ICLN(2020)第二次視頻會議 -「疫症過後如何重建人類」

 

ICLN(2020)第二次視頻會議 

「疫症過後如何重建人類」

「疫症過後的全球化:中美的角色 ── 分析與行動」

陳日君樞機的發言

(經編輯版本)

這是對仍在發生的悲劇性現實的簡短反思:世界末日般的疫症大散播,造成了生命和經濟資源上無法估量的損失。我們還沒有看到終局,但是我們可以並且必須總結一些明顯的事實,並分析它們的因果關係。只有這樣做,我們才能為社會的重建做好準備,並為我們人類的未來提供新的防禦措施。

事實是:疫症在中國開始,並且迅速傳播到全世界。

分析:它定必與全球化有關。全球化是事實,人民的流動性大大增加,在一定程度上解釋了流行病的迅速蔓延。但是,現代通訊技術的進步本可以及時發出警報,遏制它的蔓延。顯然有地方出了問題。


讓我們記住,全球化可以是好事,也可以是壞事,這取決於我們怎樣管理它。

教宗若望保祿二世過去曾將「互相關懷的全球化」與「邊緣化的全球化」區分開來,前者是以關心全人類的真正利益為目的,後者是由個人和團體的自私利益所驅動。

還應記住教宗保祿六世所說的話:

「當每個人都有進步,整個人都在進步之時,才是真正的進步。」

在這些前提下,讓我們來看一下實際的情況,特別是中國的情況。


許多人歡迎全球化的來臨:隨著世界成為一個「地球村」,一種「大家庭式」的合作與互助,將使世界變得更美好,富者和強人可以幫助窮人和弱者。可惜的是,實際的結果令人失望。一些問題可以激發我們的思考:「例如,為何那些,曾多次流血的抗議,在世界貿易組織會議的場地出現?」答案是:窮國的窮人覺得他們沒有從全球化的世界經濟中得到任何幫助。那些把握經濟全球化的人是世界上有財有勢的人(世界銀行、國際貨幣基金等),它們的目的本該是幫助窮國,但他們往往最終是幫助了窮國的政府、幫助了這些國家內的有財有勢者而非窮人,因為窮國的窮人沒有機會去積極參與這運作。

全球化的管理者在計劃世界經濟時,很少考慮地方的實際情況和需要。地方政府和其他有財有勢的經營者,可能更願意將錢投進自己的口袋裡,而不是幫助自己國家的窮人。


在這一切變得顯而易見的時刻,中國進入了世界舞台,這個原來貧窮的國家如今富強了,成為亞洲和非洲國​​家的模範和領袖。中國給他們帶來了希望:大家來建設一個更加公平公正和繁榮的社會。

對於這樣的認知,有很多東西要討論。中國真的變得富強了嗎?我們必須區分人民與國家。中國變得富強,是因為中國人民勤力工作,學習迅速。中國是人口最多的社群,為世界提供大量勞動力,能夠數量龐大地生產商品,並為國庫帶來收入。

但是人民呢?在極權主義政權中,人民為國家的財富做出了貢獻,但在國家的繁榮中卻得不到應有的份額。在中國,人民是共產黨的奴隸。奴隸是不允許有奢侈的尊嚴。在主人的統治和惡劣榜樣下,中國人民失去了傳統美德。在一個「鬥爭求存」的社會裡,奴隸像其主人一樣,以謊言和暴力為人生之道。中國成為對世界的威脅。

世界一定有機會意識到這一切,但他們可能從未聽說過「道德投資」和「道德消費」的責任,直到他們意識到自己是滋養這頭危險怪物的幫兇。


中國的國家資本主義發起人鄧小平曾經說過,要使國家富裕,就必須讓一部份人先富起來。但是誰能成為最先富起來的那一批?這種「先富」狀態要維持多久呢?顯然,他們就是當權者,中國共產黨的人,而一旦他們富起來,就會變得更加強大,他們可以永遠保持這種狀態。

現在,中共成了剝削同胞的資本家,由此到成為剝削其他國家的帝國主義者,只有一步之遙。

「一帶一路」項目(現代的「絲綢之路」)。習近平向許多亞洲和非洲國​​家展示自己作為救世主,可以使他們擺脫殖民者留下的貧困。

「我們借錢給你,特別是用來建設作為進步基礎的基礎設施」(共產黨「借錢」,他們從不白送「禮物」)。

「我們為你們提供專業人員,我們派遣工人來完成這項工作」(顯然,其意思是你們必須支付這一切。這意味着借來的錢還是用在中國身上)。

如果他們無法償還這筆錢,則要求他們以給予壟斷和特權來交換,甚至割讓領土和港口(99年)。

新的殖民者比舊的殖民者更可怕!


一場疫症大爆發,一個世界性的災難。它讓每個人覺醒。

現在是時候我們認真思考一下人類走上的是什麼路。我們能為我們的科學進步、更多可能的消費選擇而感到自豪嗎?突然間,我們失去了一切,發現自己無能為力。

現在,我們意識到真理、我們的知情權和言論自由是多麼的重要。

在與死亡的密切接觸中,我們受到鼓勵更具決心地追求人類和生命的福音價值。

我們發現真正的英雄不是我們曾經在屏幕上欣賞的那些,而是那些為病人服務而犧牲自己的英雄,那些保持環境清潔、讓我們健康的英雄。

最後,我們欣賞我們的信仰,它教導我們是天主的孩子,是人類大家庭中的兄弟姐妹。

感謝主,從這次流行病中給予我們的教訓。

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

Second video conference ICLN (2020) – “Preparing for Post-Pandemic Humanity”

 

Second video conference ICLN (2020)

“Preparing for Post-Pandemic Humanity”

“Post Pandemic Globalization: the Role of China and the United States – Analysis and Action”

Input by Cardinal Joseph Zen

(heavily edited)

This is a short reflection on the tragic reality which is still in the happening: a pandemic of apocalyptical dimension causing incalculable loss of lives and of economic resources. We don’t see the end of it yet, but we can and must take stock of some obvious facts and analyse their cause-effect relation. Only by doing so we can prepare ourselves for the rebuilding of our society and providing new defences in the future for our humanity.

The fact is: a pandemic started in China and it spread quickly over the whole world.

The analysis: it must have something to do with globalization. Globalization is a fact and the enormously increased mobility of the people explains, in part, the fast spreading of the pandemic. But the modern progress in communication could provide timely alarm and contain that spreading. Obviously something went wrong.


Let us remember that the globalization is an ambivalent phenomenon, it may be good, it may be bad, it depends on the way we manage it.

Pope John Paul II used to distinguish a “globalization of solidarity” from a “globalization of marginalization”, one is operated by people who care for the real good of all human beings, the other is driven by selfish interest of individuals and groups.

It is opportune also to remember what has been said by Pope Paul VI:

The real progress is when everybody progress and the whole human being progresses.

With those premises let us come to examine the actual reality especially with reference to China.


Many people welcomed the arrival of globalization: with the world becoming a “village”, a “big family” cooperation and mutual help would make the world better, the rich and strong can help the poor and the weak. But, alas, the actual outcome was much disappointing. Some question may help us to think: “Why, e.g., all those, often bloody, protests at the venues of meetings of world trade organization?” The answer is: the poor of the poor countries did not feel they got any help from this globalized economy of the world. Those running the economic globalization are the world’s rich and strong, World Bank, International Monetary Fund etc., they are meant to help the poor countries, but too often they end up by helping the Governments of the poor countries, the rich and powerful people in those countries, not the poor people, because the poor people of the poor countries have not been invited to take active part in the process.

The managers of the globalization plan the world economy with scarce consideration of the real local situation and needs. Local governments and other operators, rich and powerful, may be more interested in getting the money into their own pockets rather than helping the poor people of their country.


At the moment when all this was becoming evident, China entered into the world scene, once a poor nation now rich and strong, model and leader of Asian and African nations. China brought them the hope in a more just, equitable, prosperous society.

There is much to be discussed about such perception. Has China become really rich and strong? We have to distinguish between the people and the nation. China became rich and strong, because its people are hard working and fast learning. China being the most populous community became a huge provider of labor in the world, capable of gigantic production and brings money to the nation’s coffers.

But what about the people? In a totalitarian regime the people contribute to the wealth of the nation, but they don’t get a fair share in its prosperity. In China the people are slaves under the Communist Party. To slaves it is not allowed the luxury of dignity. Under the dominion and bad example of their masters, the Chinese people have lost their traditional virtues. In a world of “struggle for survival” they make recourse to lies and violence, just like their masters. China became a threat to the world.

The world must have had opportunity to be aware of all this, but they may have never heard about the duty of the “ethical investment” and “ethical consumption”, until they realize that they were accomplices in nourishing a dangerous monster.


Deng Xiaoping the initiator of China’s State capitalism used to say that for the nation to become rich you must allow somebody to get rich first. But who can be those first to become rich and for how long? Obviously those in power, the CCP people, and once they become rich they are more powerful, and they can stay that way for ever.

Now, for the CCP from being the capitalists exploiting their countrymen to being the imperialists exploiting the other countries there is just one step.

“One Belt, One Road” project (the modern “silk road”). Xi Jinping presents himself to many Asian and African nations as the saviour, the one who can free them from the poverty in which they were left by their colonizers.

“We lend you money, specially to build the infrastructures which are the foundation of progress” (The Communists “lend” money, they never make “gifts”).

“We provide you with expertise and we send the workers to do the job” (Obviously you have to pay for all this. That means the borrowed money goes back to China).

When they are not able to pay back the money, they are requested to pay with monopoly rights and privileges, or even concession of territories and ports (for 99 years).

The new colonizers are worse than the old ones!


A pandemic exploded, a world disaster. It is an awakening for everybody.

It’s time we have a hard look at the journey in history of our humanity. Can we be proud of our scientific progress, of the many possibilities of more consumption? All a sudden we are losing everything and find ourselves powerless.

Now we realize how more important is the truth, our right to information and the freedom of expression.

In close contact with death we are encouraged to pursue the human and gospel values with more determination.

We discover that the real heroes are not those we use to admire on the screen, but those who sacrifice themselves in serving the sick, those who take care to keep clear and healthy our environment.

Finally, we appreciate our faith which teaches us that we are children of God, brothers and sisters in the human family.

Thank you Lord, for this lesson from the pandemic.

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

緬甸籍貎波樞機與法籍神學家尚邦先生

貌波(Charles Bo)樞機,他是亞洲主教團聯會的主席,在有關新冠狀病毒大流行起源的國際辯論中,作出了戲劇性發言(UCAN 天亞社英文新聞網 4月2日),將主要責任逕直放到中國共產黨的頭上。他的勇氣使我感到驚訝,但這篇文章非常準確和公正,我對英文天主教媒體《The Tablet》積極地報導它感到欣慰。

在同一《天亞社英文新聞網》,法籍“神學家”彌額爾.尚邦(Michel Chambon)於4月20日發表了攻擊這位樞機的評論:〈貌波樞機在中國臉上吐口水〉。在這位“神學家”(?)帶有如此感性標題的文章中,我找不到任何神學的東西,而其內容對分辨事實毫無貢獻,甚至是自相矛盾。

他說:「我同意貌波樞機所說,謊言和宣傳已使世界各地數百萬人的生命處於危險之中。」其實這正是貌波樞機的文章的主要思想。

但尚邦說:「這是不準確的」,因為「西方政府也有責任,他們拒絕認真回應(已有的信息)。」 貌波樞機又正說了同樣的話:「大家會對各地政府作出批評。許多政府被指責,當他們看到冠狀病毒在武漢首次出現時,沒有做好準備。」他絶沒有迴避指出各地政府的錯失。

但貌波樞機還說:「(但)有一個政府因其做了不該的事,又沒有做該做的事,對疫情的散佈負有主要的責任(他們封鎖了訊息,並對“吹哨人”滅聲)。」

尚邦指責貌波樞機「以政治立場分裂世界」。那是毫無道理的。把那對人民造成災難的政權、和那政權的受害者、置於分裂的對立面是正確的,並不存在甚麼政治不政治。

接著是尚邦在文章中的一個驚人說法:「侮辱中國政權,也就是同時向支持它的國家(國民?)的臉上吐口水。」 任何對中國有一點認識的人都會失笑,並且覺得浪費了時間去閱讀這位“神學家”和“研究中國教會的人類學家”的文章。

如果法國人都像彌額爾.尚邦一樣,在歷史中從不會有過法國大革命了。

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

Bo and Chambon

Cardinal Charles Bo made a dramatic intervention in the international debate about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic (UCA News April 2), laying the primary responsibility squarely on the door of Chinese Communist Party. His courage surprised me, but the article is very accurate and fair. I am happy that “The Tablet” reported it very positively.

On the same UCA News (April 20) a French “theologian” Michel Chambon came out to attack the Myanmar’s Cardinal: “Cardinal Bo spits in China’s face”. I could not find anything theological in the article of this “theologian”, with such an emotional title, and its content is gratuitous and even self-contradictory.

He says: “I agree with Cardinal Bo that lies and propaganda have put millions of lives around the world in danger.” That’s precisely the main substance of Cardinal Bo’s article.

But Chambon says “it is inaccurate”, because “Western Governments are also responsible, they refused to take (the available information) seriously”. Again Cardinal Bo said the same thing: “Criticisms can be made of authorities everywhere, many Governments are accused of failing to prepare when they first saw the corona virus emerge in Wuhan.”

But Cardinal Bo says also “there is one Government that has primary responsibility for what it has done and what it has failed to do (they suppressed the news and silenced the whistleblowers)”.

Chambon accuses Bo of “politically dividing the world”. That is gratuitous. The one who inflicts calamity on people, and his victims are rightly put on two opposed sides of the division, but there is nothing political in this.

And here comes the astonishing statement in Chambon’s article: “Insulting the China regime is also spitting in the face of the nation which supports it”. Anybody with a little knowledge of China would laugh at it and consider the time wasted in reading this “theologian” and “anthropologist studying the Church in China”.

With people like Michel Chambon there would never have been a French revolution.

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

追悼余理謙神父逾越彌撒 (2020年4月20日)

導言

天父選擇在耶穌復活瞻禮的第二天,把我們敬愛的余理謙神父召回到他身邊,我們今天追悼余神父不應該抱着悲哀的心情,反而要讓復活的光、永生的希望、充滿我們的心,並感謝上主。

懺悔經

上主,你賜給我們生命,生命是一筆資本,我們有時浪費了它,請你警醒我們。

上主,求你垂憐。

基督,你是來到世界的光,你給我們信仰、光照我們生命的道路,求你消除我們心中的黑暗,不再聽從世俗和魔鬼的誘惑。

基督,求你垂憐。

上主,你為每個人設計了一條登上天堂的道路,求你不要讓我們離棄正路,而要效法余理謙神父,盡忠職守,忘記自己而服務兄弟姊妹。

上主,求你垂憐。

講道

(一) 人生是一個旅程,人生是一塲戰爭。旅程就要對住目的,戰爭就要堅持崗位。

這旅程也是苦路,耶穌善牧他以牧杖領導我們,以棍棒保護我們,短的棍棒和長的牧杖交叉成個十字,這十字也就是在這戰爭中,基督給我們的武器。

(二) 各位兄弟姊妹,教會說:在追思彌撒中講道的主題不該是亡者,而是天主的道理。既然今天我們追念的亡者是一位司鐸,我還是讓他給我們講天主的道理。

余神父今天會對我們講什麼?

我想像余神父會微笑地對你們說:「陳樞機剛才講的兩句大道理,我可以用更簡單、更具體的話演譯出來:『效法耶穌做個良善心謙的人良善心謙帶來平安心中平安的人才能給別人帶來平安。』」我以為這兩句福音的話,正是余神父成聖的秘訣。

(三) 現在網上參與這禮儀的兄弟姊妹,多數是正義和平委員會的成員或支持者。

你們會問「余神父不是特別對正義執着嗎?」當然是。因此他常站在弱勢者的一邊,也會為正義行出來與人爭辯。但我們在他身上看到的尤其是一位溫和良善的愛心戰士」。

(四) 在今天特別情況下的這樣安排,不允許我們讓多位兄弟姊妹出來,以余神父的生平為他的訓導作見証。(希望日後有機會)

我沒有機會和余神父一起工作,但我有兩點可以分享。

(1) 余神父維護公義特別是他對弱勢者的倍加眷愛。

有一些曾患麻瘋病的兄弟姊妹組織了一個小團體,每年有週年大會,余神父是他們的恩師,他幾次請我主持彌撒和聚餐。我見到余神父是多麼愛他們,和他們打成一片,是他們的好朋友。

出於這純樸的愛心,他當然也努力為這群朋友爭取社會的關懷。

(2) 我在主教任內雖然已並不年輕,很喜歡在身邊還有幾位長者,真如在家庭中,長者的臨在帶來安全感。那時有艾巧智神父(Fr. Einaudi)、明鑑理神父(Fr. Mencarini)、力理得神父(Fr. Lerda),他們都是教區的大功臣,他們同我並不多說話,但一個點頭,一個微笑給我很大的支持。當他們一個一個離開我們歸返天鄉,我很失落。

余神父祇大我幾歲,但他也像一位慈父,多次以短短的信給我很大的鼓勵。

(五) 有一次他說:「我想不到你一位慈幼會士竟這樣……」我說:「這樣什麼?這樣出位?」他的印象好像慈幼會士素來保守,我不怪他。而且他明顯是在鼓勵我繼續參與社會。

今天我卻能反過來向余神父說一句使他很高興的話:「我也很詫異在一百萬、二百萬為民主自由遊行的香港人中,竟見到了他的一位兄弟,九十多歲的劉勝義神父(Fr. Russell)。

原來慈幼會、耶穌會半斤八兩,我們是好兄弟。

(六) 今天新冠形肺炎並沒有使強權政府降低他們對抗爭者的大力鎮壓,勇武派的、和理非的,他們都不放過,讓我們把一切放在天主手中。

我們要感謝天主給了我們一位榜樣,我們感謝余神父今天給我們的訓導,讓我們常站在「勞苦負重擔」者的身邊;以愛心、以和平宣講正義,爭取公道。

主已復活,他是勝利者!亞孟。

信友禱文

天父,你的聖子降生成人,在十字架上奉獻了自己,藉此為我們重獲了做你兒女的福份,求你藉聖神護守我們忠於信仰,終生行天堂的道路。

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

主,你選了宗徒領導你至聖、至公、至一,並常面對世俗挑戰的教會,求你給教宗、主教、神職人員智慧及勇氣來牧放你的羊群。

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

傳教士離鄉背井把福音帶到世界每個角落,使我們也有福成了教會大家庭的成員,主,我們今天特別感謝你賜給了我們余理謙神父,他一生謙虛地獻身服務我們,他的兄弟姊妹,尤其關懷貧困弱小者,求你賞給他天國的產業,也帶我們來日在天鄉和他重聚。

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

主,新型肺炎在世界各地難受控制,求你幫助政府和人民合作,尤其藉着盡心盡力照顧病人的醫護人員,支持、安慰所有受苦的人及他們的親戚朋友。

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

主,余神父一生和我們香港人一起,為正義與和平服務,求你幫助我們在社會裡維護福音的價值,並賜香港和國內教會能安享宗教自由。

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

一些默想、一些聯想

在這復活八日慶典即將結束的時候,我的默想還停留在聖週。聖枝主日也稱苦難主日,那天教宗的講道並沒有多講聖枝。那天也是全教會的青年日,對比他也祇提了兩句。他講道的主題明顯是苦難,耶穌、痛苦的僕人

關於耶穌的苦難,教宗又集中強調了兩點:被「負賣」、被「離棄」。教宗特別細膩地描寫了被負賣、被離棄是多麼難能忍受的痛苦。他也列出了一些被負賣、被離棄的例子。

耶穌痛苦的僕人讓自己被一位宗徒負賣,被另一位否認,被其他宗徒(除若望)離棄,甚至為我們而體驗了被天父離棄的恐懼,為了服務我們,拯救我們。

我很自然地聯想起一支意文的聖誕歌,其中有一句常使我很感動:“Ahi, quanto ti costò l’avermi amato!”(中文是:噢,為了愛我,你付出了多大的代價!但意文唱起來特別動人)。我再三回味了教宗那天的講道。


接着,聖週一、二、三彌撒的福音又是講耶穌被負賣、被離棄。

聖週二(四月七日)教宗在彌撒開始時說「耶穌被法律學士窮追猛打,無罪的他被判了罪,他們對他窮追猛打(教宗說了三次accanimento: si sono accaniti contro di lui, è stato giudicato sotto accanimento, con accanimento)。

就在幾小時前佩爾樞機George Pell)在澳洲寃枉地坐了400多天監,終於被宣布無罪。教宗沒有提佩爾樞機的名,但我們有理由以為教宗說話時想到了他。教宗很信任佩爾樞機,把清理教廷財務的大任交了給他,佩爾樞機勇敢地回到澳洲面對法庭,經過很長、很彎曲的「旅程」終於他被宣告無罪,教宗一定很「高興」。

看看當天教廷新聞處的報告卻看不到有什麼「高興」(可能一份這樣的報告不能用任何情緒化的詞語?)。報告說「教廷con favore接受到這消息」。con favore當然可以譯成「樂於」或「滿意」,但也可以有較低程度的意義:「認同」或「贊成」(它的反面也就是「反對」)。

比較奇怪的是:報告一開始就這樣說:「教廷一向信任澳洲政府的司法公道」?!如果我上面的聯想對的話,那末教廷並不再代表教宗方濟各。教宗和全世界很多人還在等待有人來澄清一下,怎麼佩爾樞機的案件能被處理得這麼糟糕(警察、傳媒、控方)!


有人訪問了佩爾樞機(Andrew Bolt, Sky News)

問:「你在梵蒂岡財務委員會的工作和在這裡發生的一切有關係嗎?那時你似乎在處理一些教廷的財務問題,現在……」

答:「我們是正在處理一些問題……調查有否例如貪污之類的事。我雖離開了羅馬,我最近知道教廷至今還正在繼續調查,也已有些進展。

我們要分清楚不同的情形:

—    以為可能有問題(possibility

—    以為問題相當可能真有probability

—    真有事實facts

問:你和教宗的關係怎麼樣?你們的神學取態似乎不合……

答:大家知道我神學取態保守,教宗先進,但教宗信任我,大概是因為他欣賞我敢向他講別人或不敢講的。教廷和教會內有許多神學取態和我不同的也一直相信我對所告是無罪的。

問:教廷內被嫌疑貪污的人到什麼官位?教宗當然不是了。他腳下的人?

答:教宗腳下、國務卿也不是,再往下來則至今還祇是一些「假設」。


其實我這幾年來也多次講到「被負賣、被離棄」。我講的是國內的兄弟姊妹。在地上、地下許多教友多年來頂住無盡的磨難,勇敢忠於至一的教會,抗拒獨立自辦,不甘為屈服於政權而放棄信仰。但他們發覺漸漸已得不到教廷的支持,甚至被當作是固執份子,阻礙合一。最近,去年六月尾的一份「教廷指示」甚至鼓勵大家參加那教宗本篤說其原則違反天主教本質的「愛國會」。那些兄弟姊妹的感受正是被負賣、被離棄。今年他們不知怎麼過了聖週。他們的後一代恐怕連有復活節那件事也不會知道了。


在結束這些「默想」和「聯想」時,讓我們首先在我們心內找出那些教宗稱為「小小的負賣者」,我們的不忠,然後哀求充滿仁慈的「痛苦的僕人」耶穌,既然他為我們付出了這麼多,請他不要讓他的苦難被浪費(tantus labor non sit cassus)!

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

和教宗方濟各一起默想

那天(3月27日)教宗方濟各為「武漢肺炎災禍」舉行的祈禱會我不知為什麼錯過了。但事後我追覽了。那微雨中已入夜的廣場,那十字架上的耶穌,那幅曾遭人割毀的聖母相,那行路不便滿面愁容的教宗……廣場雖是空曠的,我相信從來沒有那麼多人在看着教宗,在聽他的講話。我禁不住又看了,又聽了一次。

是,我再次聽了他的默想。我幾乎想說「教宗說的正和我慣常默想的一樣」。這講法別人一定會說我太自大了。那末說「我的默想正如教宗所講」?這也可被誤會,我慣常默想的並不是受了教宗的啟發。應該說是聖神賞賜我慣常的默想內容和教宗方濟各那晚的默想內容「不謀而合」。

(1) 整個景象(黑夜、孤獨)已帶我回到我近幾年慣常喜歡唱的那首聖歌 “Abide with me, fast falls the eventide, the darkness deepens, Lord, with me abide” (主啊黑夜來臨,請陪在我身旁!)。

我常欣賞耶肋米亞先知,他的一生似乎黑暗多過光亮,但主應承了常與他在一起,做他的「銅牆鐵壁」。他雖不是英雄(相當怕死),但天主給他勇氣去天主要他去的地方,說天主要他說的話。

年老多掛慮,病疫帶來恐懼,國內教難使無數兄弟姊妹陷入了深深的黑夜裡。

(2) 教宗選的讀經是馬爾谷福音4:35:耶穌在船上,狂風暴雨他仍睡着,門徒叫醒他。我這幾年最喜歡常唸的聖詠是聖詠44的末段「主啊!醒來吧!你為何仍舊沉睡?轉面不顧我們的痛苦和辛酸?」

脫利騰彌撒還取了這段聖詠為sexagesima(六旬)主日(四旬期第一主日前兩星期的主日)的進台詠,那額我略歌調可說是最美之中的一首。

「主啊!醒來吧!」聖詠裡有這句話,教會教我們唸這聖詠,那末應該是沒有問題的了。掛慮、害怕、失望是免不了的,但小信德的我們至少也該記得向上主呼救。

(3) 但馬爾谷福音裡耶穌被宗徒們叫醒了卻說「為什麼你們這樣膽怯?你們怎麼還沒有信德呢?」

我們聽了恐怕會為門徒們抱不平。他們叫醒耶穌豈不是因為他們相信他有能力救他們免於喪亡?耶穌行了奇跡不也是表示他們叫醒他沒有做錯?

是,叫醒耶穌並不算錯,但他們對耶穌說「我們要喪亡了,你不管嗎?」那就大錯特錯。他們已見過耶穌行奇蹟,相信他有大能,但他們竟還懷疑他的愛心!這樣說法很傷耶穌的心,他最期待的是我們信賴他的愛!

伯多祿常記得耶穌這次教訓,他後來在伯多祿前書裡(5:7)這樣對教友們說「將你們的一切掛慮都託給他,因為他必關照你們」(Ipsi cura est)。這也正是我晉牧時選的座右銘。

教廷那時要我準備接胡樞機的位。面對1997的來臨,祇有儍子才會不掛慮、不害怕。我怕得要死。伯多祿的這句話給我打了氣。

教宗方濟各那晚上也用了這句話結束他的訓話:把你們的一切掛慮都拋在他身上,他必照顧你們!

1997年對香港和中國前景的擔慮使我想起會祖的一個奇夢,教會的大船受到敵人空前的攻擊,但終於在兩條大石柱中間得到庇護,轉敗為勝。一條柱上有耶穌聖體,一條柱上有無原罪聖母進教之佑。區海晏修士把這奇夢搬上了我的牧徽。龔廣權修士把那句座右銘意譯成了「汹湧波濤莫驚怕,平安抵岸全靠祂」。

(4) 那晚在伯多祿大堂門口右邊有十字架上的耶穌,左邊有「羅馬的救星聖母」,方濟各也如歷代教宗稱她為海星。

航海的人有時需要請教星辰,這使我想起聖若望 • 亨利 • 紐曼(John Henry Newman)作的歌〈Lead kindly light〉。白天有太陽,夜裡有月亮和星辰。紐曼樞機作那首歌詞的靈感正來自此:天主用不同方法領導我們的人生,我們要接受月亮及星辰的光照,不要以為常能有陽光,重要的是不要心急,跟着天主的領導,一步一步行人生的道路。

教宗要我們在遇到空前的逆境挑戰時把信心全放在天主身上,不要太自信了。

正在放棄自信(自我中心)時,我們才看到我們原來都在同一船上,我們是多麼脆弱,需要大家合作,救己救人。面對這空前的危機我們才能醒悟,重整我們的價值觀,欣賞那些默默耕耘的醫療人員、那些每天謙虛地供給我們最基本的服務的平常人。

Lead kindly light,請帶我們歸依,歸依天主,歸依我們身邊的人,關懷全世界的人。

教宗當然不知道我怎麼祈禱,但我很高興,曾在默想、默禱中和他共融。

分類: 中國教會, 我們的教宗 | 發佈留言

與喬萬尼(Agostino Giovagnoli)教授一起「澄清」一些問題

武漢肺炎迫使我們留在家裡。厭倦了這種社交隔離狀態,我於是在互聯網上尋求「虛擬」的接觸。喬萬尼(Agostino Giovagnoli)教授於3月6日撰寫的一篇文章,進入了我的眼簾,文章標題為〈雷若翰樞機給所有樞機的信,為與北京長期談判作了一些「澄清」〉。

我已經很久沒有看喬教授的著作了,因為他曾經無恥地否認自己曾在一篇著作中攻擊過我。這次我很後悔陷入閱讀其文章的誘惑,因為現在我無法抗拒另一個誘惑:去回覆他,浪費我這個可憐的88歲老人所剩無幾的精力。

使我失去耐心的,是他在其文章開首傲慢地大論所謂耐心和真理。

梵蒂岡那些心高氣傲的先生們,尤其是副教宗帕羅林樞機,他們什麼時候有過耐心?受人尊重的中國教會事務委員會,沒有得到一句解散,便消失得無影無蹤;萬民福音部的高層主管被悄悄地撤換了!

真理呢?監督信仰真理的權威現在是否從信理部移交給了樞機團團長?但是,章程上不是說樞機團團長只是「同儕之首」,對他的樞機兄弟是沒有任何權力的嗎?

雷樞機一向給我好感,以後也不會有改變。但是,是什麼使他在中國事務方面,會比一位有長期和特別的經驗且經常接觸中國現實的國籍樞機更有資格呢?僅僅是因為國務卿賦予了他這資格?而且,這樣做,他們不害怕否認了教宗方濟各關於重視「邊緣」的偉大言論嗎?

有一件事我們是同意教授的觀點:就是關於近代教宗之間在處理與中國關係方面是否存在連續性,確實是一個重要問題。

我不想在這裡再次長篇大論。讀我的書《為了熙雍我絕不緘默》便有答案。不過,閱讀我於3月1日給雷樞機的回應,以及3月10日的補充內容,也很足夠。

前兩位教宗顯然鼓勵對話,以期達成一份「好協議」,他們當然絕對不會接受一份「壞」的協定,即不道德的協定,即使它是「唯一可能的協議」。

我堅持我的話:「我有理由相信,並且希望有一天能夠用檔案文件去證明,現在簽署的協議,就是本篤教宗當年拒絕簽署的同一份協議。」

其實這爭議很容易解決:只要讓我看到那秘密協議(中文及意文版本),然後雷樞機給我看他信中提到的檔案證據。

至於「那末,為什麼十年前沒有簽署協議呢?」教授說這問題的答案很簡單:因為那時有質疑和反對的聲音,正與今天一樣。

這裡就顯出教授對事實的無知。

在唐高樞機的年代,談判代表切里蒙席會在那些「秘密會議」中,向與會者(來自兩個聖部、國務院、萬民福音部,以及港澳台三地的專家),通報談判的進展。

但到了帕羅林蒙席成為談判代表後(背後有迪亞斯樞機),談判內容完全只有 「內部人士」知道,甚至連中國教會委員會的成員都不知道,所以根本說不上有質疑和反對。

最近,談判仍然是「最高機密」。但是,有傳言流出來,從而引起猜測和反對的聲音。

雷樞機當然知道協議的內容,但他只告訴我們:「其中包括在任命大陸主教的程式中,教宗有干預的權力。」這是一大勝利嗎?你們不以為似乎太少了嗎?難道要教宗一點也不能干預才能成交?

眾所周知,即使還沒有協議時,也有過折衷的辦法:梵蒂岡和北京曾嘗試提出雙方都可以接受的候選人。但是現在有了協議,北京不再需要為此努力。他們有權提出自己想要的任何人選,看教宗是否敢否決它,以及否決多少次(假設這項否決權確實存在於協議中)。

教授煞有介事地告訴我們,我們對「東方政策」一詞的使用不恰當。顯然,我們不是在談論德國或歐洲,而是在談論中國的共產黨。該詞目前被用來表示面對極權政權的「妥協策略」。無論是法老還是尼祿,希特勒還是史達林,毛澤東還是習近平,都沒有分別。極權主義政權不容妥協。它只想要你無條件投降,成為奴隸!

上主對意大利人太好了。他們沒有在真正的極權政權下過苦難的生活,墨索里尼的法西斯主義勉強說得上是獨裁統治,因此他們很難明白一個真正的極權政權,特別是無神論政權,有多糟糕。

這位教授還很嚴肅地提醒我們:「教宗簽署協議」的說法是不妥當的。當然。我們很清楚知道談判者是國務院的副秘書長;簽署的人可以是他或他的上級,即國務院的總主教秘書長;並一定得到教宗的批准。

但這些細節也並不能說明事實的全部。當帕羅林蒙席擔任談判代表時,他和背後的迪亞斯樞機一起,是實際的談判者。(我確信)他們倆且試圖繞過本篤。但是當卡米勒里蒙席成為談判代表時,(我確信)卻完全在帕羅林的指揮下進行。

雷樞機正確地引用了我對6月28日的〈牧靈指導〉的強烈反對,但他祇毫無理據肯定說:「它們是為維護信仰而設計的。」他似乎沒有仔細閱讀我於7月1日提交給教宗方濟各的「dubia」(質疑),教宗在三天後曾向我承諾會關注這事。但是到目前為止,我還沒有收到任何答案。

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

In dialogue with Prof. Agostino Giovagnoli in search of “Elements of clarity”

Wuhan virus forces us to stay home. Tired of this forced lack of real contacts, I look for “virtual” ones on the internet. An article gets into my eyes and it was written by Professor Agostino Giovagnoli on 6th March with the title “The letter from Cardinal Re to all cardinals offers elements of clarity on the long negotiation with Beijing.”

I have not read the professor’s writings for a long time already because he once had the shamelessness to deny having attacked me in one of his writings.

This time I regret having fallen into the temptation to read it because now I cannot resist another temptation to answer it, wasting the little energy that still remains of this poor 88-year-old.

What made me lose patience was the arrogant talk about patience and truth at the beginning of his article.

When did the domineering gentlemen in the Vatican, and especially the Vice-Pope Cardinal Parolin, ever have their patience?

The respectable Commission for the Church in China has been made to disappear without a word of dismissal; the highest officers of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples were quietly got rid of!

And the truth? Is the authority to supervise the protection of the truth of faith now passed from the Congregation for Doctrine to the Dean of the College of Cardinals? But isn’t it declared that the Dean is “Primus inter pares,” without any authority over his cardinal brothers?

I always found Cardinal Re a nice person, and he will still be such for me. But what makes him competent in Chinese matters more than a Chinese cardinal with long and privileged experiences and frequent contacts with the Chinese reality still today? Just because the Secretary of State confers on him such competence?

And by doing so, are they not afraid to disavow the great talk of Pope Francis regarding “periphery”?

On one thing we agree with our professor: the importance of the question, yes or no, that there has been a continuity between the recent Pontiffs regarding the line in dealing with China.

I am not here to repeat a long speech. Reading my book For Love of My People I Will Not Remain Silent will help. But it is also enough to read my answer to Cardinal Re on 1st March with a supplement on 10th March.

The two previous Popes obviously encouraged dialogue in the hope of reaching a “good agreement,” but they certainly would never accept a “bad” one, that is, an immoral agreement, even if it is “the only one possible.”

I stand on my word: “I have ground to believe, and I hope one day to be able to demonstrate with archival documents, that the agreement now signed is the same one that Pope Benedict had, at the time, refused to sign.”

After all, the controversy can be easily resolved: as long as I see the secret agreement (in Chinese and Italian text) and Cardinal Re shows me the evidence from the archives referred in his letter.

To the question “then why was the agreement not signed 10 years ago?” The professor says the answer is simple: there have been objections and resistances, the same as today.

Here there is an ignorance of the facts.

At the time of Cardinal Tomko, the negotiator, who was Msgr. Claudio Celli, would inform the participants of certain “secret meetings” (of the two dicasteries, the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, plus some experts from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) on the progress of the negotiation.

At the time, instead, of the negotiator Msgr. Parolin (with Cardinal Dias behind), the negotiations were kept exclusively to the “insiders,” not even the members of the Commission for the Church in China knew about it, so objections and resistance was not an issue.

Lately the negotiations still remain “top secret.” But rumors have leaked, on which speculations construed and objections arise against them.

Cardinal Re, who certainly knows the content of the Agreement, only tells us “it includes the intervention of the Pope’s authority in the process of appointing Bishops to China.” But is this a big win? Doesn’t it seem too little to you? Would it not be preposterous if the Pope had no right of intervention at all?

It is known that even without an agreement, there was a way of compromise: the Vatican and Beijing tried to come up with names of candidates who are “acceptable” to both sides. But now with the agreement, Beijing no longer needs to make this effort. They have the right to present whoever they want, and they will see if the Pope dares to veto it, and for how many times (assumed that this right of veto really exists in the agreement).

The professor solemnly tells us that our use of the word “Ostpolitik” is improper. Obviously, we are not talking about Germany or Europe but about Chinese Communism. The word is currently used to mean the “compromise strategy” in face of a totalitarian regime. It makes no difference whether it is Pharaoh or Nero, Hitler or Stalin, Mao Zedong or Xi Jinping; a totalitarian power admits no compromises. It wants unconditional surrender, slavery!

The Lord has been too good to the Italians. They have not suffered under a true totalitarian regime (Mussolini’s fascism can hardly be qualified as totalitarianism regime), so they have difficulty knowing how terrible a true totalitarian regime, especially an atheist regime, could be.

The professor, again, wants to make a point to remind us that it is improper to say that the Pope signs an agreement.

Ok. We know very well that that the negotiator is the undersecretary of the Secretariat of State; the one who signs could be he or his superior, the archbishop secretary of the Secretariat of State; and always with the approval of the Secretariat.

These subtleties do not tell the whole reality. While Msgr. Parolin was the negotiator, he was really the one who negotiated, with Cardinal Dias in his ears, and they both tried to get over Pope Benedict (this is my belief), but when Msgr. Camilleri was the negotiator, it was (always according to my belief) always completely under the dictate of Parolin.

Cardinal Re quoted correctly my serious objection to the “pastoral guidelines” of 28th June but replied with the gratuitous affirmation that “they were designed precisely to safeguard the faith.” It seems that he has not read carefully my “dubia,” which I had presented to Pope Francis on 1st July and that His Holiness promised me three days later to take note of it. But to date, I have not yet received an answer word.

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

In dialogo col Prof. Agostino Giovagnoli alla ricerca di “Elementi di chiarezza”

Wuhan virus ci obbliga a stare a casa. Stanco di questa forzata mancanza di veri contatti, vado a cercare quelli “virtuali” sulla rete. Mi capita sotto occhio l’articolo del Prof. Agostino Giovagnoli dal 6 Marzo col titolo “una lettera del Cardinal Re a tutti i porporati offre elementi di chiarezza sulla lunga trattativa con Pechino”.

Da tempo non leggo scritti del Professore, perchè una volta ha avuto la sfacciataggine di negare di avermi attaccato in un suo scritto.

Anche questa volta mi pento di essere caduto nella tentazione di leggerlo, perchè ora non risisto all’altra tentazione di rispondergli, sciupando le poche forze che rimangono ancora a questo povero vecchio di 88 anni.

Quello che mi ha fatto perdere la pazienza è stato proprio quell’arrogante discorso iniziale sulla pazienza e sulla verità.

I prepotenti signori nel Vaticano, e specialmente il vicepapa Card. Parolin, quando mai hanno avuto pazienza?

Una imponente Commissione per la Chiesa in Cina è stata fatta sparire senza una parola di congedo; i più alti ufficiali della Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei popeli silurati tranquillamente!

E la verità? L’autorità di sorvegliare per proteggere la verità di fede viene ora passata dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina al Decano del Collegio dei Cardinali? Ma non è dichierato che il Decano è “Primus inter pares”, senza nessuna autorità sui suoi fratelli cardinali?

Card. Re l’ho trovato sempre simpatico, e lo sarà ancora per me. Ma come fa ad avere una competenza su fatti cinesi, più di un cardinale cinese con lunghe e privilegiate esperienze e con frequenti contatti ancor oggi con la realtà cinese? Solo perchè il Segretario di Stato gli conferisce tale competenza?

E non hanno paura di sconfessare, così, il gran parlare della “periferia” di Papa Francesco?


Su una cosa siamo d’accordo con il nostro Professore: l’importanza della questione si o no ci sia stata una continuità tra i recenti Pontefici riguardo la linea nel trattare con la Cina.

Non sto qui a ripetere un lungo discorso. Leggere il mio libro “Per amore del mio popolo non tacerò” può aiutare. Ma basta anche leggere la mia risposta al Card. Re (1o Marzo) con un supplemento (10 Marzo).

I due Papi precedenti hanno ovviamente incoraggiato il dialogo nella speranza di arrivare ad un “buon accordo”, ma certamente non avrebbero mai accettato un accordo “cattivo”, cioè immorale, anche se è “l’unico possibile”.

Non ritiro la mia parola: “ho fondamento per credere, e spero un giorno di poter dimostrare con documenti di archivio, che l’accordo ora firmato è lo stesso che Papa Benedetto aveva, a suo tempo, rifiutato di firmare”.

Del resto la controversia è facilmente risolvibile: basta che io possa vedere l’accordo segreto (testo cinese ed italiano) e Card. Re mi mostri l’evidenza dall’archivio, di cui nella sua lettera.


Alla domanda “allora perchè l’accordo non è stato firmato dieci anni fa?” il Professore dice che la risposta è semplice: ci sono state obiezioni e risistenze, le stesse di oggi.

Qui si constata l’ignoranza dei fatti.

Ai tempi del Card. Tomko il negoziatore, che era Mons. Claudio Celli, ragguagliava sull’andamento del negoziato i partecipanti a qualle “riunioni segrete” (dei due dicasteri, Segreteria di Stato e Congregaziona per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, più alcuni esperti da Hong Kong, Macao e Taiwan).

Ai tempi invece del negoziatore Mons. Parolin (con alle spalle Card. Dias), i negoziati erano di competenza esclusiva degli “addetti ai lavori”, neanche i membri della Commissione per la Chiesa in Cina ne sapevano niente, per cui non c’era la questione di obiezioni e resistenze.

Ultimamente i negoziati sono ancora “top secret”, ma delle indiscrezioni sono trapelate, su cui si potevano costruire delle congetture e contro queste sorgono le obiezioni.


Il Card. Re, che certamente conosce il contenuto dell’Accordo, ci dice solo “esso comprende l’intervento dell’autorità del Papa nel processo di nomina dei Vescovi in Cina”. Ma è questa una grande vittoria? Non vi sembra troppo poco? Mancherebbe che il Papa non intervenisse per niente.

Si sa che senza un accordo c’era un modo di compromesso: Vaticano e Pechino cercavano di convergere su nomi di candidati “accettabili” da ambe le parti. Ma ora con l’accordo Pechino non ha più bisogno di fare questo sforzo. Hanno diritto di presentare i nomi che vogliono, e staranno a vedere se il Papa osa dare il veto, e per quante volte (supposto che nell’accordo esista veramente questo diritto di veto).


Il Professore arzigogola sulla parola “Ostpolitik”. Ovviamente non stiamo parlando di Germania o dell’Europa, ma del Communismo cinese. La parola è usata, correntemente, per significare la “strategia di compromesso” davanti ad un regime totalitario. Non fa differenza se sia Faraone o Nerone, Hitler o Stalin, Mao zedong o Xi jinping; un potere totalitario non ammette compromessi, vuole la resa incondizionata, la schiavitù!

Il Signore è stato troppo buono con gli italiani, non hanno sofferto sotto un vero regime totalitario (il fascismo di Mussolini è una dittatura all’acqua di rose- manganello ed olio di riccino), per cui hanno difficoltà a sapere quanto terribile può essere un vero regime totalitario, per di più, ateo.


Il Professore arzigogola anche sulla distinzione tra chi negozia, chi firma e chi approva l’accordo.

Sappiano che il negoziatore è il monsignore sottosegretario della Segreteria di Stato; chi firma può essere lui o il suo superiore, l’arcivescovo segretario della Segreteria di Stato; sempre con l’approvazione del Pontefice.

Queste sottigliezze non dicono tutta la realtà. Mentre, quando Mons. Parolin era il negoziatore, era veramente lui che negoziava, con alle orecchie Card. Dias, e tutti e due cercavano di scavalcare Papa Benedetto (questa è la mia convinzione), quando invece è negoziatore Mons. Camilleri, questi (sempre secondo la mia convinzione) è sempre completamente sotto il dettato del Parolin.


Card. Re cita correttamente la mia grave obiezione agli “orientamenti pastorali” del 28 giugno, ma risponde con la gratuita affermazione che “sono stati pensati proprio per salvaguardere la fede”. Sembra che non abbia letto con attenzione i miei “dubia”, che avevo presentato a Papa Francesco il 1o Luglio e che Sua Santità il giorno 3 mi promise di interessarsene. Ma fino ad oggi non mi è venuto ancora una parola di risposta.

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言