我真的該戒除看《名采》的「惡習」了 (三月十三日)

前幾天(好像還是昨天)我看了蘋果《名采》的一篇文章,心血來潮寫了四百多字。昨天早上我把《名采》頁放在背囊裡,卻整天未有機會看它。

今天我看中了在週六《名采》上郭梓祺的願一切行人平安早得歸還。我估中了,那「行人」說的果然是我渴望能探望的手足。但想不到在文章下半篇還有別的收獲。

那短故事〈復活節星期日〉:獄中犯人沒有餅、沒有酒舉行的彌撒默劇,使我想起在上海獄中1955年聖誕夜,那些彼此見不到面的囚友卻同聲唱了聖誕歌。

還有,那「恐懼的歷史」:一隻粗心的動物誤傳了訊息,說「月亮重生,你們不會」;原來的訊息是「真如月亮會重生,你們一樣會」。

我太愛月亮了,每夜睡前會去天台看看它露面嗎,問候它,託它把我的祝福帶給鐵窗後的兄弟姊妹。去年月餅送不成,希望今年中秋月亮更圓,更希望那時手足們都能和親人在家中嘗月餅了。

郭文旁邊是杜杜的《布萊頓硬糖》。見到說的是格林格雷(Graham Greene),我又忍不住,一直讀下去了。

我不會鼓勵所有教友去閱讀格林格雷(他的傑作是The Power and the Glory)。但在今天這正邪惡鬥的世界裡,倒希望成年的教友能有機會閱讀他的作品(他堅信:有時正邪難辨,但主的仁慈在一切之上)。

杜杜文的最後一句話(小說中一位老神父的話):「教會並沒有要我們相信有任何靈魂被擯棄在慈悲之外」請教友看看天主教教理第1037,尤其是伯多祿後書3:9「天主並不願意任何人喪亡,只願眾人回心轉意」。千萬勿求天主罰某人下地獄,祂期望的是全勝:人人升天堂!

我教了幾年末世論,也順便給大家介紹Hans Urs von Balthasar 的 “Dare we hope that all men be saved?”


又心血來潮,寫了五百多字。怎麼辦?這樣下去我一天廿四小時肯定不夠用了。豈不是應該決心戒絕閱讀《蘋果》的《名采》嗎?但又怎麼捨得?

Let me finish my business with DW News

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Facts after the signing of the Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is their view?

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

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

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

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

– “There will be illegitimate bishops no more!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He simply doesn’t know what is faith.

– “Dialogue, not confrontation”!

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

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

Card. Zen

finished writing on the

vigil of the Feast of Christ the King.

His Kingdom is Kingdom of truth and life,

                             Kingdom of holiness and grace,

                             Kingdom of justice, love and peace.

令人遺憾的德國媒體報導!

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

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

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

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

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

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

好奇一問:貴傳媒其實是由德國政府還是中國政府資助?

A very disappointing German DW News!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Un capolavoro: dire niente con tante parole!

Il comunicato, tanto atteso, della Santa Sede è un capolavoro di creatività nel dire niente con tante parole.

Dice che l’accordo è provvisorio, senza dire la durata della sua validità; dice che prevede valutazioni periodiche, senza dire quando sarà la prima scadenza.

Del resto qualunque accordo può dirsi provvisorio, perchè una della due parti può sempre aver ragione per chiedere una modifica od anche l’annullamento dell’accordo.

Ma la cosa importante è che se nessuno chiede di modificare od annullare l’accordo, questo, anche se provvisorio, è un accordo in vigore. La parola “provvisorio” non dice niente.

“L’accordo tratta della nomina dei Vescovi”. Questo la Santa Sede ha già detto tante volte, da tanto tempo. Allora qual’è il risultato della lunga fatica. Qual’è la risposta alla nostra lunga attesa? Non si dice niente! È Segreto!?

Tutto il comunicato si reduce a queste parole “C’è stata la firma di un accordo tra la Santa Sede e la Repubblica Popolare Cinese sulla nomina dei Vescovi”. Tutto il resto sono parole sunza senso.

Allora quale messaggio la Santa Sede intende mandare ai fedeli in Cina con questo comunicato? “Abbiate fidueia in noi, accettate quel che abbiamo deciso”(?)

E che cosa dirà il governo ai cattolici in Cina? “Obbedite a noi, la Santa Sede è già d’accordo con noi”(?)

Accettare ed obbedire senza sapere che cosa si deve accettare, in che cosa si deve obbedire? Una obbedienza “tamquam cadaver” nel linguaggio di Sant’Ignazio?

Siamo particolermente preoccupati di sapere: “la nomina dei Vescovi” include anche la legittimazione dei sette? Include anche la rinomina dei Vescovi della Communità “clandestina” presentati questa volta dal Governo? E quelli che non accettano tale rinomina, non rimane che essere riconoscenti al governo per riconoscerli finalmente come Vescovi Emeriti?

你們看了有什麼味道

各位教友:

《鹽與光》登了(被羅馬「放逐」的)韓大輝總主教的一篇文章「教宗本篤十六世致函在中國的教會十週年有感」。另一方面,天主教在線有一篇(在大陸,很「吃得開的」)張神父的文章「中國天主教會該何去何從?」

我很好奇,你們看了這兩篇文章,對照一下,有什麼味道?

大輝,歸去來兮!

他們終於得逞了,但希臘離羅馬難道比香港更遠嗎?我們家裡有你的地方,做神學的人太少了。

「幻視者,滾開吧!回猶大去吧,在那裡說先知話謀生吧!不要在這裡講先知話,這裡是君王的聖所,是王國的聖殿!」(亞 7:12-13)

—————————————————————-

Savio to Greece?

Finally they got rid of him! But Greece is not further away from Rome than Hong Kong!?

“Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the King’s sanctuary and the temple of the Kingdom.” (Amos 7: 12-13)

—————————————————————-

Savio alla Grecia?

Finalmente se ne sono sbarazzati di lui! Ma la Grecia è forse più lontana da Roma che Hong Kong?

“Vatene tu visionario! Torna alla terra di Giuda. Guadagna il tuo pane là e profetizza pure là. Non profetizzare qui a Bethel, perché questo è il santuario del Re ed il tempio del Regno.” (Amos 7:12-13)

 

雨傘運動三週年紀念彌撒-給大家的信

Dear Winnie:

9月28日不能和你們一起奉獻「雨傘運動」三週年紀念彌撒,很不捨得。

這三年來邪惡政權的醜陋面貌越來越清楚的顯露出來了。許多慷慨勇敢的年輕人被關起來了。香港沉淪了!

我每天的祈禱還是有聖詠44「主啊!醒來吧!不要睡覺了!為什麼祢轉臉不顧我們?難道祢不見他們把我們壓在脚下嗎?」

榮休教宗本篤引用聖奧斯定的話說:『天主為什麼讓壞人成功?「一方面他要我們看到不聽祂的話的人能變得多麼邪惡。但另一方面也讓我們看到祂還是奇妙的領導着人類的歷史。」』傘運後散開了的學生們不是都一起出來支持他們的同學了嗎?那時不便出聲的「老人家們」不是都出錢出力幫助被囚的勇士們爭取公義嗎?希望大家能回到「公投」前「毅行」的那幾天的團結。團結才是力量!

Winnie,我回來後你要忙了。你每天要按你齊全的名單帶我去每所監獄,探望我們的兄弟姊妹。

主佑!

香港「前前主教」

陳日君爺爺

二零一七年九月廿七日

寫於華盛頓

我們在救恩史洪流中的定位

今天的讀經教我們明白天主救恩的歷史性。原祖犯罪之後天主就逐步漸進的展開了祂救恩的歷史:諾厄、亞巴郎、依撒格、雅各伯、梅瑟、達味、歷代的先知、聖母瑪利亞。

今天的福音裡耶穌說:「我被派遣,是為了以色列家迷失的羊」。祂這樣說當然不祇是為試探那外教婦人的信德,祂那時傳道的對象還正是以色列人民。是那婦女的信德「逼」祂在她女兒身上提前了救恩的奇跡,正如聖母瑪利亞在加納婚宴上對那兩位新人的關懷「逼」耶穌行了第一個奇跡。

天主的計劃是藉若翰的開路,耶穌召叫宗徒,在他們身上建立新約的教會,派遣他們把祂在十字架上完成的救恩傳到世界每個角落。

可惜的是以色列子民,尤其是以色列的領導,沒有認出耶穌就是天主歷代預許的默西亞。保祿(掃祿)也曾追殺耶穌的門徒,但耶穌奪取了他。保祿知道他的任務還是首先向他的同胞宣講耶穌,他們不聽,他就向外教人宣講。在上主日及今日的羅馬人書中我們感受到以色列拒絕福音為保祿是多麼痛苦的事,但他沒有絕望,天主沒有收回祂的許諾。耶穌的救恩是為普世的。依撒意亞先知的預言很响亮:「我的殿宇,將稱為萬民的祈禱之所。」(他還說:「從異邦人中我也要選拔出司祭」)。

今天讓我們在這救恩史的洪流中為我們自己定位

我這次來美、加想和我的老朋友分享的就是這兩個題目:「我們國內的教會正處危機」、「香港已沉淪了」。

(一) 國內教會

我身在香港,但我的心在國內。「解放」將70年,國內教會的兄弟姊妹還是在水深火熱的教難中。共產黨絕對沒有改變他們全面控制教會的企圖。他們威迫利誘要我們的教友脫離教會的懷抱,「獨立自辦」也就是讓無神的政府辦教。可惜的是榮休教宗本篤的努力給某些人破壞了。教宗方濟各愛心爆棚,但他認識的是那些為了維護窮人權利而被軍事政府追殺的共產黨員,他沒有機會近距離認識那些剝削人民自由的共產政權。可悲的是他身邊的那班人,他們應該知道實情,但不知為了什麼目的,鼓勵他採取「討好強權」而「鼓勵教會妥協」的政策,地上地下教會都越來越弱了。本人和韓大輝總主教也被教廷全面排擠了。

照我知道一個表面上保留教宗權利而實質上把這權利雙手捧給無神政府的協議已寫成而未簽署:任命主教的程序將是:(1) 民主選舉(國內有民主選舉嗎?)(2) 主教團批准(主教團有名無實,全由政府操縱!)(3) 教宗說最後一句話(什麼話?橡皮圖章地批准?無窮盡地否決?)

為什麼這協議還未簽署?北京還有別的要求,教廷不答應他們就不收貨。他們要教宗方濟各承認7位現在非法甚至被絕罰的主教成為合法主教。看來教宗也止步了,今年五月廿二日他對教友們說:「請大家為我求聖母,讓我知道怎樣才真能幫助中國的教會。」

讓我們加緊祈禱,使教宗方濟各如耶穌囑咐伯多祿所說的「鞏固你的兄弟」,如榮休教宗本篤多次說的:「就算要面對眼前的全面失敗,也要在信德上堅持到底。」

(二) 香港社會

我們中很多來自香港,我也在香港享受了多年的自由。香港回歸祖國權下20年了,「一國兩制」已幾乎完全走樣了,大家知道首先是我們教會維護辦學權利的努力失敗了。

「佔中運動」結果成了「雨傘運動」,雖場面轟動了全世界,但還是無效收場。青年學生們一股熱情勇氣但犯了錯誤。我是幾乎唯一能站出來講了真話的。

政府肯定以為自己贏了,不單沒有設法彌補他們的大錯,還變本加厲,律政司施壓,叫法官判了甚或改判了三位又十三示威者入獄重刑、取消六位民選立法會議員的資格、三位學生領袖也因一個象徵性的示威行動改判入獄。

面對這樣的暴政,司法的被奴化,不但是我們香港人,所有中國人,全世界維護正義的人都該站出來,站在弱勢的勇士身邊向強權者說「不」。

在一個為劉曉波的祈禱會中我說了他是一位先知,結果他成了一位殉道者。我們也支持為正義而正在受迫害的兄弟姊妹,尤其是年輕的英雄,感謝他們,為他們祈禱。天主一定站在正義的人身邊。希望行兇作惡的人也有悔改的一天。

讓我們把這一切意向呈在歷史的主宰台前。

 

註:常年期第二十主日(2017)講道

  St. Peter & Paul – San Francisco

Da dove stiamo partendo?

Ammiro il grande zelo dell’eminentissimo Segretario di Stato di Sua Santità Card. Pietro Parolin che non solo lo tiene tanto occupato nei Palazzi Apostolici, ma lo spinge anche a portare la sua voce altrove. La sua parlata magistrale a Pordenone ha suscitato interesse ben oltre i confini dell’Italia, ha parlato infatti della Cina. Come un figlio di quella Nazione, mi sono subito messo a leggere e studiare l’importante testo, completandolo con quello che egli aveva espresso su “L’Avvenire”.

Vorrei tanto lasciarmi prendere dalle grandi speranze che Sua Eminenza sta suscitando, ma sono trattenuto da molte perplessità. Con tutto il rispetto, espongo qui alcuni dubbi che non riesco a debellare e che forse altri pure timidamente nutrono nel loro cuore.

A.

Sua Eminenza il Card. Parolin dice che i problemi di oggi (riguardo alle relazioni tra la Santa Sede  e la Cina) non sono totalmente dissimili da quelli che (Card.) Celso Costantini ha aiutato a superare 70 anni fa. Ciò mi fa non poca meraviglia. Al mio modesto modo di capire, i problemi sono proprio toto coelo diversi.

Allora si trattava di liberare la Santa Sede dall’ “imperialismo missionario”(cioè dalla prepotenza di politici occidentali imperialisti, i quali, facendosi forti del diritto, ritenuto “esclusivo”, di protezione della Chiesa e dei missionari, cercavano di impedire che la Santa Sede stabilisse relazioni dirette con le Autorità cinesi, le quali ne sarebbero state ben felici).

Oggi invece la Santa Sede ha da fare con un Governo cinese ateo e totalitario, deciso a perseguire, già con grande successo, la sua politica immutata di soggiogare (“guidare” è il termine da loro usato) tutte le religioni, specialmente quelle di origine occidentale, cioè cristiane.

Non credo necessario elencare qui tutti i fatti e pronunciamenti, anche recentissimi, del Governo cinese che provano il mio asserto. Sono di pubblico dominio e di facile consultazione.

B.

Se il punto precendente è valido, allora, mentre ammiriamo l’intrepido Card. Costantini, il quale è riuscito a realizzare la sua difficile missione di portare il popolo cristiano cinese nel grembo della Madre Chiesa, oggi non possiamo che compatire i nostri ufficiali incaricati della diplomazia vaticana, perché essi si trovano davanti ad una missione impossibile o quasi impossibile.

Come si può sperare che il Governo cinese acconsenta ad un accordo che assicuri una vera libertà religiosa? Restituisca alla Chiesa l’autorità sua propria che esso ha già usurpato da tanti decenni? Ciò farebbe supporre che il Governo cinese abbia cambiato radicalmente la sua ideologia. Ciò vuol dire che crediamo che anche la nostra controparte ha la stessa nostra buona volontà, che i communisti perseguono pure il vero, il buono e tutti i valori universali.

Si può scegliere di essere ottimisti o pessimisti, ma un giudizio responsabile deve fondarsi sui fatti.

C.

– Il Card. Parolin ci dice di fidarsi della Divina Provvidenza, ma questa non ci assicura che presto finirà la bufera, il tempo è nelle mani di Dio.

– Il Card. Parolin ammette pure che bisogna procedere cum timore et tremore, ma quel che vediamo è un ottimismo ad oltranza. Sembra infatti allegramente sicuro che sta scrivendo una pagina senza precedenti nella storia (ovviamente non si tratta del desiderio di chissà quale successo mondano, ma di contribuire alla pace del mondo).

Abbiamo pure alzato la voce della cautela, ma abbiamo meritato il rimprovero della mancanza di fiducia, di pensare male degli altri.

– Il Card. Parolin dice che anche il Papa sa quali progressi si siano fatti. Ma noi siamo all’oscuro. Quel che vediamo invece è che nel desiderio di compiacere alla Cina, la Santa Sede ha rinunciato sovente alla sua autorità ed ha tollerato ogni sorta di abusi, per cui la Gerarchia della comunità ufficiale si trova oggi quasi al fondo della fossa, sarà difficile risalire il pendio. Ci vorrà un miracolo. Crediamo nei miracoli, ma non possiamo tentare il Signore.

D.

Si dice che si tratta di un viaggio. Ma un punto preliminare è di sapere DA CHE PUNTO STIAMO PARTENDO.

SIAMO D’ACCORDO SU “DOVE È IL VERO PROBLEMA?”

– Mi pare che si parli troppo della riconciliazione (tra le due comunità).

Io sono stato certamente tra I primi a dire che non ci sono due Chiese Cattoliche in Cina, in quanto tutti nel loro cuore sono in unione con il Successore di Pietro. La divisione delle due comunità è stata creata dal Governo, il quale dichiara fuori legge chi non accetta di far parte di una Chiesa indipendente da Roma, e tiene come schiavi chi, per qualunque ragione, ha accettato di sottomettersi ad esso. Purtroppo si sono poi infiltrati lungo gli anni anche degli opportunisti che collaborano volentieri con esso.

– L’unione esiste già nei cuori. Facile sarà la riunificazione. Quando il Vescovo Ma di Shanghai ha dichiarato di distanziarsi dalla Associazione Patriottica, la comunità clandestina gli ha subito promesso obbedienza (però oggi, con il mistero della clamorosa “ritrattazione” non ancora risolto, come possono i clandestini accettare l’ordine da Roma di andare a sostenere Mons. Ma in caso venisse all’aperto?)

– Mi pare che si parli troppo anche dell’essere insieme Cattolici e Cinesi. Non abbiamo mai visto alcuna contraddizione in questo. È il Partito Comunista Cinese che oggi si arroga il diritto di giudicare chi è patriottico e chi non lo è (ancora più ridicolo è che esso si sente qualificato perfino a giudicare su chi è veramente cattolico, chi è veramente un sacerdote e un vescovo).

C’è chi crede forse che saremo più cinesi se ci sottomettiamo alle ingerenze del Partito nelle cose della nostra Chiesa?

Ripeto: SIAMO D’ACCORDO SU DOVE È IL VERO PROBLEMA?

Per me il problema è di tirar fuori i nostri fratelli dalla schiavitù. Senza una vera libertà, come si può parlare di “un modo più positivo di vivere la fede”?

È pronto il Governo cinese a riconoscere questo diritto ai suoi cittadini?

E.

Realismo è conoscere e riconoscere la realtà, altrimenti il realismo (sano o non sano) oppure “pragmatismo e flessibilità” (nel linguaggio del portavoce del Governo cinese) sono tutti eufemismi per coprire la realtà del compromesso, della resa incondizionata e del tradimento della propria dignità.

La realtà può essere crudele, ma dobbiamo guardarla in faccia. Solo sapendo dove ci troviamo ora, possiamo cominciare il viaggio verso la meta.

Card. Parolin dice: il Santo Padre ci chiede di abandonare la logica del “ o cosi, o non si fa niente”. L’espressione deve essere analizzata. Se significa “o ci date la libertà o non ci parliamo”, allora è negativa, non dobbiamo rifuitare il dialogo. Ma se per far riuscire il dialogo siamo disposti a “fare qnalunque cosa”, meanche è giustificato. Il dialogo ha pure i suoi limiti, non possiamo negare la nostra identità.

Papa Benedetto nella sua lettera del 2007 dice: “La soluzione dei problemi esistenti non può essere perseguita attraverso un permanente conflitto con le legittime 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.”

Non è lecito rinnegare la nostra identità, altrmenti i martiri sarebbero stati dei sciocchi.

Domandiamoci senza equivoci: c’è o non c’è una conferenza episcopale nella comunità ufficiale della Chiesa in Cina?

Non c’è! C’è solo il Governo che gestisce direttamente la Chiesa col nome di “Una Associazione (Patriottica) e una Conferenza (Episcopale)”.

C’è o non c’è una Chiesa scismatica?

C’è! Oggettivamente, Anche se i Papi preferiscono non chiamarla tale perché sanno che molti vi si trovano sotto enorme pressione.

OGNI SFORZO DEVE PARTIRE DA QUESTA REALTÀ.

E ricordiamo il detto della Santa Madre Teresa di Calcutta: “Il Signore non si aspetta il nostro successo, ma la nostra fedeltà”.

24 Settembre 2016

Chinese Version:

從哪裡啟程?(向教廷國務卿請教)

English Version:

Where does the journey start from?