為什麼他們見到不存在的問題,卻見不到實在的問題,且也是他們有份造成的?

我在2021年6月12日的博文說:『聽說有一份「反對」脫利騰彌撒的文件即將來臨』,這擔憂已成真,而且其所帶來的衝擊並沒有因為早已預期而減輕,文件中許多帶有偏見的論述對相關的人造成的傷痛比預料的更沉重。這些愛好脫利騰彌撒的善良的人,從不曾讓人有半點懷疑他們不接受大公會議的禮儀改革,更從未不接受整個大公會議。此外,他們都是堂區的活躍成員。

我這位樞機及禮儀聖事部前成員竟沒有被邀請參加是次「廣泛」諮詢,實在既感苦澀又驚愕。而且於2007-2009年我仍是香港主教,負責推動執行當時教宗本篤十六世的宗座牧函《歷任教宗》,至今,我仍是本教區內脫利騰彌撒群組的支持者。

由於未見過該份諮詢問卷及其結果,我無從判斷,我祇能懷疑過程中有很多誤解(甚至可能帶有誤導擺佈的成份)。

在閱讀這兩份文件時,我注意到它們 (1) 帶有傾向性地將沿用舊有禮儀(vetus ritus)與不接受新禮儀(novus ritus)兩件事聯繫起來,及(2) 將不接受禮儀改革(其實更多情形是不接受執行新禮儀方式時一些嚴重的弊病)錯誤引導為對大公會議的全盤且徹底的拒絕(其實為那些拒絕大公會議的人,彌撒儀式的選擇只是附屬小問題,教廷在這問題上的讓步也並沒有逆轉這次教會的分裂)。

梵蒂岡高層應該問自己(甚至可能需要進行徹底調查)為什麼拒絕梵二的現象會持續存在,且可能(最近)越見惡化。

問題不在於「人們喜歡什麼儀式」,而是「他們為何不再參與感恩祭」?一些民意調查顯示,歐洲一半基督徒不再相信耶穌在聖體聖事中的實際存在,不再相信永生!我們當然不會將這些結果歸咎於禮儀改革,問題其實更複雜,我們不能迴避的問題是:「是不是缺少了信仰培育?」「大公會議的偉大工作是不是被浪費了?」「以為現在一切都可以改變」難道不就是邪惡的根源?有人不是認為大公會議可以凌駕所有傳統,且認為脫利騰大公會議就像西斯汀教堂那幅《最後的審判》上面的污垢(正如我們教區一位「禮儀專家」所形容)一樣?

該文件不僅指責在執行《歷任教宗》宗座牧函時有人犯了錯誤,更將兩種禮儀的並存視為邪惡。文件第3條的第5及6段及第4、5條不是明顯希望這些小組的死亡嗎?但即使如此,反對拉辛格的教廷權貴難道不可以耐心地等待脫利騰彌撒隨著本篤十六世的去世而告終,而一定要這樣羞辱可敬的榮休教宗呢?

Why do they see problem where there is none and close their eyes to the problem, for which they are also responsible?

Concerns about a ventilated document “against” the Tridentine Mass (see my blog June 12, 2021) have come true, and the blow has been no less severe because it was foreseen, many tendentious generalizations in the documents hurt more than expected the hearts of many good people, who never gave the slightest cause to be suspected of not accepting the liturgical reform of the Council, much less not accepting the Council “Tout court”. Moreover they remain active members in their parishes.

It came as a bitter surprise to me personally that the “widespread” consultation did not reach me, a cardinal and once a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. During the years 2007-2009, moreover, I was bishop of Hong Kong and therefore responsible for the implementation of “Summorum Pontificum”, and until now, a well-known supporter of the group.

Not having known either the questionnaire or the responses to the questionnaire, I cannot judge, but only suspect that there was much misunderstanding (or perhaps even manipulation) in the process.

As I read the two documents I note (1) an incredible ease (or tendentiousness) in linking the desire to use the vetus ritus to the non-acceptance of the ritus novus and (2) in associating the non-acceptance of the liturgical reform (which often concerns mainly the way in which it was carried out with its many serious abuses) with a total and profound rejection of the Council itself (as matter of fact for those who reject the Council the diversity of the rite of the Mass is only a small corollary, so much so that the concession regarding the rite did not reverse the schism).

The Vatican authorities should ask themselves (and perhaps even make a thorough investigation) why the second phenomenon has persisted and perhaps (recently) even worsened.

The problem is not “which rite do people prefer?” but is “why don’t they go to Mass anymore?” Certain surveys show that half of the Christian population in Europe no longer believes in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, no longer believes in eternal life! Certainly we do not blame all this on the liturgical reform, but we just want to say that the problem is much deeper, we cannot evade the question: “Has not the formation of faith been lacking?” “Has not the great work of the Council been wasted?” Isn’t the root of evil that attitude of believing that everything can now be changed? Is it not that attitude of believing that this Council erases all previous ones and that the Tridentine Council is like the dirt accumulated on the “last judgement” of the Sistine Chapel (as a “liturgist” in our diocese put it)?

The Document obviously sees not only irregularities in the execution of Summorum Pontificum, but considers the very existence of a parallel rite to be an evil. Don’t paragraphs § 5 and § 6 of Art 3, Art 4 and 5 clearly wish for the death of the groups? But, even in that case, can’t the anti-Ratzinger gentlemen of the Vatican be patient to allow the Tridentine Mass to die only after the death of Benedict XVI instead of inflicting such humiliation on the venerable Pope Emeritus?

The disciples of Agostino Casaroli are not at all up to the standard of their master

Monsignor (and later Cardinal) A. Casaroli wrote “The Martyrdom of Patience,” I finally read it.

I always knew that he was an exemplary clergyman, a zealous priest (especially on weekends with his boys in the reformatory), but the misdeeds of his disciples aroused in me a negative image of their master. Reading the booklet corrected this image.

Casaroli knew that Vatican Ostpolitik was an impossible business. There is the essential incompatibility between the Catholic faith and communist ideology. The dialogue is only an almost desperate attempt to make some small breach in that almost impregnable wall.

Casaroli accepted an impossible mission, especially because he was swimming in the dark, at that time totalitarian regimes were able to close themselves completely (the iron curtain) and nothing leaked out of that reality of an absolute oppression.

He admired and had great respect for the heroes of the faith such as Card. Mindszenty and Card. Beran, even though he could not completely renounce all dialogue with atheist governments.

The dialogue with Czechoslovakia reached no conclusion, but this was not his fault. On the contrary, it is to his credit that he did not want a conclusion at any cost, when this would mean betraying the principles of faith.

The agreement with Hungary for the nomination of bishops, even if judged by some as too advantageous for the government, but at least formally had not renounced the principles of Catholic Ecclesiology: in fact, the right of initiative in choosing candidates for the episcopate remains in the hands of the Church.

The present Vatican diplomats have instead left the initiative in the hands of the atheist government and the pope has “only” the last word, with the predictable embarrassment of having to veto indefinitely.

There is another important fact: while Casaroli went to dialogue, Paul VI did not give up his right to raise his voice when the other side, while dialoguing, persists in oppressing the Church. Exemplary was the speech at the Catacombs of Domitila, where the Pope said: “The analogies between the Churches that today struggle and barely survive in the countries of the atheist-totalitarian regime with the Church of the ancient Catacombs are all too real.

Obviously this irritated the other side of the dialogue, but the pope did not renounce his right and duty to proclaim the truth, given also that from the dialogue nothing good was forthcoming, and of what ever eventually may be agreed upon there was not much to be trusted, for those who have no other principle of truth than their own gain, the agreements are worth the paper on which they are written.

After a brief interruption they return to dialogue, because it is to their advantage to show the world that even the Vatican trusts them as credible interlocutors.

Today, however, in order to obtain and maintain an agreement, the value of which is not even known (see recent interview with Bishop Gallagher), the Secretariat of State forces the Holy Father to say nothing about the tragic situation in China (especially Xinjiang and Hong Kong).

I discepoli di Agostino Casaroli non sono affatto all’altezza del loro maestro

Monsignor (e poi Cardinale) A. Casaroli ha scritto “Il martirio della pazienza”, l’ho letto finalmente.

Ho sempre saputo che era un ecclesiastico esemplare, un prete zelante (specialmente a fine settimana con i suoi ragazzi del riformatorio), ma i malefatti dei suoi disecpoli hanno suscitato in me un’imagine negativa del loro maestro. La lettura del libretto ha ridimensionato questa imagine.

Casaroli sapeva che l’Ostpolitik Vaticana era un’affare impossible. C’è l’essenziale incompatibilità tra la fede cattolica e l’ideologia comunista. Il dialogo è solo un quasi disperato tentativo di fare qualche piccola breccia in quel muro quasi inespugnabile.

Casaroli ha accettato una missione impossibile, specialmente perchè nuotava nel buio, allora i regimi totalitari erano capaci di chiudersi del tutto (la cortina di ferro) e niente trapelava della realtà di assoluta oppressione.

Egli ammirava ed aveva grande rispetto per gli eroi della fede come Card. Mindszenty e Card. Beran, anche se non poteva rinunciare ad ogni dialogo con i governi atei.

Il dialgo con la Cecoslovachia non riuscì a concludersi, ma ciò non è stato sua colpa, anzi è a suo onore il fatto che non ha voluto avere una conclusione ad ogni costo, quando ciò vorebbe dire tradire i principi di fede.

L’intesa con l’Ungheria per la nomina dei Vescovi, anche se giudicato da qualcuno come troppo vantagioso per il governo, ma almeno formalmente non aveva rinunciato ai principi dell’Ecclesiologia Cattolica: rimane infatti nelle mani della Chiesa il diritto di iniziativa nello scegliere candidati per episcopato.

I presenti diplomatici vaticani hanno invece lasciata l’iniziativa nelle mani del governo ateo ed al papa rimane “solo” l’ultima parola, con il prevedibile imbarazzo di dover dare il veto indefinitamente.

C’è un altro fatto importante: mentre Casaroli va a dialogare, Paolo VI non rinuncia al suo diritto di alzare la voce quando l’altra parte, mentre dialoga, persiste nell’opprimere la Chiesa. Esemplare è stato il discorso alle catacombe di Domitilla, da dove il Papa dice: “Sono fin troppo reali le anologie tra le Chiese che oggi lottano ed a mala pena sopravivono nei paesi di regime ateo-totalitario con la Chiesa delle antiche Catacombe”.

Ovviamente ciò iritò la controparte del dialogo, ma il papa non rinuncia al suo diritto e dovere di proclamare la verità, dato anche che dal dialogo si otteneva niente, e di quel che eventualmente si otteneva non c’era molto da fidarsi, per chi non ha altro principio di verità che la sua utilità, le intese valgono la carta su cui vengono scritte.

Dopo breve interruzione tornano al dialogo, perchè torna a loro vantaggio far vedere al mondo che perfino il Vaticano ha fiducia in loro come interlocutori credibili.

Oggi, invece, per ottenere e mantenere un accordo, di cui non si sa neanche che valore abbia (v. recente intervista di Mons. Gallagher), la Segreteria di Stato obbliga il santo Padre a non dire niente della tragica situazione in Cina (specialmente Xinjiang e Hong Kong).

Perchè vedono problema dove non c’è e si chiudono gli occhi davanti al problema, di cui sono anche essi responsabili?

Le preoccupazioni riguardo un ventilato documento “contro” la Messa Tridentina (v. mio blog 12 giugno 2021) sono avverate, ed il colpo non è stato meno duro perché previsto, molte generalizzazioni tendenziose nei documenti feriscono più del previsto il cuore di tanta gente buona, che mai ha dato la minima causa per essre sospettata di non accettare la riforma liturgica del Concilio e tanto meno di non accettare il Concilio “Tout court”. Inoltre essi rimangono membri attivi nelle loro parrocchie.

A me personalmente è stata una amara sorpresa il fatto che la “capillare” consultazione non sia arrivata a me, un cardinale e gìà membro della Congregazione del culto divino e della disciplina dei Sacramenti. Durante gli anni 2007-2009, poi, ero vescovo di Hong Kong e perciò responsabile dell’esecuzione del “Summorum Pontificum”, e finora, notoriamente sostenitore del gruppo.

Non avendo conosciuto nè il questionario nè le risposte al questionario, non posso giudicare, ma solo sospettare che ci sia stato molto malinteso (o forse anche manipolazione) nel processo.

Da come leggo i due documenti noto (1) una incredibile facilità (o tendenziosità) nel legare il desiderio dell’uso del vetus ritus alla non accettazione del ritus novus e (2) nell’associare la non accettazione della riforma liturgica (che sovente riguarda il modo in cui essa è stata eseguita con i suoi molti gravi abusi) con un totale e profondo rifiuto del Concilio stesso (per i fautori di tale rifiuto la diversità del rito della messa non è che un piccolo corollario, tanto è vero che la concessione riguardo il rito non ha invertito lo scisma).

Le autorità Vaticane dovrebbero domandarsi (e forse anche fare un capillare inchiesta) sul perchè del permanere e forse (recente) aggravarsi del secondo fenomeno.

Il problema non è “quale rito la gente preferisce?”, ma è “perchè non vanno più a Messa?”. Da certe inchieste risulta che la metà del popolo cristiano in Europa non crede più nella reale presenza di Gesù nella Eucaristia, non crede più nella vita eterna! Certamente non diamo la colpa alla riforma liturgica, ma si vuol solo dire che il problema è molto più profondo, non si può evadere la questione: “Non è forse mancata la formazione della fede?” “Non è forse stato sprecato il grande lavoro del Concilio?” La radice del male non è forse quell’attitudine di credere che ormai tutto si può cambiare? Non è forse quell’attitudine di credere che questo Concilio cancella tutti i precedenti e che il Concilio Tridentino sia come la sporcizia accumalata sull’affresco della Cappella Sistina (come ha affermato un “liturgista” nella nostra diocesi)?

Il Documento ovviamente non vede solo dei disordini nell’esecuzione del Summorun Pontificum, ma considera un male la stessa esistenza di un rito parallelo. I paragrafi § 5 e § 6 dell’art 3, l’art. 4 e 5 non auspicano chiaramente la morte dei gruppi? Ma, anche con questo, i signori anti-Ratzinger del Vaticano non possono pazientare che la Messa Tridentina muoia insieme con la morte di Benedetto XVI invece di umiliare in questo modo il venerando Papa Emerito?

What is the harm in making the extraordinary form of the Roman rite accessible to all?

I have read in the newspapers quite worrying news about possible restrictions to the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (what we now call the extraordinary form of the Roman rite).

I want to make it clear that I cannot be considered an extremist of this liturgical form and that I have worked actively, as a priest and as a bishop, for the liturgical reform after Vatican II, also trying to curb excesses and abuses, which unfortunately have not been lacking in my diocese. So I will not be accused of factiousness. But I cannot deny, in my experience in Hong Kong, the much good that has come from the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and from the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. There is a faithful group here that for decades has participated in this form that comes to us from the liturgical riches of our Tradition, a group that has never created problems for the diocese and whose participants have never questioned the legitimacy of the renewed Mass. In the community that participates in the extraordinary form in Hong Kong, many young people have passed through, who through this Mass have rediscovered the sense of adoration and reverence that we owe to God, our Creator.

I have worked for liturgical reform, as I have said, but I cannot forget the Mass of my childhood, I cannot forget when as a child in Shanghai my father, a devout Catholic, took me to Mass every day and on Sundays he made me attend five Masses! I felt such reverence, I was so fascinated (and still am!) by the beauty of Gregorian chant, that I think that experience nourished my vocation to the priesthood, as it did for so many others. I remember the many Chinese faithful (and I don’t think all of them knew Latin…) participating in these liturgical ceremonies with great enthusiasm, just as I can now witness in the community that participates in the Tridentine Mass in Hong Kong.

The Tridentine Mass is not divisive; on the contrary, it unites us to our brothers and sisters of all ages, to the saints and martyrs of every time, to those who have fought for their faith and who have found in it inexhaustible spiritual nourishment.

(Translation by Bree A. Dail)

Che Male C’è a rendere accessibile a tutti la forma straordinaria del rito romano?

Ho letto sui giornali notizie abbastanza preoccupanti su possibili restrizioni alla celebrazione della Messa Tridentina (quella che ora chiamiamo forma straordinaria del rito romano). Voglio dire chiaramente che io non sono considerabile come estremista di questa forma liturgica e che ho lavorato attivamente, come sacerdote e come vescovo, per la riforma liturgica dopo il Vaticano II, anche cercando di frenare gli eccessi e gli abusi, che purtroppo non sono mancati anche nella mia diocesi. Quindi non mi si accuserà di faziosità. Ma non posso negare, nella mia esperienza di Hong Kong, il tanto di buono che è venuto dal motu proprio Summorum Pontificum e dalla celebrazione della Messa Tridentina. C’è qui un gruppo fedele che da decenni partecipa a questa forma che ci viene dalle ricchezze liturgiche della nostra Tradizione, un gruppo che non ha mai creato problemi alla diocesi e i cui partecipanti non hanno mai messo in dubbio la legittimità della Messa rinnovata. Nella comunità che partecipa alla forma straordinaria in Hong Kong sono passati tanti giovani, che attraverso questa Messa hanno riscoperto il senso dell’adorazione e della reverenza che dobbiamo a Dio, nostro Creatore.

Io ho lavorato per la riforma liturgica, come ho detto, ma non posso dimenticare la Messa della mia fanciullezza, non posso dimenticare quando da bambino in Shanghai mio padre, devotissimo cattolico, mi portava a Messa tutti i giorni e alla domenica mi faceva partecipare a cinque Messe! Sentivo una tale reverenza, ero così affascinato (e lo sono ancora!) dalla bellezza del canto gregoriano, che penso quell’esperienza abbia nutrito la mia vocazione al sacerdozio, come per tanti altri. Ricordo i tanti fedeli cinesi (e non penso tutti sapessero il latino…) partecipare con grande trasporto a queste cerimonie liturgiche, così come ora posso testimoniare nella comunità che partecipa alla Messa Tridentina di Hong Kong.

La Messa Tridentina non è divisiva, essa anzi ci unisce ai nostri fratelli e sorelle di tutte le epoche, ai santi e ai martiri di ogni tempo, a coloro che hanno lottato per la loro fede e che hanno trovato in essa un nutrimento spirituale inesauribile.

We Don’t Forget. We Don’t Lose Hope

(Homily for the June 4th Memorial Mass)

It has been 32 years from 1989 to 2021. I was 57 years old, a young old man, that year. Those 57 and 60-year-old this year were young people in their twenties then. I believe they have a deep recollection of what happened on May 35th that year. But young people in their twenties this year can only listen to other people’s recounting a period of history that is about to be obfuscated by the passing of years.

Tonight, brothers and sisters of 90, 60 and below 30 years of age gathered here to participate in this Holy Mass because we belong to the same family, the family of Hong Kong people, the family of Hong Kong Catholics, as well as the family of the Chinese people and the family of humanity. We do not know how tomorrow’s newspapers will label our get-together this evening. For us, it is a memorial Mass.

Let us first remember what a memorial Mass is. We Catholics believe that when a person dies, his life will be judged definitively. We hope that everyone will be invited to enter Heaven and enjoy eternal glory. But we cannot rule out that some people will lose such blessing because they exclude themselves. Even those who are qualified to go to Heaven may still need to go through a purification process. This is our Catholic faith. Because of penitence, the sins committed in the past had been forgiven. But there still might be some stains and defects that had not been completely remedied through good deeds. They must be purified in painful expectation after death before they can enter the true blessing.

In this purification process, they get help from the whole Church because the Church is a mystic body. We share the treasure of this mystic body, we can contribute our prayers and virtuous deeds to this treasury and we can draw graces from it to help our brothers and sisters in completing this painful purification process.

The function of prayer and virtuous deeds is not limited by time. We are convinced that those brothers and sisters are already in Heaven, our offering and prayer today have already helped them the moment they needed it. Of course, such help is not limited to those who were baptized because any honest people with kind hearts belong to God’s people.

We dedicate this memorial Mass to remember the brothers and sisters who sacrificed their lives for our freedom and democracy in Tiananmen Square and the nearby alleys 32 years ago. What they demanded at that time was a clean government. What they longed for was a truly strong China. Unfortunately, they left the world bearing the stigma of being rioteers. Their sacrifice was for us, and we embrace their unfulfilled hope: a just and peaceful society, a people respected by the regime, and a truly great China respected by the world.

Some people will say: “The martyrs are already in Heaven. They have been remembered for 32 years. It is enough!” No, we really respect and love the patriotic martyrs, we do love our country, our hopes never die.

We read the Book of Tobit in the Masses this week. Tobit in his captive land learned one day that one his compatriot was killed, and his body was thrown in the marketplace. He immediately carried him home and buried him after the sun went down. He knew that by doing so he was risking his life. His neighbors also mocked him: “Is it worth betting on the life of a living person because of the respect for a dead corpse?” But Tobit could not let the human corpse become the food of the wild dogs. Similarly, we cannot let the names of the martyrs be shamed forever.

The Cultural Revolution has got an official evaluation. In 1981, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China resolved that the Cultural Revolution was an “internal upheaval initiated by the misguided leader…which brought catastrophic damage to the Party, the State and the whole people” and “the chief responsibility for the grave ‘Leftist’ error…does indeed lie with Comrade Mao Zedong.” So, wouldn’t it be easier to make a fair assessment also for June 4th?

If they still not listen to the voice of the people for 32 years, does it not make us fear that those in power still believe that the regime is justified to kill unarmed young people who love their country “for the sake of a so called “general interest?” Then, the June 4th tragedy is not slowly leaving us, but rather it will gradually appear before our eyes again.

We refuse pessimism. We will not lose hope. While remembering our dead, our prayer is also to ask the Lord to lead our rulers on the path of justice and peace.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, All Saints, and the Chinese Martyr-Saints deliver our prayers to the altar of God.

我們不遺忘,我們不失望

(6月4日追思亡者彌撒講道)

從1989到2021已是32年,我那年57歲,一位年輕的老人;而今年57歲、60歲的年輕老人,那年還只是二十多歲的青年,我想他們對那年5月35日發生的事會有一個深刻的回憶;但今年二十多歲的青年祇能聽別人講述那即將被歷史沖淡的往事。

今晚90、60和30歲以下的兄弟姊妹卻共聚在這裡參與這台彌撒聖祭,因為我們屬於同一個家庭、香港人的家庭、香港天主教教友的家庭,亦是中國人民的大家庭,人類的大家庭。

明天的報紙不知會怎樣定位我們今晚的聚會,為我們這是一台追思彌撒

先讓我們再温習一下什麼是追思彌撒。我們天主教徒相信,人死亡時他的一生就決定性地受審判,我們希望大家都會被邀請進入天庭永享榮福,但也不能排除有一些自我排除的人會喪失那福份。就算合格升天堂的,也可能還需要經歷一個淨煉的過程,這是我們天主教的信仰。過去犯了的罪已因痛悔而被寬恕了,但還可能留下一些污點、缺陷未有澈底地用善功彌補,死後要在痛苦的期待中淨化了,才能進入真福。在這淨化的過程中,他們能得到整個教會的幫助,因為教會是一個奧體,我們共享這奧體的財富,我們可以奉獻我們的祈禱和善功,而從這奧體的財富汲取恩寵,這些恩寵可幫助淨煉中的兄弟姊妹完成這痛苦的淨煉過程。

祈禱和善功的功能是不受時間限制的,我們深信那些兄弟姊妹早已在天堂,但我們今天的奉獻和祈禱能在他們需要的那刻已幫助了他們,這樣的幫助當然不限於領了洗的教友,因為善良的人都是天主的子民。

我們奉獻這追思彌撒是為追念32年前在天安門廣場及附近的街巷為我們的民主、我們的自由犠牲了他們生命的兄弟姊妹。他們那時要求的是一個廉潔的政府(反貪污、反官倒),他們希望的是一個真正強盛的祖國,但可惜,他們卻要帶着暴徒的烙印離開人間。

他們的犠牲是為了我們,我們擁抱他們未見成功的希望:就是一個正義和平的社會,一個受政權尊重的人民,一個受世界尊重的我們的強大祖國。

有人會說:烈士們已在天堂了;追念也追念了32年了,夠了吧!不,我們太敬愛愛國的烈士,我們太愛我們的祖國,我們的希望不死。

這星期在彌撒中我們讀了《多俾亞傳》。多俾亞在充軍之地知道有同胞被殺而屍體被拋在市場上,他立刻把他們抬回家,太陽西落後把他們安葬,雖然他知道這樣做是冒生命的危險,鄰居也譏諷他:為尊敬死者的肉軀把活人的生命作賭注,值得嗎?但多俾亞不忍心讓那屍體作野狗的糧食;同樣地,我們不能讓烈士們的名字永遠蒙羞。

文化大革命也得到一個評估,1981中共十一屆六中全會將文革定性為「領導者錯誤發動⋯⋯給黨、國家和各族人民帶來嚴重災難的內亂」,毛澤東「應為這一局性的、長時間的左傾嚴重錯誤負主要責任」。

那麼,為六四做一個公道的評估不是更容易嗎?

32年還不聽人民的聲音,豈不使人害怕?有權者還相信:為「顧全大局」政權可以殘殺手無寸鐵、熱愛祖國的青年?那末六四慘劇不是漸漸遠離我們,而是漸漸又會再出現在我們眼前。

我們拒絕悲觀,我們不會失望。在追思亡者時,我們的祈禱也是求上主帶領執政者走上正義和平的道路。

願進教之佑聖母瑪利亞、諸聖宗徒及中華殉道聖人,將我們的祈禱送到天主台前。

Open letter to Rev. Fr. Matthew Josekutty, CMF

Deputy Editor-in-chief of the Sunday Examiner

I gave you the dead-line 16 May, some kind person asked me to move it to 23 May, but what I find now is no apology at all.

Please, you can ignore me, but don’t take me for a fool.

You say: the two articles were neither the official stand of the Church nor of the Sunday Examiner, and you apologize for the confusion created.

What confusion? Have you made them to appear as the official stand of the Church? Have you made them to appear as the official stand of Sunday Examiner? No, you did not.

What you did and for which you have to apologize is the fact that you have willfully chosen to publish those two articles, one of which is an arrogant and preposterous insult to the two popes we so deeply venerate and love, and the other is a biased and untruthful criticism of a CDF statement, which is faithful to Catholic moral teaching that homosexual partnership can not be blessed as marriage, but in the same time (as you were forced to admit in your following piece of news) it calls the Christian community to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, because no one can be excluded from the care and love of the Church.

I am justified to say that you did it willfully and not as a casual overlook, because you had thousand possibilities of choice, but you chose those two poisonous pieces.

It betrays a seriously wrong mindset, for which you (or the one who has to take the responsibility for you) are to be considered as a dangerous person and unfit for the job, which is to give healthy food to the faithful who read this our paper.

Either you resign or I should warn the faithful to avoid reading the paper.

An enraged old man

Cardinal Joseph Zen