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.


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。



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!



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?


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。


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!



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!」






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?』」











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。


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。










– 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!





















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.


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.





(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。


(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。



(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!


(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。









不能遊行 還要發聲









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。






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。



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?









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




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。



[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