分類: 其他
生離死別？不離不別！
我這個blog已靜了七個多月。其實我並沒有作過什麼決定要自動關閉，只是一直覺得似乎還是講少一句更好。
今天提筆寫兩句也不是有什麼重要聲明要宣告，祇是心血來潮想把自己的一個「醒覺」和各位分享。
近來全人類都不免處於生離死別的痛苦中。想大家都見過這樣的一幕：父母帶著小孩子去面對一個陌生的新環境，年老的祖母還是要由親友扶著，陪送他們到機場，多望一眼那一直在她身邊長大的孫兒。「要入閘了！」。孩子們抱著媽媽的腿走向出境處。但一面行一面還是轉頭望著祖母依依不捨。「再見，再見！」……幾時再見呢？祖母等得嗎？
我自然想起70多年前，我十六歲，離開上海來香港，媽媽身體已多病還是要兩位姊姊扶著她送我到碼頭。小船把我和一夥同學送到大船，媽媽留在碼頭上。我入了艙，安置了行李，上到甲板，看到媽媽還在那裡。我們已聽不到對方了，我做手勢示意姊姊們可以帶媽媽回家了，好久她們才離開。我那時相當肯定在香港學習四年後一定會被派回上海服務，哪知那卻是一個世上的永別！
這兩個星期六我們辦了兩件喪事。先是陸華清修士，他已長久住院。初時去探望他，他常唱歌。後來疫情嚴峻了不准探望，不過天主教醫院對主教還是另開一面的。陸修士已不唱歌了，也沒有氣力開眼了，護士會提醒我「主教，不要太接近，主教，不要摸他」。
張志誠神父住院不太久，我沒有探望他，他走了。臨終的病人一定很想有親人在身邊，更好有一隻手讓他握住。
為安全起見我們勸告張神父的許多知己教友不必來參與彌撒，甚至為參與彌撒者也沒有給方便同去墳場。
九十歲生日，我翻看一些舊照「這位不在了，這一位也不在了」「還在的不多了」頗有感觸。
好一段時間，唯一還能做的事是探監。疫情下探監的機會也沒有了。
聖誕節有幸給他們付了洗的，還未能給他們送聖體。為他們、為所有獄中兄弟姊妹、為所有（尤其赤柱Cat. A的）老朋友，我祗有為他們（她們）祈禱了，尤其唸玫瑰經時「聖母瑪利亞，祝福他，保佑她」。
忽然我想起了一個景象，我們的會祖聖若望鮑思高已年老時有一天去探望母佑會一個團體，修女們圍著他，他說「我看見聖母在這裡」；院長修女見鮑思高神父講話很吃力，就幫他說「鮑思高神父要我們記得聖母常照顧、保佑我們」。鮑思高神父說：「不是，我說，聖母在這裡！」院長說：「鮑思高神父要我們想像聖母常在我們身邊」，鮑思高神父不耐煩了，提高了聲音說：「不是，我說的是聖母真在這裡，我見到她在妳們中間走來走去！」
「聖母真在我們身邊！」這是我想與大家分享的醒覺。她在我身邊，在您身邊，在所有我記得的人身邊，在所有記得我的人身邊！
不祇是聖母，所有的聖人，所有我們說「已離世的」親人朋友。其實他們從來沒有離世。他們，暫時脫離了肉身的「靈魂」（也就是他們的「人性自我」）已在「天上」，但這「天上」是什麼？並不是在「雲彩上」，是和天主在一起。這在「一起」不是一個物質的地方，在天主內所有天神、聖人也就和我們在一起，整個天堂常在我們身邊，這個「我們」包括所有我們愛的人，愛我們的人。哇，這麼熱鬧？當然啦，沒有任何限聚令能阻止我們！這不是想像，是信德！
當然這一切的基礎是「那……已復活，現今在天主右邊，代我們轉求的基督耶穌……」（羅8:34）
「誰能使我們與基督的愛隔絕？是困苦嗎？是窘迫嗎？是迫害嗎？是饑餓嗎？是赤貧嗎？是危險嗎？是刀劍嗎？正如經上所載：『為了你，我們整日被置於死地，人將我們視作待宰的群羊。』然而，靠著那愛我們的主，我們在這一切事上，大獲全勝，因為我深信：無論是死亡，是生命，……或其他任何受造之物，都不能使我們與天主的愛相隔絕，即是與我們的主基督耶穌之內的愛相隔絕。」（羅8:35-39）
高牆鐵窗的內外兩邊，我們還是在一起！
讓我用「Abide with me」那支聖歌中的一節來結束我這分享：
3 – 3 2 | 1 – 5 – | 6 5 5 4 | 3 – – – |
I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless,
3 – 4 5 | 6 – 5 – |4 2 3 #4 | 5 – – – |
Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness,
3 – 3 2 | 1 – 5 – | 5 4 4 3| 2 – – -|
Where is death’s sting? Where, grave, thy victory?
2 – 3 4 | 3 2 1 4 | 3 – 2 – |1 – – -|
I triumph still, if Thou abide with me.
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)
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
致薩拉樞機的公開信
親愛的薩拉樞機閣下：
聽到這個令人難以置信的新聞，我不禁感到痛心和憤怒：他們禁止了在聖伯多祿大殿舉行私人彌撒！？
若不是新冠病毒限制了出行，我會第一時間飛去羅馬，跪在聖瑪爾大之家（現在教宗的住所）門前，直至聖父把這法令撤回。
每當我來到羅馬，正正是在聖伯多祿大殿開的私人彌撒最能堅定我的信念：準時七點，我進入祭衣房〔我幾乎總會碰到原為總主教的保祿．薩爾迪樞機（Paolo Sardi），這位充滿聖德的人〕，有年輕神父會趨前，助我穿上祭披，然後他們會領我到一個祭台（在大殿內或在墓室中，但這對我毫無分別，我們就在聖伯多祿大殿！）。我認為這些彌撒，是我生命中最充滿情感和情緒的祭獻，有時還在淚中為我們在中國活著的殉道者祈禱（他們如今已被羅馬教廷拋棄，並推入分裂教會的懷抱〔2020年6月那份文件也來自羅馬教廷，沒有署名和沒有經信理部審視〕。）
現在是時候處理國務院過大的權力了。不能再讓這些褻瀆的手插入全球信徒共享的家！就讓他們與謊言之父玩世俗的外交吧，就讓他們把國務院「做成了賊窩」吧，但千萬不要再來騷擾虔誠的天主子民！
「那時，正是黑夜！」（若13:30）
你的兄弟
陳日君
（由Lucia Cheung翻譯）