文版的文本,我根本無法做出任何判斷。不過,尊貴的帕羅林本人和他的黨羽經常說,一個壞協議總比沒有協議好。我身為倫理科的老師,我無法理解。我一直教導他人,即使有良好意願也不能做邪惡之事。

– 他們說:協議是好的,中國共產黨終於承認教宗是天主教的最高領袖。如果我沒有看到文本,我不會相信。

– 教宗將擁有否決權!如果我沒有看到文本,我不會相信。即使假設他有此權力,他可以毫不尷尬地行使多少次呢?

– 有了協議就不會再有非法主教!極權政權可以信任嗎?你忘了與拿破崙達成的契約嗎?你忘了與納粹政府達成的協定嗎?

– 如果梵蒂岡如過去一樣,時時讓步,那麼合法的主教不一定是堪當的主教。在中國的獨立教會現在到處都是「投機主義的」主教,這些人把自己出賣給政府以謀求權力和財富。

– 如果這七個被絕罰而現在合法了的是將來的主教樣板,那末要天主救救我們了。他們的行為改變了嗎?他們有任何悔改的跡象嗎?有感謝教宗給予的寬恕?有公開承諾尊重教會的教義和紀律?你看到的,是他們四處高唱凱歌:我們靠向政府是明智的選擇!

特別令人憤慨的是兩位被迫讓位給被絕罰者的合法主教所遭受的待遇。汕頭教區現在合法的黃炳章得到「勝利」後,來到被免職者(莊建堅主教)的教堂舉行大型慶祝活動。他的神職人員和許多信徒乘坐一輛一輛的旅遊車前來,莊主教的神父和信眾卻不准參加(公安維持秩序)。他們要莊主教共祭,從而羞辱他。不過,這位老主教有清晰的頭腦,他說:「你結婚,你會慶祝,但我是被迫與我的教區離婚,有甚麼好慶祝的?」,之後便離開了。

閩東教區郭希錦主教帶領的非官方團體內神父和教友比他的競爭者多得很多。他服從梵蒂岡的指示,讓位給被絕罰者,並成為他的輔理。可是,大家都看到了他們如何使他的生活難以為繼,所以他能做的就是辭職(這幾天的新聞)。

教會終於合一了嗎?兩個教會團體修好了嗎?僅僅因為教宗祝福了這可悲的情況,敵人的勝利,教會的生活就算正常化了嗎?

所有主教都合法了,卻在一個客觀上是分裂的教會中,這樣算好嗎?進步了嗎?這是開始了一個甚麼樣的旅程?

尊貴的樞機大人似乎很謙虛地說,協議的成果並不特別令人興奮,這顯然是「輕描淡寫」,而我會說這簡直是災難。

最後一幕:每個人都要參與裂教!

這場悲劇的最後一幕是更加災難性和更加殘酷:去年6月底的一個文件。由「教廷」發布的〈聖座關於中國神職人員民事登記的牧靈指導〉,沒有標明部門,也沒有人簽名(眾所周知,這是帕羅林的傑作)。每個人都被邀請加入愛國會,即獨立的教會。真正的教會壽終正寢!

一些「地下」團體,由主教和神父帶領,很高興終於能夠安心地去除作為「非法」的負擔。但當他們進入鳥籠時,鳥籠內的老住客當然嘲笑他們:「我們一直都說……」。但許多人一生抵制政權,堅守真正信仰(他們的家庭中有許多殉道者),現在竟獲那「聖」座的邀請去投降!?困惑、失望和甚至感到被出賣而忿怒。(有人敢說他們的不對嗎?)

該文件確實也說了,如果他們不想這樣做,教廷「尊重」他們的良心。不過,實際的效果是一樣的:他們將不再有自己的教堂,不能再在私人住宅中為教友開彌撒,教廷也不會再給他們任命主教了。他們只能在地下墓穴中活出信仰,等待美好日子的來臨。

總體情況

在此期間發生了許多事情,我不說是「因了那協議」而發生,但肯定是「儘管達成了協議」沒有使那些事不發生:顯著加劇的迫害、持續逼非官方團體消失、嚴格執行曾一度放寬的規定,如禁止18歲以下的未成年人進入教堂和參加宗教活動。「中國化」並不是我們所指的「本地化」。它是共產黨的宗教:首要的神是國家、黨、黨的領導人。

尊貴的樞機大人怎麼能說這一切都與協議無關?生命可以割成碎片嗎?

實際上,樞機大人也將該協議與國際和平及解決緊張局勢聯繫在一起。然而,為了維護協議,教廷似乎對共產黨對中國人民造成的所有不公義視而不見。

至於香港?

隨著國家安全法的實施,香港也已變成了極權政權之下的一個城市。在警察殘酷暴力的威脅下公民喪失了所有權利,包括表達自由和言論自由的權利。

他們既沒有明確否認香港的自治地位,該協議本不該涉及香港。可是我們聽說,要成為香港主教,必須有北京的祝福!

天主,拯救我們脫離強大的敵人的掌握!

願玫瑰聖母保護我們免受任何危害!

 


註:今天(10月7日)是常年期第27周的星期三,彌撒的讀經一(迦拉達書2:1-2,7-14)鼓勵我把這篇文章放在我的博客上。

For Love of Truth I Will Not Remain Silent

I read the speech given by Cardinal Parolin, Secretary of State of His Holiness, in Milan on October 3. It was sickening! He is in no way stupid or ignorant, he told a series of lies with open eyes.

The most repugnant thing was the insult to the emeritus Pope Benedict XVI by saying that he approved then the agreement signed by the Holy See two years ago, knowing that our sweetest, most gentle Benedict certainly will not come out to deny it. It was also very ridiculous and humiliating for the innocent Cardinal Re being “used” once more to support the falsehoods of the Most Eminent Secretary.

Parolin knows he himself is lying. He knows that I know he is a liar. He knows that I will tell everyone that he is a liar. He is not just shameless but also daring. What will he not dare to do now? I think he is not even afraid of his conscience.

I am afraid he does not even have faith. I had this impression when Parolin, the Secretary of State, in a commemorative speech in honor of Cardinal Casaroli praised his success in establishing the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Communist countries of Europe, saying that “when you look for bishops, you don’t look for ‘gladiators,’ who systematically oppose the government and who like to show themselves off on the political stage.”

I wrote to him, asking if he intended to describe Cardinal Wyszynski, Cardinal Mindszenty and Cardinal Beran. He replied without denying. He only said that if I was displeased with his speech, he apologized. But one who despises the heroes of faith has no faith!

The History

Let’s see how Parolin summarized the history.

The ritual mentioning of Matteo Ricci as the insuperable model in the mission history of the Church in China begins to make me uneasy. Many missionaries who evangelized among the people were no less admirable (there is no denying that I am proud of owing my first education in the faith to the Jesuits in Shanghai).

Parolin traced the attempts of dialogue back to Pope Pius XII. Luckily he also stated that Pius XII abandoned the attempt, adding that: “this created the mutual distrust that marked subsequent history.”

He seems to say that it was the “distrust” that caused the whole history of the following 30 years! Can the history be simplified like this? What about the expulsion of the missionaries, all of them, after being subjected to popular judgment court, condemned as imperialists, oppressors of the Chinese people and even murderers? The pontifical representative was expelled as well, and many bishops were expelled after years in prison!

Having expelled the “imperialist oppressors” they came to punish the oppressed, the Christians and the Chinese clergy, guilty of not wanting to renounce the religion learned from those oppressors!

Half of the Church ended up in prison and forced labor camps. Think of the young members of the Legion of Mary, who entered the prison as teenagers and were almost 40 years old when they were released (except those who died there).

The other half of the Church also ended up in prison, but after torture under the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution. After that there was 10 years of silence.

Some say: Are you not able to forget the sufferings of the past? I have not suffered anything personally (I have been in Hong Kong since 1948), my family and fellow confreres did.

Purification of memory? To forgive, yes! But to forget the history? History is teacher of life!

Parolin mentioned Cardinal Echegaray as the one who began a new path “amid ups and downs.” For those who knew him, Cardinal Echegaray was an unrepentant optimist. He loved China immensely. Few know how the Communists treated this old friend, when he visited them in an unfortunate moment: during the campaign against the canonization of the Chinese martyrs, he was served with an hour of insults and humiliations (a living PIME priest witnessed that)!

The path “amid ups and downs” is on a straight direction, never changed! Monsignor Claudio Celli who was the negotiator before Parolin complained that the Chinese counterpart did not negotiate, they simply repeated like a gramophone: “Sign the agreement!”

Today Archbishop Celli has only one word for the independent Church in China: compassion. But true compassion must be to free the slaves from slavery, not to encourage them to be good slaves.

The Ostpolitik of the Holy See

Yes, the dialogue with the Communists began long ago. There were already bishop representatives from the Communist countries in the Second Vatican Council summoned by Pope John XXIII. Then Pope Paul VI sent Monsignor Casaroli on various missions, to re-establish the hierarchies in those countries.

It was a working in the dark (as said by Casaroli), he had no way to know the real situation. The established hierarchies? Puppet bishops, more government officials than shepherds of the flock. But in those countries with a long Christian history, they could not behave too badly (two years ago I went to visit Budapest, Bratislava and Prague to learn some of their histories).

The dialogue continued through Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, but what was the result of this policy that is usually called the Ostpolitik?

In the book “Benedict XVI – Last Testament: In His Own Words” (p. 170):

To the question (by Peter Seewald): Did you share and support actively the “Ostpolitik” of the Pope (John Paul II)?

Benedict: “We talked about it. It was clear that the politics of Casaroli…although it was implemented with the best of intentions, had failed. The new direction pursued by John Paul II was the fruit of his personal experience, of his contacts with those powers.

Naturally, then, one could not hope that that regime would soon collapse, but it was evident that, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, it was necessary to oppose it with force. This was the basic vision of John Paul II, which I shared.”

Application of the Ostpolitik in China

In the 2007 letter, Pope Benedict made clear the principle that must guide every dialogue: one could not want to reach a result at any cost, a good result depends on the will of the two parties.

“The solution of existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.”

Pope Francis, too, is clear on the principle that must guide the dialogue. In Korea, on the occasion of the Asian Youth Day, he told the Asian bishops gathered there: there are two principles for dialogue, first of all fidelity to one’s own identity (one cannot renounce one’s ecclesiology and fundamental disciplines), then it is necessary to open the heart and listen.

Continuity?

In practice there was no continuity between Benedict and Francis but only the continuity of the person, Parolin.

In my book For Love of My People I Will Not Remain Silent, I told the story how a power group in the Vatican did not follow Pope Benedict’s line in solving the problems with the Beijing government.

The question arises: Would a pope so well known for his toughness (they even gave him the nickname “God’s Rottweiler”) tolerate this? Yes, Pope Benedict, who is the mildest and most shy man in the world, has great reluctance in exercising his authority.

One day I, a great sinner, pouted at him and said: “You tell me to help you with the Church in China. These other people don’t follow your line and you don’t intervene. What am I going to do? Bertone doesn’t help me either, why?” He replied: “Sometimes you don’t want to offend someone.” He meant Cardinal Dias, the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, together with the Holy See negotiator with Beijing, Monsignor Parolin, they were both enthusiastic about the Ostpolitik policy.

One might say that I am revealing things said in private conversation and I may cause embarrassment to the person concerned. Yes, but I think this is much better than letting him take responsibility for approving a bad deal.

A strange thing was that while at the time of Cardinal Tomko as Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the negotiator informed the members of those periodic secret meetings on the progress of the (unofficial) negotiations. When Pope Benedict established a respectable Commission for the Church in China, it was instead left in the dark.

During the year 2010 there were rumors that an agreement was ready. But at some point everything fell silent. Parolin was sent to Venezuela and Ballestrero entered, Savio Hon came to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples even before Dias retired. From all this it can be construed that Pope Benedict has, in extremis, rejected the draft agreement and given a completely new turn to things.

When Pope Francis called Parolin from Venezuela and made him his Secretary of State, one of the first things Parolin did was to make the Commission for the Church in China disappear silently and soon the Ostpolitik towards China had the way open. Dialogue with the enemy yes, but not between us! Pope Francis obviously has put China completely in the hands of his Secretary of State.

There is no continuity between Benedict who said “No” to Ostpolitik and Francis who said “yes” to Ostpolitik. There is the continuity of Parolin’s Ostpolitik: before he did not follow Benedict and now Francis follows him. 

I will be asked: Do you say that Parolin manipulates the Holy Father? Yes, I don’t know why the Pope allows himself to be manipulated but I have evidence to believe so and this makes it even less painful and repugnant for me to criticize the Holy See.

When in the process of legitimizing the seven excommunicated “bishops” and two legitimate bishops of the clandestine community being asked to resign, in an audience granted to Archbishop Savio Hon, the Pope said three things: “this is not good” “why they did not discuss with me?” “I’ll look into the matter.”

Later, in an audience granted to me, I asked Pope Francis: Did you have the opportunity to take an interest in that problem? He promptly replied “Yes, I told them not to create another Mindszenty case.” It couldn’t be clearer and more precise. (Unfortunately, things went exactly as what happened to Cardinal Mindszenty. The two bishops were forced to give their office to two unworthy men.)

Things that came out of the Vatican came from Parolin (obviously with the Pope’s consent)!

The effect of the agreement

But how would you say that the agreement is bad? Not having read the text, especially the one in Chinese, I could not give any judgment. But the Most Eminent Parolin himself and his henchmen often stated that a bad agreement is better than no agreement. I cannot understand this despite being a teacher of morality. I always teach that evil cannot be done even with good intention.

– People say: the agreement is good, the Chinese Communists have finally recognized the Pope as the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. If I don’t see the text I don’t believe it.

– The Pope will have the right to veto! If I don’t see the text I don’t believe it. Even assuming he has it, how many times can he use it without embarrassment?

– With the agreement there will be no more illegitimate bishops! Can the word of a totalitarian regime be trusted? Don’t you remember the pact with Napoleon, the concordat with the Nazi government?

– If the Vatican is as compliant as it is, the legitimate bishops will not necessarily be worthy bishops. The independent Church in China is now full of “opportunistic” bishops, people who sell themselves to the government to make a career of power and wealth.

If, by the way, the seven legitimated excommunicants are the sample of what is to come, may the Lord free us. Did they change their conduct? Have they shown any sign of repentance? Gratitude for the forgiveness granted by the Pope? Public promise to respect Church doctrine and discipline? Instead, what you see is that they go around singing triumph: we made the smart choice by staying with the government!

Particularly disgusting was the treatment of the two legitimate bishops who were forced to give way to the excommunicated. Huang Bingzhang, the now legitimated bishop of Shantou, after his “victory” organized a large celebration with the deposed bishop Zhuang Jianjian in Zhuang’s church. His clergy and many faithful came numerous by coaches, but the clergy and faithful of the deposed were not admitted (the police kept order). They wanted the deposed to come to concelebrate and thus humiliate him. But the elderly bishop still has a clear mind, he said: “When you get married, you celebrate. But I was forced to divorce my diocese, what is there to celebrate?” and withdrew.

Bishop Guo Xijin of Mindong, who leads the non-official community with many more members than that of his contender, obeyed the Vatican by giving up his position to the excommunicated one and becoming his auxiliary. But everyone has seen how they made his life impossible, so all he could do is to resign (news in these days).

Is the Church in China finally united? Rapprochement between the two Church communities? The normalization of the Church life, just because the Pope gives his blessing to this miserable situation, to this victory of the enemy?

Is that good to have all bishops legitimate but in a Church that is objectively schismatic? Is it progress? What kind of journey is it beginning?

His Eminence Parolin seems very humble to say that the result of the agreement was not particularly exciting, but this is obviously an understatement, I would say it was simply disastrous.

The last act: Everyone in a schismatic Church!

More disastrous and more cruel was the last act of this tragedy: the document at the end of June, last year. The “Pastoral Guidelines of the Holy See Concerning the Civil Registration of the Clergy in China” was issued by “the Holy See,” without specification of the department and without signatures (but it is known that it is Parolin’s creation). Everyone is invited to join the Patriotic Association, that is, the independent Church. It is the coup de grace!

Some of the “clandestine” communities, headed by bishops and priests, are happy to be able finally, tuta conscientia, to remove the burden of being “illegal.” But as they enter the birds cage, they are mocked by the old tenants: “We have always said…” But many who have resisted the regime all through their lives and persevered in the true faith (with many martyrs in their families) now invited by the same “Holy” See to surrender!? Bewilderment, disappointment and (no one should be scandalized) even resentment for being betrayed.

It is true that the document says that the Holy See “respects” their conscience if they do not feel like doing that act. But the practical effect will be the same: they will no longer have their churches, they will no longer be able to say Masses for the faithful in private homes, they will no longer be given bishops to them. It remains for them to live the faith only in the catacombs, waiting for better days.

The general situation

Many things have happened in this period, I do not say “because of the agreement” but certainly “in spite of the agreement”: notable hardening of the persecution, persistence in making the unofficial communities to disappear, strict execution of once relaxed rules, such as the prohibition of minors under 18 from entering the Church and participating in any religious activities. “Sinicization” is not what we mean by inculturation. It is the religion of the Communist Party: the first divinity is the country, the party, the party leader.

How can the Most Eminent say that all this has nothing to do with the agreement? Can life be cut into pieces?

In fact, his Eminence also connects the agreement with international peace and with resolving tensions. But it seems that in order to save the agreement the Holy See is closing both eyes on all the injustices that the Communist Party inflicts on the Chinese people.

and Hong Kong?

Hong Kong too, with the introduction of the national security law, has become a city under a totalitarian regime. Citizens have lost all rights, including that of expression, of speech and threatened by incredible police brutality.

If they do not explicitly deny the autonomous status of Hong Kong, the agreement would not concern Hong Kong. But we hear that to be the Bishop of Hong Kong, one must have the blessing of Beijing!?

Lord save us from our mighty enemies!

May Our Lady of the Holy Rosary protect us from every danger!

———

P.S. The first reading of today’s Mass, 27th week per annum, Wednesday, (Galatians 2:1-2, 7-14) encourages me to put this article on my blog.

Per amore della verità non tacerò

Ho letto il discorso tenuto il 3 ottobre a Milano dal Cardinal Parolin, Segretario di Stato di Sua Santità. È stomachevole! Siccome stupido ed ignorante non lo è, ha detto una serie di bugie ad occhi aperti.

La cosa più ripugnante è l’insulto al venerato Benedetto XVI dicendo che ha approvato a suo tempo l’accordo firmato dalla Santa Sede due anni fa, sapendo che il nostro dolcissimo, mitissimo Benedetto certamente non verrà fuori a negarlo. È poi quanto mai ridicolo ed umiliante per l’innocente Cardinal Re ad essere “usato” un’altra volta per sostenere le falsità dell’Eminentissimo Segretario.

Parolin sa di mentire, sa che io so che è bugiardo, sa che io dirò a tutti che è bugiardo, dunque oltre ad essere sfacciato, è anche audace. Ma ormai che cosa non oserà fare, penso che non teme neanche la sua coscienza.

Temo che non ha neanche la fede. Ho avuto questa impressione quando Parolin, già Segretario di Stato, in un discorso commemorativo di Card. Casaroli, lodando il suo successo nel contituire la gerarchia eclesiastica nei paesi comunisti dell’Europa, disse: “quando si cercano dei Vescovi, non si cercano dei “gladiatori, di quelli che sistematicamente si oppongono al governo, quelli che amano mettersi in vista sul palcoscenico politico”.

Io gli scrissi, domandando se non aveva avuto in mente di descrivere Card. Wyszynski, Card. Mindszenty, Card. Beran. Egli mi rispose senza negare, disse solo che se mi ha dispiaciuto il suo discorso, mi chiede scusa. Ma uno che disprezza gli eroi della fede, non ha fede!

La Storia

Vediamo come Parolin fa un riassunto della storia.

La rituale menzione di Matteo Ricci come non-plus-ultra nella storia delle missioni della Chiesa in Cina comincia a causarmi fastidio. Molti missionari che hanno evangelizzato il popolino non sono meno da ammirarsi (badate che io sono pure fiero di essere stato educato nella fede dai gesuiti a Shanghai).

Parolin fa risalire i tentativi di dialogo fino a Pio XII. Meno male che ha affermato pure che Pio XII ha abbandonato il tentativo, ma aggiunse: “ciò creò la sfiducia reciproca che ha segnato la storia successiva.”

Sembra dire che sia stata la “sfiducia” a causare tutta la storia dei seguenti trent’ anni! Possibile che si può semplificare così la storia? E l’espulsione dei missionari, “tutti” dopo essere stati sottoposti a giudizi popolari, condannati come imperialisti, oppressori del popolo cinese e perfino assassini? Espulso anche il rappresentante pontificio, e molti Vescovi espulsi dopo anni in carcere!

Espulsi gli “imperialisti oppressori” è la volta dei loro oppressi, i cristiani ed il Clero cinese, colpevoli di non voler rinnegare la religione imparata da quegli oppressori!

Metà della Chiesa finì in prigione e campi di lavori forzati. Pensate ai giovani membri della Legio Mariae, che entrarono in prigione teenegers e ne uscirono quarantenni (eccetto quelli che vi lasciarono la vita).

L’altra metà della Chiesa finì pure in prigione, ma dopo le torture sotto le guardie rosse della Rivoluzione Culturale. Poi dieci anni di silenzio.

Si dice: Non siete capaci di dimenticare le sofferenze del passato? Io non ho sofferto niente personalmente (sono a Hong Kong dal 48), i miei famigliari e Confratelli sì.

Purificazione della memoria? Perdonare, sì! Ma dimenticare la storia? La storia è maestra!

Parolin menziona Card. Echegaray come inizio di un nuovo percorso “tra vicende alterne”. Per chi l’ha conosciuto Card. Echegaray era un ottimista ad oltranza, amava la Cina immensamente, ma pochi sanno come l’hanno trattato i comunisti questo vecchio amico, quando li visitò in un momento sfortunato: durante la campagna contro la canonizzazione dei martiri in Cina: un’ora di insulti ed umiliazioni (un testimone PIME vivente ne sa qualcosa)!

Le “vicende alterne” sono in un una linea diritta, mai cambiata! Mons. Claudio Celli che era il negoziatore prima di Parolin si lamentava che la controparte cinese non negoziava, ma ripeteva come un gramofono: “firmi l’accordo!”

Oggi Arcivescovo Celli ha solo una parola fissa per la Chiesa indipendente in Cina: compassione. Ma la vera compassione deve essere di liberare gli schiavi dalla schiavitù, non di incoraggiarli ad essere buoni schiavi.

L’ostpolitik della Santa Sede

Sì, il dialogo con i comunisti ha cominciato da lontano, c’erano già vescovi rappresentanti di paesi comunisti al Concilio Vat. II con Papa Giovanni XXIII. Papa Paolo VI ha poi mandato Mons. Casaroli in diverse missioni, a ristabilire le gerarchie in quei paesi.

Era un lavorare nel buio (lo diceva Casaroli), non si conosceva la reale situazione. Le gerarchie? Vescovi fantocci, più ufficiali del governo che pastori del gregge. Ma in nazioni di lunga storia cristiana non potevano comportarsi troppo male (due anni fa sono stato a visitare Budapest, Bratislava e Praga per imparare un pò della loro storia).

Il dialogo è continuato attraverso Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto, ma con quale risultato, questa politica che si usa chiamare Ostpolitik?

Dal libro “Benedetto XVI – Ultime Conversazioni” (p. 161-162)

Alla domanda (di Peter Seewald): ha condiviso e sostenuto attivamente “l’Ostpolitik” del Papa (J.P II)?

Benedetto: Ne parlavamo. Era chiaro che la politica di Casaroli… per quanto attuata con le migliori intenzioni, era fallita. La nuova linea perseguita da Giovanni Paolo II era frutto della sua esperienza personale, del contatto con quei poteri. Naturalmente allora non si poteva sperare che quel regime crollasse presto, ma era evidente che, invece di essere concilianti e accettare compromessi, bisognava opporsi con forza. Questa era la visione di fondo di Giovanni Paolo II, che io condividevo.

Applicazione dell’Ostpolitik alla Cina

Nella lettera del 2007 Papa Benedetto mette in chiaro il principio che deve guidare ogni dialogo, non si può voler aver una conclusione ad ogni costo, una buona conclusione dipende dalla volontà delle due parti.

“La soluzione dei problemi esistenti non può essere perseguita attraverso un permanente conflitto con le autorità civili, nello stesso tempo, però, non è accettabile un’arrendevolezza alle medesime quando esse interferiscono indebitamente in materie che riguardano la fede e la disciplina della Chiesa”. (parag. 4)

Anche Papa Franceso ha chiaro il principio che deve guidare il dialogo. In Corea, in occasione della giornata della Gioventù, disse ai Vescovi Asiatici radunati: il principio del dialogo è doppio, anzitutto fedeltà alla propria identità (non si può rinunciare alla nostra ecclesiologia e la fondamentale disciplina), poi occorre aprire il cuore ed ascoltare.

La continuità?

Però, nella pratica non c’è stata la continuità tra Benedetto e Francesco, c’è la continuità nella persona di Parolin. 

Nel mio libro “per amore del mio popolo non tacerò” ho narrato la storia come un gruppo di potere nel Vaticano non ha seguito la linea di Papa Benedetto nel modo di solvere i problemi con il governo di Pechino.

Si pone il dubbio: un papa così noto per la sua durezza (gli hanno dato perfino il sopranome di “cane da caccia”) ha tollerato questo? Si, Papa Benedetto è l’uomo più mite e timido del mondo, ha grande difficoltà ad usare la sua autorità.

Un giorno io, gran peccatore, gli ho fatto il broncio e dissi: Lei mi dice di aiutarLa riguardo la Chiesa in Cina, questi altri non seguono la sua linea, e Lei non interviene, che sto a fare? Anche Bertone non mi aiuta, perchè? Egli rispose: “qualche volta non si vuol offendere qualcuno”. Intendeva Cardinal Dias, allora Prefetto della Congergazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, insieme con il negoziatore della Santa Sede con Pechino, Mons. Parolin, entrambi entusiasti della politica dell’Ostpolitik.

Si dirà che io sto rivelando cose dette in conversazione privata e causo imbarazzo all’interessato. Sì, ma penso che ciò sia molto meglio che lasciare che gli si adossi la responsabilità di aver approvato un cattivo accordo.

Una cosa strana era che mentre ai tempi di Card. Tomko come Prefetto della Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli il negoziatore ragguagliava i membri di quelle riunioni segrete periodiche sull’andamento dei negoziati (non ufficiali). Quando Papa Benedetto ha costituito la imponente Commissione per la Chiesa in Cina, questa era invece lasciata nell’oscuro.

Durante l’anno 2010 correva voce che un accordo era pronto. Ma ad un certo punto tutto cadde nel silenzio. Parolin venne mandato a Venezuela ed entrò Ballestrero, Savio Hon venne nella Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli anche prima che Dias andasse in pensione. Da tutto questo si può indovinare con fondamento che Papa Benedetto ha, in extremis, fermato l’accordo e fece la sterzata.

Quando Papa Francesco chiamò Parolin da Venezuela e lo fece suo Segretario di Stato, una delle prime cose che Parolin fece è di far sparire alla chetichella la Commissione per la Cina e presto l’Ostpolitik verso la Cina ebbe la strada aperta. Dialogo con il nemico sì, ma non tra di noi! Papa Francesco ovviamente ha messo completamente la Cina nelle mani del suo Segretario di Stato.

Non c’è continuità tra Benedetto che disse “No” all’Ostpolitik e Francesco che dice “sì” all’Ostpolitik. C’è la continuità dell’ostpolitik di Parolin, prima egli non seguiva Benedetto, ora Francesco segue lui. 

Mi si domanderà: Lei dice che Parolin manipola il Santo Padre? Sì, non so perchè il Papa si lascia manipolare, ma ho evidenza per credere così e ciò mi rende anche meno penoso e ripugnante criticare la Santa Sede.

Quando nel processo di legittimare i sette “vescovi” scomunicati si chiese ai due vescovi legittimi della communità clandestina di dimettersi, in una udienza concessa all’Arcivescovo Savio Hon, il Papa disse tre cose: “questo non va bene” “perchè non hanno discusso con me?” “Mi interesserò di questo.”

Più tardi, in una udienza concessa a me domandai a Papa Francesco: ha avuto modo di interessarsi di quel problema? Mi rispose prontamente “sì, ho detto loro di non creare un altro caso Mindszenty”. Non poteva essere più chiaro e preciso. (Purtroppo le cose sono andate esattamente come capitò al Card. Mindszenty, i due sono stati obbligati a cedere il loro ufficio ai due indegni.)

Le cose che vennero fuori dal Vaticano, vennero da Parolin (ovviamente con il consenso del Papa)!

L’effetto dell’accordo

Ma come si fa a dire che l’accordo è cattivo? Non avendo visto il testo, sopratutto quello in cinese, non potrei dare nessun giudizio. Ma Eminentissimo Parolin stesso ed i suoi accoliti hanno sovente affermato che un cattivo accordo è meglio che nessun accordo. Questo non riesco a capire pur essendo un insegnante di morale. Ho sempre insegnato che il male non si può fare neppure con buona intenzione.

– Dicono: l’accordo è buono, i comunisti cinesi hanno finalmente riconosciuto il Papa come Autorità suprema della Chiesa Cattolica. Se non vedo il testo non ci credo.

– Il Papa avrà il diritto di veto! Se non vedo il testo non ci credo. Supposto pure che lo abbia, quante volte potrà usarlo senza imbarazzo?

– Con l’accordo non ci saranno più vescovi illegittimi! Ci si può fidare della parola di un regime totalitario? Non ricordate il patto con Napoleone, il concordato con il governo nazista?

– Se il Vaticano è cedevole come è, vescovi legittimi non saranno necessariamente degni vescovi. La Chiesa indipendente in Cina è ormai piena di vescovi “opportunisti”, gente che si vende al governo per far una carriera di potere e di benessere.

Se poi i sette scomunicati legittimati sono il campionario di ciò che verrà, ci liberi il Signore. Hanno cambiato la loro condotta? Hanno dato alcun segno del loro ravvedimento? Gratitudine per il perdono concesso dal Papa? Promessa publica di rispettare la dottrina e la disciplina della Chiesa? Quello che si vede è che vanno in giro cantando trionfo: noi abbiamo fatto la scelta intelligente stando con il governo!

Particolarmente disgustoso il trattamento dei due vescovi legittimi obbligati a cedere il posto agli scomunicati. Il legittimato di Shantou, Huang Bingzhang, dopo la sua “vittoria” organizzò una grande celebrazione nella Chiesa del deposto Mons. Zhuang Jianjian. Su alcuni pulman il suo clero e molti fedeli vennero, il clero e fedeli del deposto invece non erano ammessi (la polizia teneva ordine). Volevano che il deposto venisse a concelebrare e così umiliarlo. Ma l’anziano vescovo ha ancora la mente chiara, disse: “quando si sposa si festeggia, ma io sono stato forzato a divorziare la mia diocesi, che cosa c’è da festeggiare?” e si ritirò.

Il Vescovo Guo Xijin di Mindong, che pur aveva con sè la comunità non-ufficiale molto più numerosa di quella del suo contendente, ha obedito al Vaticano cedendo il posto a quello scomunicato, diventando il suo ausiliare. Ma tutti hanno visto, come gli hanno reso la vita impossibile, per cui non gli rimane che dare le dimissioni (notizia di questi giorni).

È questa la Chiesa finalmente unita? L’avvicinamento tra le due parti? La normalizzazione della vita della Chiesa, solo perchè il Papa dà la sua benedizione su tutta questa miseria? Su questa vittoria del nemico?

Tutti vescovi legittimi, ma in una Chiesa che è oggettivamente scismatica, è un bene? È un progresso? È l’inizio di un che specie di viaggio?

Sua Eminenza sembra molto umile a dire che il risultato dell’accordo non è stato particolarmente entusiasmante, ma questo è ovviamente un “understatement”, io direi che è stato semplicemente disastroso.

L’ultimo atto: tutti nella Chiesa scismatica!

Più disastroso e più crudele è stato l’ultimo atto di questa tragedia: Il documento di fine Giugno, l’anno scorso. “orientamenti pastorali riguardo la registrazione civile del clero”, emanato da “la Santa Sede”, senza specificazione del dipartimento e senza firme (ma si sa che è creatura di Parolin). Si invitano tutti ad iscriversi all’Associazione Patriotica, cioè alla Chiesa indipendente. È il colpo di grazia!

Alcuni della communità “clandestina”, con a capo Vescovi e preti, sono felici di poter finalmente, tuta conscientia, togliere di dosso il fardello dei “fuori legge”. Ma mentre entrano nella gabbia, vengono beffeggiati dai vecchi inquilini: “abbiamo sempre detto…” Ma moltissimi che per tutta la vita hanno resistito al regime e perseverato nella vera fede (con molti martiri tra i loro famigliari) ora invitati dalla stessa “Santa” Sede ad arrendersi!? Smarrimento, delusione e (nessuno si scandalizzi) anche risentimento per essere traditi.

È vero che il documento dice che la Santa Sede “rispetta” la loro coscienza, se non si sentono di fare quell’atto. Ma l’effetto pratico sarà lo stesso: non avranno più le loro chiese, non potranno più dire messa per i fedeli in case private, non saranno più dati vescovi a loro. Rimane da vivere la fede solo nelle catacombe, aspettando giorni migliori.

La situazione generale

Molte cose sono avvenute in questo periodo, non dico “a causa dell’accordo”, ma certamente “nonostante l’accordo”: notevole incrudelimento della persecuzione, accanimento nel far sparire la comunità non ufficiale, rigida esecuzione di regole una volta più tosto rilassate, come la proibizione ai minori di 18 anni di entrare in chiesa e di partecipare in qualunque attività religiosa. La “sinicizzazione” non è quel che intendiamo per inculturazione, è la religione del partito comunista: prima divinità è la patria, il partito, il capo del partito.

Come L’Eminentissimo può dire che tutto questo non ha niente da fare con l’accordo? La vita può essere tagliata in pezzi?

Difatti sua Eminenza pure connette l’accordo con la pace internazionale e col risolvere le tensioni. Ma sembra proprio che per salvare l’accordo la Santa Sede chiude tutti e due gli occhi su tutte le ingiustizie che il partito comunista inflige sul popolo cinese.

e Hong Kong?

Anche Hong Kong, con l’introduzione della legge per la sicurezza nazionale, è diventata una città in un regime totalitario, i cittadini hanno perso ogni diritto, compleso quello dell’espressione, della parola, minacciati da incredibili brutalità della polizia.

Se non negano esplicitamente lo stato autonomo di Hong Kong, l’accordo non riguarderebbe Hong Kong, ma si sente dire che per essere Vescovo di Hong Kong uno deve avere la benedizione di Pechino!?

Il Signore ci salvi dai nostri potenti nemici!

La Madonna del Santo Rosario ci protegga da ogni pericolo!


P.S. La prima lettura della messa di oggi, 27a settimana per annum, mercoledì, (Galati 2. 1-2, 7-14) mi incoraggia a mettere questo articolo sul mio blog.

我回來了

現在訊息傳得這麼快,消息也會傳得更亂,心急要出來澄清,但可能又引起新的誤會,心急要參加討論,但根本不能有一個同時間、同平面的討論,當你以意見B回應意見A的時候,已有意見C,不是為了回應你而事實上回應了你的意見B。

當然做了社會中發聲者,也不能太長期站在一邊,你講的話或許還能啟導某些人,安慰某兄弟,鼓勵某同道。

今天的時間比以前的跑得快,離開了香港幾天也好像離開了幾十天,不追上新聞,不知道別人最近發表的意見,心急想說話,應該是不負責任的吧。不過,看看上次登上Blog的日期已一個月前,覺得還是要寫兩句,至少該向朋友們報平安。

(A) 最近我做了什麼?心血來潮又去了羅馬(這是最後的「最後一次」)。駐港意領事,證明我有急事要辦,准入意境,停留120小時。

我經倫敦到羅馬,馬上到Santa Marta宿舍交了一封信給教宗方濟各的一位秘書,有人說他是好人一定會把信交給方濟各。信中我要求教宗給我半個小時談談香港主教的事。我一直抓着電話,但方濟各沒有叫我,最後還是無功而歸。我並沒有抱怨,我知道教宗一定很忙,知道我的信能到他手中也已心滿意足。

回來後當然要隔離14天。我有舒適的房間,門外就是天台。一切有團體照顧(還有教友送來的食品),簡直是在度假。12號解禁出來你們一定會看到我胖了不少。

(B) 不過我順便說一聲,我如果肥胖一定不是因為我吃了月餅,今年我決定了中秋節及前後都不嘗月餅,為表示同監獄內的朋友們同甘共苦,各位朋友很對不起,今年使你們失望了,請原諒。

從我天台我能見到月亮,這幾天已很燦爛。希望今夜月亮也能衝出烏雲,來祝福我們。

我書房的那幅畫(我正慚愧我還沒有感謝澳門藝力啟智協會藝術總監楊偉仲先生的畫,朋友們都說很美。楊兄弟,萬分多謝,願主祝福)使我回想去年在獅子山頂的情景。那些振奮人心美麗的事都屬於過去了。重要的是我們勿忘初衷,兄弟爬山,一齊努力!

(C) 國安法使我們要重整我們抗爭的策略。我們已沒有基本法的保護。面對一個專制政權的迫害我們怎麼應付是一個很艱難的問題。兄弟們要謙虛彼此信任,彼此容忍,絕不割席!

得知陳淑莊姊妹(小妹妹)選擇站在另一個崗位上,我們祝福她,祝福她的好媽媽。這麼多次能和Tanya並肩作戰是我這老人家的榮幸。她肯定還常會和我們在一起的。Tanya,加油!

(D) 我已多次表態:我對湯樞機(從96年來我們是兩個難兄難弟)基本上是同情,如果我在他的位也真不知怎麼應付,當然還好有得力助手幫忙。最近他忙得很,又家書,又牧函。有人說署理的署理幫了不少忙。我怕有些地方幫了倒忙。

我以為牧函的題目有些問題:「教會保持共融」。誰教會共融?聽來牧函不是對教會內的人說話,我們似乎不算教會內的人,如果對象是我們不是該說「保持教會內共融」?

主教牧函的題目也有詳細註解是公教報的一個偉大創新,但在共融的分類前,先該解釋「共融」。

共融自主的人才能共融,鳥籠中沒有共融。

明白教會的道理,一齊信主、愛主才成共融。大家一齊屈服在強權下做奴隸根本談不上共融,因為他們已被剝削了做人的權利。

其實這些道理純樸的教友都明白,祇有自以為是「教會」的人卻不明白,這幾天的福音中耶穌教我們做小孩子也就是這個意思吧!

我特別害怕的是把「憤怒」和「仇恨」不分清楚。兩者不易分清楚,憤怒容易變成仇恨,但這是教會倫理的一個重點。教宗若望保祿二世很緊張地提醒過華里沙。

聖若望保祿二世的禮儀紀念日是本月廿二日,今年又是他誕生在世的一百週年,大家要記得!

撤回(決定)!重啟(選舉)!

不能遊行 還要發聲

今早看蘋果日報,見「近七成市民促重啟立會選舉」(A4版)。請市民各買多一份蘋果日報,送給林鄭夫人。

我以為有了這個民意,民主派議員發起的民調已是次要的了(而且問題不該是「留任」或「總辭」,該是「是否應接受委任為臨時立法會成員」。

怎樣發聲?不必非法遊行,不必麻煩(防)暴警,明天中午十二點大家在自己所在處,作聲一分鐘。在窗口、在門口、在車上,用喇叭、用鼓、用鑼、拍手、拍板、播音、播歌。

是絕望的忿怒嗎?更是悲哀的訴求!

(國際兄弟姊妹不是已多天為我們作此訴求嗎?)

譴責一篇不盡不實的《東周刊》報導

一向沒有看《東周刊》,卻有朋友將該雜誌一篇有關我今年不能送月餅給全香港囚友、題為「陳日君派月餅撻Q」的報導傳給我。

首先,對於文中一些不盡不實及扭曲片面的資料,我必須在此澄清:


一、「高調募捐」?——這十年裡,於中秋前個多月,我只會於自己的Blog及 Facebook上載捐月餅廣告,以及刊登兩期《公教報》,這做法一直未有改變。不同的,是今年多了朋友如黃之鋒、邵家臻在他們的Facebook中分享這活動,相信是因為他們記得自己身在囹圄時這個月餅帶來的溫暖。

二、「愛心捐月餅,贈鐵窗手足」——這是之鋒另外為這活動設計的語句,也許,他曾經入獄,對於有相似背景的兄弟姊妹會份外關顧憐惜,所以將活動的焦點集中在他們身上;而我自己的廣告雖出現了「黃衣人」、「藍衣人」及「手足」,主題卻正是「無論是誰,月亮也會祝福各人」,而我的月餅也會送到「全香港的囚友」手中,因為他們都是天主的兒女!

三、「捐款活動有古怪」?——報導中亦記錄了一位「餅廠老闆」及「佯裝捐款人的記者」詢問本人秘書馮小姐關於今年活動的對話。餅廠老闆打電話來説要捐七千個月餅時被馮小姐婉拒,這個是當然的——我們多年來的程序是一早已向相熟的餅廠訂購月餅(今年是一萬個,難道大家相信在募捐之後才訂製,廠家能趕得及在中秋前交貨嗎?),我會先付錢,之後你們的捐款就用於補回我此前已付清的數額;若有餘款,我也會申請於聖誕節送曲奇及朱古力給囚友,讓他們感受點點節日氣氛。

之後又有佯裝捐助的記者指本人秘書聲稱「只收捐款,不收月餅」古怪,其實這要求完全合理。過去多年我們也接受月餅捐贈,而有鑑於懲教署要求送給在囚人士的月餅需要統一,故我會用金錢買下這些捐贈的月餅,將款項撥捐買給囚友的月餅資金;而這些實體月餅會捐給其他慈善機構。但今年因疫情關係,大家需要保持距離,所以今年活動停收月餅。

遺憾的是,《東周刊》內文有太多遺漏及避重就輕的描述。

四、「最好寫支票,抬頭人寫『陳日君』,不要寫『天主教香港教區』」——這活動確實於十年前由我發起,與教區無關;但是教區絕對知道這活動的進行,而每年我也會刊登活動廣告於《公教報》。另外,我的秘書在教區中心工作,寄捐款支票到那裡又有何稀奇?而在疫情期間她主要在家中工作,故捐款者若要到教區中心交收金錢並不方便。

五、「為何不提供戶口號碼存款?」——這是我希望每筆存款清清楚楚,以便本人秘書紀錄、寄出收據及感謝咭。請你們也體諒,我這位八十後爺爺多謝教區給我一位 part-time 秘書,但她要處理的任務已是過份繁重。

六、「最初幾年是樞機一個人做……之後就主力在教友間募捐」——馮小姐在電話中已清楚交代這改變是因為太多教友希望我可以讓他們在這個有意義的活動上出一分力,所以自此才開始接受教友甚至其他有心人的捐獻。但記者似乎在這點上只作選擇性記錄。

七、另外希望下次周刊在求證方面做得準確一點,內文煞有介事稱「志蓮通常派傳統大月餅,陳日君那款就是棋子餅般大小」,但事實卻恰恰相反,我每年送出的是每人一個雙黃紅蓮蓉月餅……當然,月餅的大小本來不值一提,但我要帶出這點,就是想說出懷有惡意的傳媒所報導出來的扭曲抹黑資料可以從如此細微的事件中表現出來。


除了以上的澄清外,我對於這篇文章的刊登時間亦充滿疑竇——我是於8月31日(週一)收到懲教署的信,通知今年的送月餅行動因帶有政治色彩而須停辨,而我於當晚約九時才於 Facebook 及 Blog 公佈取消活動的消息,但朋友於9月1日(週二)已看到此報導。容我大膽猜測,就算今年懲教署沒有叫停送月餅活動,《東周刊》其實也早已編寫好,並安排各演員就位,去鋪砌出一個題為「陳樞機透過捐月餅活動斂財」的劇本吧?

我少有就坊間的惡意中傷文章回應,但今次這報導關乎囚友以後的利益,我絕不能保持緘默。

要知道,在囚牢的他們於過去九年來,每逢中秋節前夕都會非常期待這個月餅;每次探監,他們總會問我:「樞機,今年有沒有月餅食?」不因為月餅是我送,而是這個月餅的特別意義——它代表我們沒有忘記他們。數年前便曾有一位囚友投稿分享:「原來我們還是有人記掛,有人願意在這個團圓的節日中關心、在乎我們。」而我最不開心的,是今年要令他們失望了。

但我要在此感謝懲教署多年來為我分發月餅到不同懲教所的辛勞,這實在是他們日常職務以外的工作,但這些年間他們毫無怨言地幫忙。我期望來年向懲教署申請送贈月餅給在囚人士的要求會獲批。

今年的困難也許是天主的旨意,要我開啟一個更大的送贈月餅網絡,為更多社會的無助者及被遺忘的人如露宿者、貧窮家庭等帶來點點溫暖,讓大家能在苦澀生活中嚐到一點甜。

「我實在告訴你們:凡你們對我這些最小兄弟中的一個所做的,就是對我做的。」

主佑

陳日君樞機

2020年9月2日

P.S. 提提大家,看了我以上的詳盡解釋,便不需要去買這本雜誌了。

抱歉!2020 愛心捐月餅活動取消

[抱歉今年捐月餅給囚友的活動需要取消,月餅會轉贈給慈善團體]

各位支持「2020愛心捐月餅」的有心人:

因為一些原因,很遺憾地告訴大家今年「愛心捐月餅」不能舉辦了,抱歉這使囚友失望也給懲教處添了麻煩。

已訂的月餅我會安排送給慈善團體,請有興趣的機構盡快聯絡本人秘書馮小姐(2522 8689)。而已經捐款的兄弟姊妹若希望退回善款,亦請聯絡馮小姐,若三星期內未有通知,我們會將有關善款撥作送贈其他慈善機構的月餅捐獻。

再一次感謝大家的愛心。

主佑
陳日君樞機
2020年8月31日

[Cancellation of mooncake donation to Inmates]

To all the supporters of ‘2020 Mooncake Donation’:

Regrettably, the mooncake donation this year has to be cancelled due to certain circumstances. I am sorry for disappointing the inmates and the inconvenience caused to HKCSD.

The ordered mooncakes will be donated to different charity organizations instead, for those interested parties, please contact my secretary Ms. Fung at 2522 8689. And for those donors who want to have their donations returned, please contact Ms. Fung as well within three weeks.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to you all again.

God Bless,
Cardinal Joseph Zen
31 August, 2020