我去了哪裡?”Dubia” by Cardinal Zen on the pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of the clergy in China (Updated 8 July)

各位兄弟姊妹:

七月一日我不在港。我是絕對不捨得在這個時候缺席的。其實我妹妹也正身體不適,我本不該走開的。我去了哪裡?

6月28日晚上,我見到一份教廷的文告,我身為主教、樞機,不能靜靜的接受它,一定要提出我的質疑。我心血來潮,29日晚上就登上去羅馬的飛機。

星期天中午我把一封給教宗的信交給Casa Santa Marta的保安人員,信中要求教宗讓我和那文告的作者在他面前討論那文告。

星期一下午四時還沒有收到回應,我又寫了一封信給教宗,交給他的一位私人秘書,也附上一份我對那文告的「質疑」。那位秘書說其實那第一封信教宗已收到。

星期二晚上教宗託國務院的辦公室主任來給我說:我的問題可以和國務卿談談。我說:「那就免了吧,我絕對沒有信心和他見面會有任何結果。」

星期三晚上有人通知我教宗請我去共進晚餐,也會有國務卿陪隨。

在晚餐上爭吵是不禮貌的,我們談了許多目下香港的情形,至於那文告,我祇在最後幾分鐘才向教宗提起了,教宗說了幾次「我會關注這事」,這也是我帶回來的、唯一的、一句話。我也交了一份我的「質疑」給國務卿,他在席上沒有說什麼話。

我此行算值不值得?以下是我提出的質疑。

對「聖座關於中國神職人員民事登記的牧靈指導」

陳日君樞機提出幾點質疑

(七月八日修正)

首先,相當不尋常的是:這麼重要的文件竟以「聖座」名義頒佈,沒有指出是聖座哪個部門,更沒有官員簽字負責。

  1. 文件第一節提出問題。

文告:政府不尊重諾言,在要求神職人員作民事登記時,也幾乎常常強迫他們接受獨立自辦教會的原則。

質疑:教宗本篤致中國教會的信中(7.8)也說了:政府「迫使有關人士要作出有違他們的天主教良知的表態、行為及承諾。」

  1. 文件第二節。

文告:面對這複雜的處境(而且各地處境也並不一樣),聖座給予指引如何應付。一方面,聖座無意強迫信徒的良知,也要求(要求誰?沒有說出「政府」兩字)尊重教徒的良心。

另一方面,教廷申明基本的原則是「秘密狀態並非教會生活的常規」。也就是說「應該擺脫這狀態:地下的該到地上來」。

質疑:「秘密狀態並非教會生活的常規」來自教宗本篤致在中國教會的信(8.10),不如讓我們比較齊全地列出這8.10的內容,分為四段:

(甲)「有些主教因不願屈從對教會生活的不當控制,且為了完全忠於天主教的教義和伯多祿的繼承人,被迫秘密地接受了祝聖。」

(乙)「秘密狀態並非屬於教會生活的常規。」

(丙)「歷史告訴我們,只有當迫切渴望維護自身信仰的完整性」

(丁)「不接受國家機構干涉教會切身生活時,牧者和信友們才這樣做。」

韓德力神父和帕羅林樞機慣常祇引用(乙),教宗方濟各在2018年9月26日文告中引用時加上(丙)。但我以為(甲)及(丁)也很重要。

8.10很明顯指出「不正常」的不是地下團體的決定,他們被逼在地下,「不正常」的是政府造成的處境,難道這處境現在已改變了嗎?

3. 文件第三節列出一些理由「證明」在第五節所給的指示是正確的。

第一理由:國家憲法承認宗教自由。

質疑:在這憲法下,政府曾尊重宗教自由嗎?這麼多年的教難不是鐵的事實嗎?

第二理由:中梵簽了臨時協議後,「獨立自辦」這說法按邏輯已不該被解說為絕對獨立了,因為中共已承認教宗的身份。所謂「獨立」祇是「政治上」的獨立。

質疑:首先,除非我見到那協議,我不相信中共真會承認教宗的身份。

而且,在獨裁的政權下有什麼邏輯?祇有黨的利益是真理的規範(正如鄧小平說的,白貓黑貓沒有分別)。

中梵簽協議後,地上團體的官方發言人立即聲明:「什麼都沒有改變,我們還是像以前一樣『獨立自辦』,絕對服從黨的領導」;事實也就如聲明的一樣。

第三理由:已成立了「穏定可靠」的對話機制。

質疑:真是嗎?在文件的第一及第九節不是說中方違反了諾言嗎?

第四理由:地上所有主教已合法了。

質疑:但這代表什麼?這祇代表教宗的無限仁慈,或更代表政府壓力的強大。

在那些被寬恕的、「被獎勵」的人身上我們沒有看到絲毫悔意,祇看到他們耀武揚威,譏笑那些「賭輸」了的可憐蟲。

  1. 第四節

文告:上述理據要求教廷採取一個新的立場

我們欣賞教廷的誠實明言,文件指示的官方立場是新的,以前的已過去,已無效。

又說教廷和政府還在繼續對話,找出一個(兩全其美)的程式(Formula)(第九節說「方式」Modalità)。

質疑:但是:天啊!什麼程式?什麼方式呀?這裡有關的不是一個理論性的宣言,政府要我們的兄弟進入一個制度,接受一套規則(入鳥籠),再也沒有牧民自由了(例如,十八歲以下的青少年不能參與任何宗教活動了)!

  1. 第五節列出「指導」的具體內容。

可以簡單的綜合:可以簽政府所要求的登記申請書,同時作出一個聲明說「我不承認申請書中違反信仰的許諾」。這聲明如不能「書面」作出,「口頭」也可以,沒有證人也可以,祇要簽字時的意向並不是所簽的。

質疑:簽的是違反教會信仰的,聲明和意向卻是否認所簽的。這樣的指導絕不符合傳統的倫理原則!按這樣的指導,心裡信教口裡背教也不成問題了。

  1. 第六節說聖座「理解並尊重」那些按良心不能接受上述指示的。

質疑:這很明顯是說「出於同情」。因為這些兄弟還「固執己見」,不能明白新的指示是正確的,他們的取態不正確,但教廷(暫時?)還容忍他們。

  1. 第七節所說和這裡的問題並見不到有什麼特別關係。
  1. 第八節說教友們要接受牧者的決定。

質疑:這也就是說他們沒有權利作個人的選擇?他們的良心不該受到尊重?

[最近很多兄弟姊妹來問我「怎麼辦?」我的意見是:「有人做教廷說可以做的事,誰也不要批評。但每個人還是要照良心的指示為自己作出決定。」我沒有資格為大家決定什麼對、什麼不對。]

但教廷不是有權也有責作出批判的嗎?現在看來這批判是:「從地下到地上來是對的,留在地下是不對的,祇可暫時容忍?」而且,主教、神父有選擇,教友們卻沒有選擇?

  1. 第九節說兩方還在討論一個適當的「方式」

又說:在沒有完成對話前,聖座要求(誰?又不敢說「政府」?)不要對非官方團體施壓。

質疑:(文中兩次不敢說出「政府」兩字,使我們記得皇帝的名字是不能說的。)

最後,文件囑咐大家「耐心地,謙遜地」辨別天主的聖意。

但信徒不是也應該誠心準備,為忠於信仰而接受天主聖意要我們付出的堅持和犧牲

文中又說:眼前雖有困難也「充滿希望」。

質疑:我卻以為事實把一切希望都打碎了。當然,我們在這絕望中還信賴上主,也準備接受上主所安排的一切。

總結:

這份沒有人簽署的文件實在「創新」。以前教會說是不能接受的,現在成了常規;以前教會鼓勵教友堅持的,現在成了暫時還被容忍的。

這文件的作者大概期待這些少數的「固執份子」不久會自然消失(教廷已很久不給他們牧者,最近連署理也免了,因為地上的主教都已合法了)!?

不但地下團體會消失。地上團體裡也有不少兄弟姊妹長期堅持信仰,希望從地上內部作出改善的,但沒有獲得教廷的支持,現在也祇能在投機分子的譏笑聲中歸隊了。

上主,請可憐我們祖國的教會,不要讓那些期望消滅真正天主教信仰的人得逞!


“Dubia” del card. Zen sugli Orientamenti pastorali della Santa Sede circa la registrazione civile del clero in Cina

(aggiornato 8 Luglio)

Anzitutto sembra strano che un documento assai importante venga emanato dalla “Santa Sede”, senza specificazione di quale dicastero e con nessuna firma dell’autorità responsabile.

Nei paragrafi 1 e 2 il documento espone il problema e la linea generale di soluzione.

1. Il problema è che il governo rinnega le sue promesse di rispettare la dottrina cattolica e nella registrazione civile del clero richiede quasi sempre di accettare il principio di indipendenza, autonomia, auto-amministrazione della Chiesa in Cina (si dovrebbe completare con quello che la lettera di papa Benedetto XVI dice al punto 7,8: “… assumere atteggiamenti, a porre gesti e a prendere impegni che sono contrari ai dettami della loro coscienza di cattolici”).

2. Di fronte alla situazione complessa e che non è sempre la stessa dappertutto, la Santa Sede dà una linea generale di come comportarsi:

da una parte non intende forzare le coscienze, e perciò chiede (omettendo di dire esplicitamente “al governo”) che si rispetti la coscienza cattolica;

dall’altra pone come principio generale che “la clandestinità non rientra nella normalità della vita della Chiesa” (lettera papa Bendetto 8.10), cioè è normale che se ne esca.

Riguardo alla citazione della Lettera di papa Benedetto XVI al punto 8,10, mi permetto di trascrivere quasi l’intero paragrafo:

(a) “Alcuni di essi [vescovi] non volendo sottostare a un indebito controllo, esercitato sulla vita della Chiesa, e desiderosi di mantenere una piena fedeltà al Successore di Pietro e alla dottrina cattolica, si sono visti costretti a farsi consacrare clandestinamente.”

(b) “La clandestinità non rientra nella normalità della vita della Chiesa,”

(c) “e la storia mostra che Pastori e fedeli vi fanno ricorso soltanto nel sofferto desiderio di mantenere integra la propria fed,”

(d) “e di non accettare ingerenze di organismi statali in ciò che tocca l’intimo della vita della Chiesa.”

P. Jeroom Heyndrickx e il card. Parolin amano citare solo la parte (b); papa Francesco (nel suo messaggio 26 Sett. 2018) aggiunge anche la parte (c); ma a me sembra che siano importanti anche la parte (a) e (d).

Il paragrafo mostra con chiarezza che la non normalità non è una scelta dei clandestini, la scelta è inevitabile. È la situazione che è anormale! È forse cambiata oggi questa situazione?

3. Il lungo paragrafo 3 cerca di provare che è giustificato ciò che si suggerirà nel par. 5.

Prima prova: la Costituzione garantisce la libertà religiosa.

Domando:Ma che cosa ci dice la lunga storia di persecuzione, nonostante la Costituzione?

Seconda prova: Dopo l’Accordo, “logicamente”, l’indipendenza non deve essere più intesa come indipendenza assoluta, ma solo relativa alla sfera politica.

Anzitutto dico: se non vedo il testo dell’Accordo, mi è difficile credere che abbiano veramente riconosciuto il “ruolo peculiare del successore di Pietro”.

Domando poi: C’è qualcosa di logico nei sistemi totalitari? Unica logica è che, al dire di Deng Xiaoping, “un gatto bianco è uguale a un gatto nero”, purché serva agli scopi del Partito.

Nell’immediato dopo-Accordo niente è stato cambiato nella politica religiosa del partito, tutto è stato ufficialmente riaffermato e i fatti lo comprovano.

Terza prova: Il contesto del dialogo “consolidato”.

Domando: Ma il documento non riconosce che il governo ha rinnegato le sue promesse, come affermato sia nel primo paragrafo, sia nel paragrafo 9 di questo documento?

Quarta prova: Tutti i vescovi sono legittimati.

Questo prova solo l’infinita generosità del papa o forse l’onnipotente pressione del governo, ma nei perdonati e “premiati” non vediamo alcun cambiamento, nessun segno di ravvedimento, ma chiari atti di baldanzoso trionfo, ridendo degli altri che hanno puntato sul cavallo sbagliato.

4. Il paragrafo 4 dice che le ragioni qui sopra giustificano un atteggiamento nuovo. Qui almeno c’è l’onestà di dire che ciò che si propone è una novità, e che perciò non è in continuazione con il passato, ma negando il passato come già passato, cioè come non più valido.

Si dice anche che la Santa Sede sta cercando di concordare col governo su una formula (che salvi capra e cavoli).

Ma ci domandiamo: “Una formula”? Quel che il governo chiede non è una dichiarazione di una teoria: è tutto un sistema, un regime in cui non ci sarà più la libertà pastorale, ma in tutto si seguiranno gli ordini del Partito, fra cui la proibizione ai minori di 18 anni di partecipare a qualunque attività religiosa.

5. Nel par. 5 ci sono i veri orientamenti pastorali. In breve: si firmi pure tutto quello che richiede il governo, possibilmente con una precisazione scritta che nega poi quello che si firma. Se la precisazione scritta non è possibile, la si faccia verbalmente, con un testimone o senza. Basta che ci sia l’intenzione di non aver accettato in coscienza ciò che di fatto si ha firmato.

Si firma un testo contro la fede e si dichiara che l’intenzione è di favorire il bene della comunità, un’evangelizzazione più adeguata, la gestione responsabile dei beni della Chiesa.

Questa norma generale è ovviamente contro ogni principio di moralità. Se accettata giustifichesebbe l’apostasia.

6. Nel par. 6 si dice che la Santa Sede comprende e rispetta chi in coscienza non accetta la regola sopra esposta.

Ovviamente questa è compassione verso una minoranza “cocciuta” che non riesce ancora a capire la regola nuova. La laro attitudine è sbagliata, ma la Santa Sede “provvisoriamente” li tollera.

7. Il par.7 parla di certi doveri dei vescovi, citando un documento che non ha niente a che fare con la nostra questione.

8. Nel par. 8 si dice che i fedeli accolgano la decisione dei loro pastori. Cosa vuol dire? Che non hanno la libertà individuale di scegliere? E la loro coscienza non deve essere rispettata?

[Ai fratelli che mi domandano sul da farsi, ho sempre dato la risposta: di rispettare le scelte degli altri e di rimanere fermi nella convinzione della propria coscienza. Questo perché non ho nessuna autorità di imporre sugli altri i miei giudizi su ciò che è giusto o sbagliato.

Ma la Santa Sede non ha l’autorità e perciò il dovere di chiarire ai membri della Chiesa che cosa è giusto e che cosa è sbagliato? Lo ha fatto con questi “Orientameati”? Lasciare la clandestinità è da incoraggiare, rimanere nella clandestinità è da tollerare? I Vescovi e sacerdoti hanno la scelta ed i fedeli no?

9. Al par. 9 si dice che la Santa Sede nel frattempo chiede (e di nuovo omette la parola “al governo”) che non si pongano in atto pressioni intimidatorie nei confronti delle comunità cattoliche non ufficiali, come è già avvenuto.

(Questo di non nominare la parola “governo” è quasi come la tradizionale riverenza nel non menzionare il nome dell’imperatore.)

Infine, si raccomanda a tutti di discernere la volontà di Dio con “pazienza e umiltà”. Ma io mi domando: è andata a farsi benedire la fermezza nella fede?

Poi dice che “il cammino presente è segnato pure da tante speranze, nonostante le difficoltà”. A me pare, invece, che i fatti distruggano ogni fondamento di speranza umana. In quanto a speranza in Dio, essa non può mai essere disgiunta dalla sincera volontà di voler anche soffrire secondo la Sua volontà.

Conclusione

Questo documento ha rovesciato in modo radicale ciò che è normale e ciò che è anormale, ciò che è doveroso e ciò che è da tollerare.

La speranza dei suoi redattori forse è che la minoranza compatita morirà di morte naturale. Con questa minoranza intendo non solo i sacerdoti clandestini (ai quali da tempo non si danno dei Vescovi quando quegli anziani muoiano, ma neppure più Delegati, perchè il vescovo ufficiale della diocesi è già legittimo), ma anche molti fratelli nella comunità ufficiale che con grande tenacia hanno lavorato per un cambiamento, sperando di essere sostenuti dalla Santa Sede, ma vengono invece incoraggiati ad accettare la sottomissione al governo, derisi dagli opportunisti vincitori.

Che il Signore non permetta il compimento di questi desideri, di chi vuole la morte della vera fede nella mia cara patria. Signore, pietà!


“Dubia” by Cardinal Zen on the pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of the clergy in China

(updated 8 July)

First of all I find strange that the document is issued by “The Holy See”, without specifying which Department and no signature of the responsible Officer.

In paragraphs 1 and 2 the document explains the problem and the general solution.

1. The problem is that the government has reneged on its promises to respect Catholic doctrine. In the civil registration of the clergy, it almost always requires the clergy to accept the principle of self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation of the Church in China (this could be completed with what the letter from Pope Benedict XVI says in point 7.8: “to adopt attitudes, make gestures and undertake commitments that are contrary to the dictates of their conscience as Catholics.”

2. Faced with this complex situation, which is not always the same everywhere, the Holy See provided a general outline on how to behave:

on the one hand, it says it does not intend to force people; hence calling (but omitting to explicitly say “the government”) for respect for the conscience of Catholics.

On the other hand, it states as a general principle that “The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church’s life (see Pope Benedict’s letter 8.10)”, that is, it is normal for her to come out of it.

With respect to the quotation from Pope Benedict XVI’s letter at 8.10, I take the liberty of quoting almost the entire paragraph:

(a) “Some of them, not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration.”

(b) “The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church’s life,”

(c) “and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith,”

(d) “and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church’s life.”

Fr. Jeroom Heyndrickx and Cardinal Parolin like to cite only part (b); Pope Francis also adds part (c) in his message of 26 September 2018; but it seems to me that parts (a) and (d) are also important.

The paragraph clearly shows that non-normality is not the choice of the underground clergy, the choice is inevitable. It is the situation that is abnormal! Has this situation changed now?

3. The third, long paragraph tries to list the justifications of what will be suggested in par. 5.

First justification: the Constitution guarantees religious freedom.

What does the long history of persecution tell us, the Constitution notwithstanding?

Second justification: After the Agreement, “independencelogically should no longer be understood as absolute independence, but only relative to the political sphere.

First of all, if I cannot see the text of the Agreement, it is difficult for me to believe that they have really recognised the “particular role of the successor of Peter”.

Then the question is: “Is there anything logical in a totalitarian system? The only logic is that, according to Deng Xiaoping, a white cat is the same as a black cat, as long as it serves the purposes of the Party.

In the immediate post-agreement period, nothing has been changed. Everything has been officially restated and the facts prove it.

Third justification: The context of the “consolidated” dialogue.

Does the document not acknowledge that the government has reneged on its promises, as noted in both the first and ninth paragraphs of this document?

Fourth justification: All bishops are legitimised.

This only proves the unlimited generosity of the pope or perhaps the all-powerful pressure of the government, but we see no change on the part of the forgiven and “rewarded”; no sign of repentance; only clear acts of bold triumph, laughing at others who have bet on the losing horse.

4. Paragraph 4 states that the aforementioned reasons justify a new attitude. Here at least there is the honesty of saying that what is proposed is something new, and that it is thus not in continuation with the past, but a denial of the past as something already bygone, something no longer valid.

It is also said that the Holy See is trying to agree with the government on a formula (and have it both ways).

But my question is: “A formula“? What is being asked from our brothers is not the statement of a theory: it is to accept a system, a regime in which there will be no pastoral freedom, in which everyone will follow orders of the Party, including minors under 18 banned from taking part in any religious activity.

5. In par. 5 we find the pastoral guidelines proper. In short: It is alright to sign everything the government requires, possibly with a written clarification that denies what is signed. If the written clarification is not possible, let it be done verbally, with or without a witness. As long as there is the intention of conscientiously not accepting what was actually signed.

A text is signed against the faith and it is stated that the intention is to promote the good of the community, a more suitable evangelisation, and the responsible management of Church assets. This general rule is obviously against all fundamental moral theology! If valid, it would justify even apostasy!

6. In par. 6 it is said that the Holy See understands and respects those who, in good conscience, do not accept the aforementioned rule. Obviously, this is “compassion” towards a “stubborn” minority that still fails to understand the new rule. Their attitude is wrong, but the Holy See, for time being, tolerates them.

7. Par.7 speaks of certain duties that fall on bishops, citing a document that has nothing to do with our issue.

8. In par. 8 it is said that the faithful should accept the decision of their pastors. What does that mean? That they do not have the individual freedom to choose? Mustn’t their conscience be respected as well?

[When brothers from China ask me what to do, I have always given the answer: respect the choices of others and remain firm in the conviction of one’s conscience. This is because I have no authority to impose my views on others about what is right or wrong.]

But doesn’t the Holy See have the authority and therefore the duty to clarify precisely this to the members of the Church? Are the Pastoral Guidelines doing that? Are they not saying that it is good to come out of clandestine situation and it is tolerated if some refuse to do so? Are they not saying that the Bishops and priests have a choice, but not the faithful?

9. In par. 9 it is said that in the meantime the Holy See asks (and omits again the word “the government”) that unofficial Catholic communities not be placed under undue pressures, like in the past.

The decision not to mention the word “government” is almost like the traditional reverence in not mentioning the name of the emperor.

Finally, it is recommended that everyone discern God’s will with patience and humility. I wonder though: did the steadfastness of the faith get lost somewhere?

Then it says that “the journey of the Church in China, marked by much hope in spite of enduring difficulties”. It seems to me, instead, that the facts have destroyed every foundation of human hope. As for hope in God, it can never be separated from the sincere desire to suffer in accordance with His will.

Conclusion:

This document has radically turned upside down what is normal and what is abnormal, what is rightful and what is pitiable. Those who wrote it hope perhaps that the pitied minority will die a natural death. By this minority I mean not only underground priests (who have been deprived of the leadership of a bishop, and recently even of a simple delegate – because the above ground bishop is legitimised) but also the many brothers in the official community who have worked with great tenacity to achieve change, hoping for the support of the Holy See, but now are asked to “enter the cage” amid the laughter of the winning opportunists.

May the Lord not allow the fulfilment of the wishes of those who want the death of the true faith in my dear homeland. Lord, have mercy on us.

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

六月廿八日聖座關於中國神職人員民事登記的牧靈指導 / Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of Clergy in China / Orientamenti pastorali della Santa Sede circa la registrazione civile del clero in Cina

六月廿八日聖座關於中國神職人員民事登記的牧靈指導

1. 聖座?哪個部門?沒有人簽名?

    似乎從未見過這樣的做法!

2. 指導=可以簽字加入愛國會。

    良心上不能這樣做的,聖座理解並尊重他們(=被容忍的少數?)

3. 秘密協議已承認教宗是天主教領袖,所以說「獨立自辦」已不可以以為是「絕對獨立自辦」了(?!)〔我真想看看協議中說了什麼。〕


Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of Clergy in China

28. 06. 2019

1. Holy See? Which department? Who has signed the document? Nobody?

It looks so strange!

2. Guidelines: (clear and simple): it is allowed to join the Patriotic Association!

The Holy See does not intend to force anyone’s conscience (=tolerated minority?)

3. The Provisional Agreement recognizes the Pope Head of the Catholic Church, so “logically” the Holy See understands and interprets the “independence” not in an absolute sense (?!) (I would like to see the wording of the agreement.)


Orientamenti pastorali della Santa Sede circa la registrazione civile del clero in Cina

28. 06. 2019

1. Santa Sede? Quale dipartimento? Chi ha firmato? nessuno?

2. Orientamenti (fin troppo chiari): Si può iscriversi alla Associazione Patriotica.

Chi in coscienza non si sente di fare, deve esscre tollerato (minoranza?)

3. Siccome nell’accordo segreto, Pechino ha già riconosciuto l’autorità del Papa, quando si dice Chiesa “indipendente” non può più significare “assolutamente indipendente”?! [mi piacerebbe vedere il testo dell’Accordo.]

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

湯樞機和蘇牧師附和了人民的聲音。讚美主,感謝主!

湯樞機和蘇牧師附和了人民的聲音。讚美主,感謝主!

分類: 逃犯條例 | 發佈留言

走出黑暗

公教報網上見到蔡惠民神父的大作「走出黑暗:認出我們是兄弟姊妹」。

我認為他講出了一些真理,但也有一些盲點。在這社會分裂,黑夜還未逝去的時刻,讓我也點一支蠟燭和蔡神父切磋、切磋。

當然,耶穌教我們最重要的道理是:我們在天有父,我們都是兄弟姊妹,要相親相愛。但愛的基礎是真理,真理就是認識事實。

事實是:

(1) 香港今天的局面是一個終點。長期播種了不義的暴政,今天收穫的是到了沸點的忿怒。欺騙、藐視、無情的打擊,不論是來自邪惡的專制共黨,或是來自祇顧自利的港府奴才,已到了不能忍受的地步,再要求信任是侮辱人民的智慧!

(2) 蔡神父說:我們要正視一種極端的態度:就是非黑即白。

不是我們的態度極端,是他們要把我們投入一個漆黑的黑夜。「佔中」運動雖然似失敗,但「三子」卻證明了香港人對和平、理性及反暴力的堅持。政府以為我們懦弱,用警力和法庭追殺爭取真普選的市民。現在他們以為是時候可以用修改的《移交逃犯條例》來剝奪我們還僅有的言論自由,徹底做強權的奴隸。

(3) 林鄭也是天主的女兒,我們該愛她。但真正的愛她是幫她悔改,得永生。但不能再給她機會傷害自己,傷害別人。

她絕不無知,但過度自信、一意孤行、謊話連篇、驕傲強橫;江山能移本性難改,我們再讓她放肆,她再也改不了她的驕傲強橫,害了她自己,害我們,害我們的下一代。

(4) 要她撤回惡法,要她引咎下台,並不一定解決問題。邪惡的制度一日不推翻,人民就一日不能安逸。但撤回惡法、問責下台希望能讓中央警醒,不能繼續弱肉強食,把人民迫到絕望的境界,以至選擇與他們同歸於盡。希望他們至少會讓我們透一口氣。

面對這事實,我們牧者有嚴重的責任領導並保護天主的子民。善牧有牧杖和短棒,牧杖為指揮羊群,短棒用以保護羊群。

蔡神父從六月十一日至十六日不在香港,不能感受到人民、尤其年輕人的心靈、所受的創傷。我們不能再讓這位眼盲耳聾的姊妹領導這個家庭了。如果災難性的暴力發生,我們怎麼向上主交代?

我們不是說vox populi vox Dei(人民的聲音是天主的聲音)?Do you hear the people sing?二百萬人的怒吼不夠響嗎?

我們敢在歷史前做千古罪人(不吠的狗)嗎?我是大罪人,不敢在許多罪上再加上這個彌天大罪!主,可憐我們吧!

分類: 逃犯條例, 香港教區 | 發佈留言

陷夏主教於不義?

有人給我看了「天主教平信徒」(網上雜誌)的一篇文章:「請不要陷夏主教於不義」。

這位平信徒兄弟關心夏主教及蔡神父的尊嚴,不想有人以為他們熱衷做下任主教,更不想有人以為他們會為了達到目的而採取一些政治立場。可嘉,可嘉。

這位兄弟擔心有人會這樣想法因為「有人說,夏主教連日來留守政總,很辛苦,為何湯樞機和蔡神父不出來接力?」真的有人這樣說過嗎?我沒有聽過。我以為教友們都知道湯樞機和蔡神父這幾天不在港,正帶領著香港多位宗教領袖在羅馬拜會教宗。

這位兄弟又說:「教友們緊張,說自己是夏主教一派的,另一些又說是蔡神父一派的」。是嗎?我也沒有聽過。我知道本教區的教友很有信德,一向都高興地接受教宗給我們的主教(倒是有些神父多年前,在胡振中接受任命時表示了異見;也不是反對他,而是反對教廷的做法)。我不相信教友中有夏派和蔡派。不論是夏主教或任何一位神父由教宗任命為我們的主教,教友們都會高興接受、尊敬。我真看不到格林多教會的情況發生在這裡。我看上述文章卻有「抄作」之嫌。

還有那句「背後有人教路」使我又天真地對號入座了。不過那就太冤枉了。我做事說話從不會「在背後」。這時刻我以為大家都等候着楊主教的接班人。這幾天見了夏主教的所作,聽了他的所講,我以為他正是我們今天所需要的善牧,衝口說了出來。罪過,罪過。

其實我這樣說並不排除別的可能,我只是希望香港下一任的主教,我們這幾天所欣賞的夏主教一樣。我沒有機會欣賞別的神父,他們之中肯定可以有比夏主教更好的。

教廷揀主教有一個諮詢程序。不過比較集中諮詢神父們的意見。在這重視平信徒的新時代,我希望平信徒多向教廷表達他們的意見。

分類: 香港教區 | 發佈留言

緊急呼籲:請大家關注兩位香港公民 在東京被無理拘留已五個多月! S.O.S. Please, Help two Hong Kong citizens unjustly detained in Tokyo prison since 12 December

如果我不是在天主教信仰中成長,我早已會把日本人恨之入骨。家父先在上海閘北,後在南市,為多子女的家庭打好了經濟基礎,但中日戰爭破壞了許多中國人「安居樂業」的願望。我是基督信徒,我沒有仇恨。

長大了,入了修會,被派去意大利慈幼大學讀書,在那國際性大團體中,接觸到幾位日籍同學,我可形容他們是「非常可愛」,我對日本人毫無困難地有了好感。

96年末我和湯漢同受祝聖為主教,東京的白柳誠一樞機是湯漢好友來參與了祝聖禮。我在大陸修院教書時曾多次遇到來中國大陸「朝聖」的他。

他幾乎每年帶幾位神父、修女和一班教友來中國「朝聖」,去很多聖堂和修院。每處奉獻彌撒中都會求天主寬恕日本人在戰爭中對中國人的傷害(也慷慨贊助那些聖堂和修院的經費)。他真是中國人的朋友。

五月一日,日本改朝換代。媒體都讚揚退位的明仁是一位受人民愛戴的、推動和平的天皇,他在位期間從來沒有參拜靖國神社。他首次外訪北京,稱「對日本於二戰時在中國引起巨大苦難深感遺憾」。2015年在二戰結束70周年儀式上對日本於二戰時的行為表示「深切懊悔」。

接位的德仁天皇看來一定會繼續走和平的道路。

我祈求天主祝福兩位日皇明仁和德仁。

我也祈求大能的天主不要讓高傲的政治玩家得逞,粉碎他們重創「軍事光榮」的夢!

是的,我們不能對安倍晉三沒有戒心。他正在推動改憲(修改戰後憲法),滿腦子是增強軍備,根本不明白戰爭為日本人民帶來痛苦及恐懼,對世界和平造成的威脅。

日本政府極右的「軍國主義」肯定和他們無理虐待兩位我們香港同胞的事有關。

去年十二月十二日郭紹傑和嚴敏華在日本東京靖國神社外作出抗議行動。郭紹傑手持「毋忘南京大屠殺」的布條,腳前燒著寫有「東條英機」名字的紙條,嚴敏華則負責拍攝。兩人當場被捕,一直被扣留獄中,不獲保釋。港方、中方政府被知會後沒有給與任何援助!

兩人行動既不能被控為抗議行為(因為是合法的),也不能被控為放火(因為根本沒有損壞任何東西)。終於被控為「非法進入他人建築物罪」,非常可笑。這明顯是當局的政治檢控,借事件打壓反右翼勢力的人士。

三月七日案件開審日。本人赴東京拜見義務律師及當地支援人士瞭解事件,七日出席法院旁聽,並在六日、八日分別探望了郭、嚴兩人。

四月初兩位義務律師來港和有關人士報告情況並商議支援辦法。

四月再開庭日,長毛赴東京擬探望郭、嚴並去法庭旁聽,被拒絕入境。

我以為日本方面這樣對待這兩位外藉人士非常不人道,法庭審案的速度「不能想像地」慢。長期拘留拒絕保釋。探望的方便十分限制,獄中沒有足夠的職員懂外語。四月二日我要求見了日本駐港總領事,希望他能給我好消息:釋放郭、嚴兩人,或至少給與保釋。我五月廿日收到的答覆是:「他們兩位的權利已按日本法律得到保護」(多麼「專業」呀!)。

聽說下次上庭就在五月廿二日,我緊急呼籲國際媒體多多關注這案件。日本政府對這兩位香港公民的待遇實在非常殘苛,我們不能坐視不理!


Have I not grown up in the Christian faith I would hate the Japanese people for all my life. May father, an honest and diligent worker, had, twice, build the foundation for a prosperous future of our family, and saw all that shattered by Japanese invasion of Shanghai.

When I joined the Salesian Society and was sent to do my studies in Italy in the International Salesian University, I made acquaintance with Japanese schoolmates, I have no difficulty to qualify them as lovely people.

For the Episcopal Ordination of John Tong and myself in December 1996 H.E. Cardinal Peter Shirayanagi(白柳誠一)came from Tokyo to be one of the con-consecrants. He was a good friend of John Tong, but I knew him also quite well. He used to bring a group of priests, nuns and faithful for pilgrimage in China, visiting churches and seminaries (leaving also generous donations). He used to pray loudly asking God to forgive the sufferings inflicted by Japanese soldiers on Chinese people during the war. He was a real friend of Chinese people.

First day of this month Emperor Naruhito(德仁)succeeded to Emperor Akihito(明仁). Akihito is a Emperor much loved by his people, a peace loving Emperor, he never went to honor those war criminals in Yasukuni Shrine(靖國神社). More than once he apologized for the sufferings caused to Chinese people by the Japanese Army.

Emperor Naruhito will certainly follow the good example of his peace loving father.

May the Lord bless Emperor Akihito of Japan and his successor Emperor Naruhito. May the almighty God destroy the evil dreams of ambitious politicians who are still so infatuated with the so called military glories of the past.

Yes, what worries me is the extreme rightist tendency of the Prime Minister Shinzō Abe(安倍晉三). He is pushing to change the postwar Constitution in order to be able to build a huge army.

It is hard not to see a connection between this Government’s policy and what happened to our two Hong Kong citizens.

On 12 December 2018, Kwok Siu-kit(郭紹傑)and Yim Man-wa(嚴敏華)were in Tokyo, outside Yasukuni Shrine, burning a paper representing ancestral tablet of Hideki Tojo(東條英機), protesting against the “Nanking Massacre”. They were arrested and are still in detention in Tokyo.

I went to Tokyo to visit them and to be present at the first hearing in the court on the 7 of March.

I found the restriction of visits, the slow pace of court procedure and the denial of the right of bail extremely unfair to foreign suspects in detention.

Above all there is a well justified suspicion of hidden political exploitation of the incident.

In this moment the Chinese communist Government needs the support of Japan and consequently will not object to this unfair treatment to two Hong Kong citizens. After the second hearing the two are still in detention.

Japanese lawyers are helping them.

I asked help from the Japanese Consul General in Hong Kong, on the 2nd of April, the long awaited answer came on 20 May: “The rights of both individuals are protected adequately under relevant laws of Japan”, how professional!?

Next hearing may be on 22 of May.

I earnestly beg the international media to get concerned about this blatant violation of human rights.

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

探三子,唸聖言

前天(24日)夜裡恐怕我們不少人不易入睡。掛念在鐵窗後過初夜的朋友們(更想不到邵家殝身體不適,過了很辛苦的一夜)。昨天(25日)我和一班教友整天在赤柱監獄和甲級囚友慶祝復活節。今天(26日)早上我乘早去荔枝角看看戴、陳、黃三位(也探了「美國隊長」)。

黃浩銘是「黑手」,有經驗了,我早知道不必擔心他。見了他還是很安慰。見了陳、戴兩位也很放心。

陳健民兄弟深深看到坐監的「見証意義」,使我想起那時鐵幕後匈牙利的敏真諦樞機。1956年後他被困在美國大使館,政府要教廷命令他離開匈牙利,他堅持留在祖國,讓教友們都知道他還在他們身邊。可惜教廷為能和政府對話迫他離開他的祖國,又很快任命一位接他匈牙利首席主教位的樞機。

戴耀廷兄弟說:「他本計劃想像他300多天的刑期是一條長長的路,每天行一步,但後來以為不如想像是登山,三百多級,每天一級,到了山頂該是多麼興奮,很有意義。」

我給他們分享了今天彌撒的讀經(復活八日慶典,星期五)。

福音記載耶穌復活後的某一天,宗徒們在大湖裡捕魚,整夜一條也沒有捕到,天亮了,耶穌在岸上對他們說:「青年人,試下再把網撒在船的右邊。」竟然一下子捕了153條大魚(網也險些破了,要別的船幫忙拖到岸上)。

有人說我們天真:「『和理非』這麼多年,得到了什麼?」153條大魚隨時會入網,聽主的話就行!

宗徒大事錄記載伯多祿和若望行了一個奇跡,司祭長和經師們拘捕了他們,威脅他們,不准再宣講耶穌,他們回答說:「我們該聽天主的話還是人的話。」又用聖詠的說話指出耶穌就是那「被匠人拋棄的廢石,卻成了屋角的基石。」

重建社會的人多數受過鐵窗的洗禮。鐵窗後的兄弟們,加油,加油!

「上主是我的牧者,我絕未或缺!」

分類: 普選 | 發佈留言

我給「社評」的評分

蘋果日報

人大背棄真普選承諾

佔中三子及所有參與佔中的市民之罪在於挑戰人大常委的權威。

鼓勵市民敢於當家作主,敢於有希望,拒絕做順民,做奴才。

雖麻木不仁的執權者沒有讓步,但(歷史證明)「唯有犧牲多壯志,敢叫日月換新天」。

[100分]

信報

佔領運動背後蘊含爭取民主、自由與公義的強烈訴求。

但我們不認同透過過激進手段以達成目標。

此案涉及千絲萬繯的政治元素,簡化為「阻路違法」顯然不能服眾。

政府卸不了重啟政改的責任,普選問題一日不解決,撕裂的傷疤無法癒合。

[90分]

South China Morning Post

The conviction of mine leaders of the Occupy movement…should mark the beginning of the end of a troubled chapter in Hong Kong history. …there should be a time for reflection and for seeking to heal the wounds that have divided society.

The central government imposed restrictions on proposals for universal suffrage and the Occupy protests, in response, attracted many thousands of demonstrators. But the protests divided the city…and led to confrontations that occasionally flared into violence. …The Occupy protests raised public awareness, but ultimately failed to bring universal suffrage. They were never likely to succeed. A less confrontational approach would have had more chance of winning concessions from the central government.

The sentences are a matter for the judge to determine…according to the law. …The charges…are rare and somewhat convoluted. And the actions…involved an exercise of free speech, which we treasure. …The most important consideration, it has said, is whether punishment will do more harm than good.

[80分]

明報

法庭責任是根據法律和案情判案,然而佔領運動留下的政治和社會烙印,不會因為裁決而消失。經過數年沉澱,市民知道公民抗命所為何事,惟更加看到法治的重要以及「違法達義」的局限……

法庭認可公民抗命概念,量刑會考慮相關因素,惟定罪與否只會看違法元素,公民抗命並非刑事控罪辯護理由。從法治角度而言,不能說九子裁決是政治報復,又或打壓和平示威,遑論「迫害政治犯」。

……判辭()帶出()一個信息:公民抗命也有界線。大眾不能隨便將裁決與「寒蟬效應」混為一談。

……九子案背後所包含的政治屬性,實非法庭所能處理。「佔中三子」號召公民抗命爭取民主,最終發展成為一次與中央硬撼的政治對抗,性質與2003年50萬人遊行反對港府23條立法,存在重大分別。佔領運動最終無功而還,經此一役,香港與中央關係丕變……

佔領運動確令公民抗命概念在公民社會擴散,然而這幾年一連串圍繞政治抗爭的案件亦令普羅大眾看到,法治是香港絕對不能毁棄的最核心價值……

港獨固然行不通,「違法達義」也不見得是出路……

[50分]

(附)

For reader of SCMP

I gave 80 to the editorial, but I have to warn readers from the mad dog always barking and biting on pag. 2 ( I wonder why nobody in the administration comes to restrain it from damaging the good name of the paper).

Mr. Lo must have drunk from the fountains of the west, but he has not learned the basics of decency. Is he not the one guilty of the sins of pride and arrogance when he makes such accusation to the three persons whom even many their enemies respect sincerely.

He may be right to call them naive, but that is a virtue of the Christians (spiritual childhood). Mr. Lo is naive of another kind of naivete, as he believes that he can get a bargain from a totalitarian power. Once you kneel down, you will remain there.

Can’t Mr. Lo see from the history that most of the successful revolutionaries were people the like of our naive TRIO?

Mr. Lo, you may do a better job with Wen Wei Po(文匯報)or Ta Kung Pao(大公報).

分類: 政治欄, 普選 | 發佈留言

“Despite religious repression, Sino-Vatican deal is significant”??? 「儘管受到宗教壓制,中梵協議意義重大」???

It is a sad surprise for me to read an article, on La Croix International, by Fr. Gianni Criveller, my long time friend.

It looks like a case of split personality.

In the first half of the article I recognize the serious scholar, well informed both of history and of recent facts.

But in its second part the article raises in me so many questions, that I cannot resist sharing them with the readers of the article.

The whole second part starts with the statement “the present Agreement (the secret Sino-Vatican Agreement dated 22 Sept) might lessen the Chinese Church’s misfortune.”

All what follows in the article is like the demonstration of the statement.

(1) Fr. Gianni Criveller says: the Agreement might avoid future illegitimate Episcopal Ordination, and in the same occasion the Holy See has legitimized all those seven illegitimate bishops, so (?) Fr. Criveller “hopes” that worthy episcopal candidates will be chosen in the future (although always with heavy control of the Government).

(2) Fr. Gianni Criveller says: Pope Francis deserves credit for this gesture of “open handedness”, breaking the historical impasse.

(3) Fr. Gianni Criveller says: the Pope allowed an exceptional concession to avoid greater evils and for the supreme good of the people of God.

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

To (2): I dare to question: whether any openhandedness can be justified and whether the historical impasse should be broken at any cost?

The authority of the Pope to choose bishops belongs to the Pope, not to the Person N.N, who happens to be the Pope, so not even the Pope can give it to other people, not to say to an atheist and persecutor government.

The historical impasse may be an avoidable one. But, if an Agreement cannot be reached unless we betray our own identity, can we do that just to break the impasse?

To (3): I appreciate the mentioning of “good” and “evil” because His Eminence Cardinal Filoni would advise us to avoid any discussion about good and evil (right & wrong).

Then let us go back to point (1) and examine it precisely according to the “good and evil” distinction

― to have an illegitimate bishop is not a good thing, but does it become good simply because now the Pope recognizes the illegitimate as legitimate regardless of any visible sign of repentance or lack of it?

― a community with many illegitimate bishops is a bad thing, but does it become good, simply because the Pope no more calls them illegitimate, while they hold still to the principle of an independent Church and profess full obedience to the Communist Party?

― With all that happened after the signing of the Agreement (reaffirmation of the schismatic nature of the state recognized Church, the triumphant boldness of those willing slaves of the atheistic regime and their scornful derision of those who suffered for many years because of their faithfulness to the Holy See and now asked to surrender themselves) what is the foundation of hope, I like to ask Fr. Gianni Criveller, that good bishops will be chosen by the Beijing Government?

(Gianni, I am still your friend.)


我在《十字架報國際版》讀到我的老朋友柯毅霖神父(Fr. Gianni Criveller)的一篇文章,讓我感到訝異和遺憾。

它像一個人格分裂的情況。

在文章的前半部,我看到這位嚴肅的學者對歷史和近期的事都瞭如指掌。

但文章的第二部分,卻讓我產生許多的疑惑,不得不與該文章的讀者分享。

整個第二部分是以這句聲稱作開始:「現在的協議(9月22日中梵秘密協議)可能會減輕中國教會的不幸。」

文章之後的所有內容,就像是該句聲稱的展示。

(1)柯神父說:該協議可能會避免將來有非法主教祝聖,並在(簽署協議的)同一場合,教廷讓這七位非法主教全部合法,所以(?)柯神父「希望」,(儘管總是受到政府的嚴格控制),將來會選出堪當的主教候選人。

(2)柯神父說:對這種「大方」的(張開手的接納)姿態,打破了歷史的僵局,應該歸功於教宗方濟各。

(3)柯神父說:教宗允許特殊的讓步,以避免更大的惡,以及為了天主子民的最高益處(善)著想。

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

至於(2):我敢提出質疑:是否任何的「大方」(張開手的接納)都可以合理化?以及歷史的僵局是否就應該不惜一切代價來打破?

教宗選擇主教的權力屬於教宗的,而不屬那個剛好是教宗的某某人,因此即使是教宗,也不能將權柄交給其他人,更遑論是一個無神論的和迫害人的政府。

歷史僵局可能是可以避免的。但如果是要我們背叛自己的身份否則便無法達成協議,那麼我們能否只為了打破僵局而這樣做呢?

至於(3):我很欣賞柯神父提到「善」和「惡」,因為斐洛尼樞機(Cardinal Filoni)會建議我們避免任何關於善惡(對與錯)的討論。

然後,讓我們回到第(1)點,並根據「善與惡」的區別來準確地檢視它:

── 有非法主教並不是一件好事;但僅僅因為現在教宗認可那些非法主教為合法的,不管他們有沒有任何明顯的悔改跡象,這就會變成是好事?

── 一個擁有很多非法主教的團體是一件壞事;但僅僅因為教宗不再稱他們為非法的,而他們卻仍堅持獨立教會的原則且完全服從共產黨,它就會變成好事?

── 在簽署協議後所發生的一切(國家認可的教會重申其分裂性質;無神論政權那些心甘情願的奴隸的大膽凱歌,以及他們輕蔑嘲笑那些因為忠貞於教廷而多年來一直遭受苦難、到頭來現在被要求投降的人),我想問問柯神父:「北京政府將選出好主教」的這種希望的基礎從何而來?

(柯神父,我仍然是你的朋友呀。)

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

又是「東拉西扯」

四月一日

這幾天忙得不亦樂乎,每天報紙祇看大題目。今天坐下,看了一些文章,有感,和各位分享。

(1) 盧峯仁兄說:『「送中」(引渡逃犯)條例隨時令陳樞機人間蒸發』。我剛讀到時以為不免誇張了。但坐下來想一想,倒覺得他可能有道理。我在中共的檔案處肯定有許多資料,那不是隨時能有罪名要引渡我返大陸?

記得1998年初,因為中共不讓我回去向北京教區修院的及瀋陽修院的修生道別,我寫信給那時的宗教局局長葉小文提出抗議,他回信約我去深圳見面,我隨即應約去了,大家都很客氣,一起吃飯,還彼此交換了禮物。

我們開始正式談話時,他說:「陳主教,我預備了一些資料,先讀給你聽聽好嗎?」我當然說「好」。他開了手提電腦,讀:「你在某某日,在某某地方這樣回答了記者;對這樣這樣的題目講了一篇演說;你在某雜誌上登了這麼一篇文章……」讀了半個多小時,他說:「你說了這些,我們怎麼放心讓你進來?」

我想今天如果他們要讀出我的全部罪狀,一個整天也不夠罷!

(2) 在另一篇文章裡盧兄轉述何柱國先生的經驗。說在大陸做生意的香港人,一回到香港就感到「如沐春風」。

我自89年至96年,七年工夫在大陸「地上」修院教書,每年在國內六個月,分兩段,每段三個月。每次三個月後返港的感受彷彿是重能呼吸新鮮空氣。

我是89年天安門事件後返國內服務的。那時人人都離棄中國,政府很欣賞我的行動表示對祖國的信任,對我非常客氣。但在裡面工作時,常覺得有一點見不到的威脅,有一種形容不出的恐懼。

在上海佘山教書時,我每週回家(我姊姊家裡),路上見到在社會裡到處充斥暴力。在專制制度下人人是奴隸、人人是霸王。在制度壓迫下的人,似乎本能性地,向他管制範圍內的人發洩他的怨氣。很可怕。

(3) 我在余若薇大狀的節目中衝口說了「大陸無法無天」。當然我特別記得的是過去的一件事,但因為發生在我姊夫身上,印象特別深刻。大概早已在文革之前吧,有一天,他們來把他拉走,一句話也不說,剃光了頭派他參與鐵路工程(不知是造新的,還是修理舊的),在烈日下那是非常艱辛的苦工。

當然他早已被列為右派份子,因為他曾擁有一間極小的絨綫店。但事情早已處理了,店也被充公了!

不記得這情況延續了多久(大概是兩三個月),姊姊每天都擔心得不知怎麼過日子。有一天,他們對我姊夫說:「你回去吧。」其他什麼都沒有說(你能說什麼?祇能心裡說謝天謝地)。

(4) “A Canossa” a rovescio?

Nel 1077 era l’Imperatore Enrico IV che si umiliò ai piedi di Papa Gregorio VII nel Castello di Matilde di Canossa dopo essere rimasto in ginocchio per ben 3 giorni, fuori, nella bufera di neve.

Oggi corre voce che Papa Francesco fosse pronto ad uscire dal Vaticano, pur di poter stringere la mano all’Imperatore Xi Jinping.

È il pendolo che non si è fermato a mezzo. Il “giusto mezzo” è quel che dice Papa Benedetto nella sua lettera del 2007 (citando GS §76): “La comunità politica e la Chiesa sono indipendenti e autonome l’una dall’altra. Però tutte e due, sebbene a titolo diverso, sono al servizio della vocazione personale e sociale dei medesimi uomini.” Questo è il fondamento della dignità di ognuna e del reciproco rispetto!

「卡諾莎」(嘉諾撒)事件轉180度的版本

1077年神聖羅馬帝國皇帝亨利四世在「卡諾莎」(嘉諾撒)城堡外風雪中三天苦求,才獲教宗額我略七世接見和寬恕。

現在聽說最近習近平來羅馬,教宗方濟各似乎恨不得和習皇帝握手,甚至準備在梵蒂岡外任何地點和他見面。看來中庸之道實不容易。

教宗本篤在2007年致國內教會的信上引用了大公會議《論教會在現代世界牧職憲章》§76說:「政府與教會是各自獨立自主的機構。但二者各以其不同名義,為同一的人類的個人和社會天職服務」。有了這基礎才各有尊嚴,彼此合作。

(5) 一個有關馬桶的笑話

話說有一天,有人給西班牙元首Franco送了一個最先進的電子馬桶,任何人坐上去它會奏出他最喜歡的歌曲。Franco把它帶回家裡,他眾多的子子孫孫都想試一試。那末從小朋友開始,他們出來時都雀躍舞蹈。跟着是青年,他們出來時都舉起大拇指說:「勁!」。大家都試過了,終於Franco入去,很久不出來。出來時大家當然問:「什麼事呀?不靈嗎?」他說:「很靈,所以有麻煩,大家都知道我最喜歡國歌,每次我一坐下它大奏國歌,我當然要起立致敬,那末……」

這是諷刺Franco的笑話,不是諷刺國歌,應該不會被入罪的吧?

分類: 中國教會, 政治欄 | 發佈留言