一年前,今天。(七月三日)

這時刻,有人在回想23年前七一的子夜:「這邊是歌舞昇平,那邊是另類活動」。今年似乎又是一樣了。

有人在懷念去年七一的遊行,「真的永遠不再?」「和理非」全面失敗了?有人在自問:「反23條」、「佔鐘」、「反送中」、「和勇同行」竟然帶我們到這個終點?

有人在商量:國安惡法真的殺到了,我們究竟怎麼辦?

我卻整天不能忘記去年七月三日在羅馬經歷的事。


去年六月廿八日教廷出了一份「牧民指示」

Holy See Press Office – Bulletin N0554 – Friday 28. 06. 2019

「聖座關於中國神職人員民事登記的牧靈指導」意、英、中文

(簽署的竟是「聖座」,也沒有負責人的名,也沒有註明負責的部門)。我後來問過當時傳信部部長斐洛尼(Fernando Filoni)樞機:「是不是你拒絕了簽署?」他回答說:「沒有人要我簽名。」我又問信理部部長:「那份文件你有否過目?」他回答說:「現在一切與中國有關的事都由國務卿一手包辦。」

我以為那是一件很邪惡的文件。廿九日我立即搭飛機去了羅馬,卅日上午就送信去聖瑪爾大之家(Casa Santa Marta),要求教宗在四天內給我機會「在他面前」和那文件的作者,教廷國務卿帕羅林(Pietro Parolin)樞機切磋、切磋。

七月一日沒有回音,我又送信去,附上我對那文件的《質疑》(見本人網誌「平安抵岸全靠祂」六月廿九日),我質疑這文件絕對不合正統的教會信條,它鼓勵信徒進入裂教!

七月二日有人帶來教宗的回應說:「你和帕羅林樞機談就夠了。」我說:「我和帕羅林樞機談,一點也不會有用,請告訴教宗我就這樣空手回港了。」

七月三日教宗請我去晚餐,也有國務卿陪隨。我以為有機會了。

晚餐很簡單,我向教宗報告了香港的近況,帕羅林樞機一句話也沒有說。晚餐完了,我說:「教宗,我們可以談談那文件了罷。」教宗回答說:「我會關注這事,我會處理這事。」就這樣送我到門口。

教宗說他會關注這事,這是我長途旅程的唯一的收獲。其實不是,我在那晚餐上感受到教宗對我的親切,但也看到他有些尷尬。我看出原來那晚餐一定是帕羅林樞機的意思,他用此向我說:「教宗對你親切,但他不會聽你的話,他聽我的話,我不答應在他面前和你討論那《牧靈指導》,他就不會聽你的話,你死了條心罷!回去,不要再來了。」

其實,我沒有空手回來,我親眼看到帕羅林樞機正在控制教宗。


等了三個月,沒有教宗的訊息。九月尾我寄我的書《為了熙雍,我決不緘默》給各位樞機,也附上了一封信,請他們關注這事(九月廿七日寫的信2020年3月21日登在我的網誌上)。有幾位樞機回覆了我,祇含蓄地安慰我並答應為我祈禱。很遺憾的是2020年初,剛上任的樞機團團長雷若翰(Giovanni Battista Re)樞機竟向樞機們寫信批評我2019年九月尾的信。當然他肯定是在帕羅林樞機的催逼下寫了那信的,我立即回覆了他(三月一日),稍後(三月十日)也補充了一些分析(見我網誌)。

這幾天,我見教宗方濟各後已是一年了,他還是沒有給我任何信息,我本很想寫信給他,但我不肯定他會收到我的信,那末放上我這個網誌,卻可能更有機會有人會傳給他。


教廷這兩年來對中國教會做了三件事:

[1] 第一件事:教廷和中共簽了一份協議,關於任命主教的事,是秘密的

最奇怪的是這協議堅持秘密,到現在我也未能一睹。嚴格的說,我們對一個我們不知內容的協議根本不能支持或反對。

唯一知道的是這協議是關於「任命主教的事」,方濟各說:在這事上「他說最後一句」。沒有看到協議中文版,我不敢肯定教宗方濟各是否真正明白了中文版說的是什麼,是否有清晰的一句,說他是全天主教會最高領袖,所以在任命主教事上他有最高決定權。

其實這協議的實在效果並不明顯,關於任命主教雖以前沒有成文的協議也早已有兩方妥協的方法:找到雙方能接受的候選人。所以這些年來,很多地上主教都是雙方批准的,教宗的「任命狀」雖不能在典禮中讀出,也至少能在典禮前,在更衣所,共祭的主教、神父前宣讀。

至於這兩年中祝聖了的兩位主教,根本是在協議簽成前很早已雙方批准了的。

關於協議即將滿期,是否會延期,我們根本無從有意見。

[2] 更嚴重的是第二件事:教廷將七位非法祝聖而被絕罰的主教合法化了

不論在文革前或文革後政府勉強了許多神父接受非法祝聖為主教,拒絕的當然被監禁或派去勞改,是生命或死亡的選擇。接受了的並非都是「壞人」。

開放政策開始後,尤其在唐高(Cardinal Tomko)樞機任傳信部部長期內,很多非法祝聖的主教有機會向教廷承認自己的軟弱,申請「合法化」。經調查後,教廷追認了不少這樣的主教,主教和教友們都得到鼓勵和安慰。

可惜唐高樞機退休後,教廷迷信「東方政策」(向中共讓步),有投機份子以任主教為升官發財的機會,滲透了教會,以致有絕不該任主教的人,攫取了神權。有七位這樣的非法而絕罰的偽主教,由政府撐腰,多年藐視教理、教規,在愛國會內聽黨的指揮,甘做奴化教會的勾當。

2018年9月教廷不祇和中共簽了一個秘密的協議,還不清不楚的把這七位主教「合法化」了。

起初我們以為教宗祇取消了絕罰,歡迎他們回到教會的懷抱。這當然假設他們對過去的許多惡行懺悔了,向教宗請求寬恕了,但我們卻沒有看到任何悔改或感恩的表示。

接着我們得知教宗更把那幾個教區的主教職權也交給了他們,那是絕對出於我們意料之外的,這豈不是把羊群交給豺狼?他們絕對沒有表示會改變他們的行為,他們還是向無神政府重申絕對的服從,沒有對教宗的慈善表示謙卑的感恩,卻到處高唱凱旋:「看啊!我們靠在政府一邊是多麼聰明,得到了勝利,甚至愚忠於教廷的主教(汕頭和閩東)也要給我們讓位!」

那秘密協議不是為保證將來中國的主教都真是天主子民的牧者嗎?這七位仁兄稱職嗎?說這樣國內的主教都合法了,值得大家高興慶祝?真使我們摸不着頭腦!

在過去的常年期第十三週,我們在彌撒的集禱經常求那召我們作為光明之子的天主,賞賜我們生活在真理的光輝中。但我們已長期被籠罩在迷惑中,我們的質疑得不到解釋。

帕羅林樞機說這都是一個旅程的開始。不,這是墮落的終點!

[3] 第三件事:最殘忍的,是我前面所述,去年六月尾所發生的事

帕羅林樞機,以一份牧民指導,完成了他謀殺中國教會的「好事」!

他先把我這片聲音取消了(讓「教廷關注中國教會的委員會」無聲地消失了),又把韓大輝總主教充軍去了雅典(正如常年期十三週星期四雙數年我們在彌撒中讀的亞毛斯先知書:『(貝特耳的司祭)阿瑪責雅對亞毛斯說:「先見者,你走吧!去猶大國,在那裡你可以講預言以謀食、求生,在貝特耳不可再講預言,因為這裡是君王的聖所,王國的宮殿。」』)。

帕羅林樞機「一手包辦」,完成了謀殺在中國天主教的三步曲。

他鼓勵地下的都簽名參加愛國會,成為獨立自辦教會、即裂教、的份子,在同一鳥籠中唱熙雍的歌(見聖詠136)。

他任由中共政府把地下的聖堂充公,歸入地上教會,不再容忍地下神職在私人家裡為教友舉行彌撒,不論地上、地下十八歲以下的不准入聖堂,不准參與任何宗教活動。

當然教廷再不會祝聖地下主教,地下教會就會自然滅亡(或祇能存在在「墓穴」中)。


在大家關注國安惡法時,我還是「自私地」關注我們教會的事?

不,大眾的自由和宗教的自由是分不開的!在大陸沒有宗教自由是因為人民都沒有自由;宗教失了自由,也就沒有能力幫助人民爭取自由。

香港喪失自由,教會也不會幸免;教會失了自由,也沒有能力和人民一起維護香港的自由。

整個社會面對大是大非的抉擇,教會能避免抉擇嗎?能為了苟安而「躲」在自己「窩」裡嗎?絕不可能,絕不應該。現在要合一?在哪裡?在真理中?在強權下?

還讓我們聽亞毛斯先知的話(第五章):「你們應嫉惡好善,在城門口伸張正義,或許萬軍的天主上主會憐憫若瑟的遺民。」上主並不需要我們的祭品,我們的歌聲。祂「祇願公道如水常流,正義像川流不息的江河」。

為什麼在萬國的怒吼中就沒有梵蒂岡的聲音?難道真的收了中共的錢?為什麼不行出來闢謠?

最後,讓我們還以先知亞毛斯的預言鼓勵我們自己(第九章):『在那一天我必樹起達味已坍塌的帳幕,修補它的缺口,重建它的廢墟:使它重建有如往日(光復香港)……在那一天……我必要轉變我民以色列的命運,他們必要重建已荒廢的城市,再住在其中;栽植葡萄園,飲其中的美酒……他們不會再從我賜與他們的地上被拔除(煲底見!)── 上主你的天主說。」』亞孟。

多謝貌波樞機為人權出聲。

和教宗方濟各一起默想

那天(3月27日)教宗方濟各為「武漢肺炎災禍」舉行的祈禱會我不知為什麼錯過了。但事後我追覽了。那微雨中已入夜的廣場,那十字架上的耶穌,那幅曾遭人割毀的聖母相,那行路不便滿面愁容的教宗……廣場雖是空曠的,我相信從來沒有那麼多人在看着教宗,在聽他的講話。我禁不住又看了,又聽了一次。

是,我再次聽了他的默想。我幾乎想說「教宗說的正和我慣常默想的一樣」。這講法別人一定會說我太自大了。那末說「我的默想正如教宗所講」?這也可被誤會,我慣常默想的並不是受了教宗的啟發。應該說是聖神賞賜我慣常的默想內容和教宗方濟各那晚的默想內容「不謀而合」。

(1) 整個景象(黑夜、孤獨)已帶我回到我近幾年慣常喜歡唱的那首聖歌 “Abide with me, fast falls the eventide, the darkness deepens, Lord, with me abide” (主啊黑夜來臨,請陪在我身旁!)。

我常欣賞耶肋米亞先知,他的一生似乎黑暗多過光亮,但主應承了常與他在一起,做他的「銅牆鐵壁」。他雖不是英雄(相當怕死),但天主給他勇氣去天主要他去的地方,說天主要他說的話。

年老多掛慮,病疫帶來恐懼,國內教難使無數兄弟姊妹陷入了深深的黑夜裡。

(2) 教宗選的讀經是馬爾谷福音4:35:耶穌在船上,狂風暴雨他仍睡着,門徒叫醒他。我這幾年最喜歡常唸的聖詠是聖詠44的末段「主啊!醒來吧!你為何仍舊沉睡?轉面不顧我們的痛苦和辛酸?」

脫利騰彌撒還取了這段聖詠為sexagesima(六旬)主日(四旬期第一主日前兩星期的主日)的進台詠,那額我略歌調可說是最美之中的一首。

「主啊!醒來吧!」聖詠裡有這句話,教會教我們唸這聖詠,那末應該是沒有問題的了。掛慮、害怕、失望是免不了的,但小信德的我們至少也該記得向上主呼救。

(3) 但馬爾谷福音裡耶穌被宗徒們叫醒了卻說「為什麼你們這樣膽怯?你們怎麼還沒有信德呢?」

我們聽了恐怕會為門徒們抱不平。他們叫醒耶穌豈不是因為他們相信他有能力救他們免於喪亡?耶穌行了奇跡不也是表示他們叫醒他沒有做錯?

是,叫醒耶穌並不算錯,但他們對耶穌說「我們要喪亡了,你不管嗎?」那就大錯特錯。他們已見過耶穌行奇蹟,相信他有大能,但他們竟還懷疑他的愛心!這樣說法很傷耶穌的心,他最期待的是我們信賴他的愛!

伯多祿常記得耶穌這次教訓,他後來在伯多祿前書裡(5:7)這樣對教友們說「將你們的一切掛慮都託給他,因為他必關照你們」(Ipsi cura est)。這也正是我晉牧時選的座右銘。

教廷那時要我準備接胡樞機的位。面對1997的來臨,祇有儍子才會不掛慮、不害怕。我怕得要死。伯多祿的這句話給我打了氣。

教宗方濟各那晚上也用了這句話結束他的訓話:把你們的一切掛慮都拋在他身上,他必照顧你們!

1997年對香港和中國前景的擔慮使我想起會祖的一個奇夢,教會的大船受到敵人空前的攻擊,但終於在兩條大石柱中間得到庇護,轉敗為勝。一條柱上有耶穌聖體,一條柱上有無原罪聖母進教之佑。區海晏修士把這奇夢搬上了我的牧徽。龔廣權修士把那句座右銘意譯成了「汹湧波濤莫驚怕,平安抵岸全靠祂」。

(4) 那晚在伯多祿大堂門口右邊有十字架上的耶穌,左邊有「羅馬的救星聖母」,方濟各也如歷代教宗稱她為海星。

航海的人有時需要請教星辰,這使我想起聖若望 • 亨利 • 紐曼(John Henry Newman)作的歌〈Lead kindly light〉。白天有太陽,夜裡有月亮和星辰。紐曼樞機作那首歌詞的靈感正來自此:天主用不同方法領導我們的人生,我們要接受月亮及星辰的光照,不要以為常能有陽光,重要的是不要心急,跟着天主的領導,一步一步行人生的道路。

教宗要我們在遇到空前的逆境挑戰時把信心全放在天主身上,不要太自信了。

正在放棄自信(自我中心)時,我們才看到我們原來都在同一船上,我們是多麼脆弱,需要大家合作,救己救人。面對這空前的危機我們才能醒悟,重整我們的價值觀,欣賞那些默默耕耘的醫療人員、那些每天謙虛地供給我們最基本的服務的平常人。

Lead kindly light,請帶我們歸依,歸依天主,歸依我們身邊的人,關懷全世界的人。

教宗當然不知道我怎麼祈禱,但我很高興,曾在默想、默禱中和他共融。

與喬萬尼(Agostino Giovagnoli)教授一起「澄清」一些問題

武漢肺炎迫使我們留在家裡。厭倦了這種社交隔離狀態,我於是在互聯網上尋求「虛擬」的接觸。喬萬尼(Agostino Giovagnoli)教授於3月6日撰寫的一篇文章,進入了我的眼簾,文章標題為〈雷若翰樞機給所有樞機的信,為與北京長期談判作了一些「澄清」〉。

我已經很久沒有看喬教授的著作了,因為他曾經無恥地否認自己曾在一篇著作中攻擊過我。這次我很後悔陷入閱讀其文章的誘惑,因為現在我無法抗拒另一個誘惑:去回覆他,浪費我這個可憐的88歲老人所剩無幾的精力。

使我失去耐心的,是他在其文章開首傲慢地大論所謂耐心和真理。

梵蒂岡那些心高氣傲的先生們,尤其是副教宗帕羅林樞機,他們什麼時候有過耐心?受人尊重的中國教會事務委員會,沒有得到一句解散,便消失得無影無蹤;萬民福音部的高層主管被悄悄地撤換了!

真理呢?監督信仰真理的權威現在是否從信理部移交給了樞機團團長?但是,章程上不是說樞機團團長只是「同儕之首」,對他的樞機兄弟是沒有任何權力的嗎?

雷樞機一向給我好感,以後也不會有改變。但是,是什麼使他在中國事務方面,會比一位有長期和特別的經驗且經常接觸中國現實的國籍樞機更有資格呢?僅僅是因為國務卿賦予了他這資格?而且,這樣做,他們不害怕否認了教宗方濟各關於重視「邊緣」的偉大言論嗎?

有一件事我們是同意教授的觀點:就是關於近代教宗之間在處理與中國關係方面是否存在連續性,確實是一個重要問題。

我不想在這裡再次長篇大論。讀我的書《為了熙雍我絕不緘默》便有答案。不過,閱讀我於3月1日給雷樞機的回應,以及3月10日的補充內容,也很足夠。

前兩位教宗顯然鼓勵對話,以期達成一份「好協議」,他們當然絕對不會接受一份「壞」的協定,即不道德的協定,即使它是「唯一可能的協議」。

我堅持我的話:「我有理由相信,並且希望有一天能夠用檔案文件去證明,現在簽署的協議,就是本篤教宗當年拒絕簽署的同一份協議。」

其實這爭議很容易解決:只要讓我看到那秘密協議(中文及意文版本),然後雷樞機給我看他信中提到的檔案證據。

至於「那末,為什麼十年前沒有簽署協議呢?」教授說這問題的答案很簡單:因為那時有質疑和反對的聲音,正與今天一樣。

這裡就顯出教授對事實的無知。

在唐高樞機的年代,談判代表切里蒙席會在那些「秘密會議」中,向與會者(來自兩個聖部、國務院、萬民福音部,以及港澳台三地的專家),通報談判的進展。

但到了帕羅林蒙席成為談判代表後(背後有迪亞斯樞機),談判內容完全只有 「內部人士」知道,甚至連中國教會委員會的成員都不知道,所以根本說不上有質疑和反對。

最近,談判仍然是「最高機密」。但是,有傳言流出來,從而引起猜測和反對的聲音。

雷樞機當然知道協議的內容,但他只告訴我們:「其中包括在任命大陸主教的程式中,教宗有干預的權力。」這是一大勝利嗎?你們不以為似乎太少了嗎?難道要教宗一點也不能干預才能成交?

眾所周知,即使還沒有協議時,也有過折衷的辦法:梵蒂岡和北京曾嘗試提出雙方都可以接受的候選人。但是現在有了協議,北京不再需要為此努力。他們有權提出自己想要的任何人選,看教宗是否敢否決它,以及否決多少次(假設這項否決權確實存在於協議中)。

教授煞有介事地告訴我們,我們對「東方政策」一詞的使用不恰當。顯然,我們不是在談論德國或歐洲,而是在談論中國的共產黨。該詞目前被用來表示面對極權政權的「妥協策略」。無論是法老還是尼祿,希特勒還是史達林,毛澤東還是習近平,都沒有分別。極權主義政權不容妥協。它只想要你無條件投降,成為奴隸!

上主對意大利人太好了。他們沒有在真正的極權政權下過苦難的生活,墨索里尼的法西斯主義勉強說得上是獨裁統治,因此他們很難明白一個真正的極權政權,特別是無神論政權,有多糟糕。

這位教授還很嚴肅地提醒我們:「教宗簽署協議」的說法是不妥當的。當然。我們很清楚知道談判者是國務院的副秘書長;簽署的人可以是他或他的上級,即國務院的總主教秘書長;並一定得到教宗的批准。

但這些細節也並不能說明事實的全部。當帕羅林蒙席擔任談判代表時,他和背後的迪亞斯樞機一起,是實際的談判者。(我確信)他們倆且試圖繞過本篤。但是當卡米勒里蒙席成為談判代表時,(我確信)卻完全在帕羅林的指揮下進行。

雷樞機正確地引用了我對6月28日的〈牧靈指導〉的強烈反對,但他祇毫無理據肯定說:「它們是為維護信仰而設計的。」他似乎沒有仔細閱讀我於7月1日提交給教宗方濟各的「dubia」(質疑),教宗在三天後曾向我承諾會關注這事。但是到目前為止,我還沒有收到任何答案。

In dialogue with Prof. Agostino Giovagnoli in search of “Elements of clarity”

Wuhan virus forces us to stay home. Tired of this forced lack of real contacts, I look for “virtual” ones on the internet. An article gets into my eyes and it was written by Professor Agostino Giovagnoli on 6th March with the title “The letter from Cardinal Re to all cardinals offers elements of clarity on the long negotiation with Beijing.”

I have not read the professor’s writings for a long time already because he once had the shamelessness to deny having attacked me in one of his writings.

This time I regret having fallen into the temptation to read it because now I cannot resist another temptation to answer it, wasting the little energy that still remains of this poor 88-year-old.

What made me lose patience was the arrogant talk about patience and truth at the beginning of his article.

When did the domineering gentlemen in the Vatican, and especially the Vice-Pope Cardinal Parolin, ever have their patience?

The respectable Commission for the Church in China has been made to disappear without a word of dismissal; the highest officers of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples were quietly got rid of!

And the truth? Is the authority to supervise the protection of the truth of faith now passed from the Congregation for Doctrine to the Dean of the College of Cardinals? But isn’t it declared that the Dean is “Primus inter pares,” without any authority over his cardinal brothers?

I always found Cardinal Re a nice person, and he will still be such for me. But what makes him competent in Chinese matters more than a Chinese cardinal with long and privileged experiences and frequent contacts with the Chinese reality still today? Just because the Secretary of State confers on him such competence?

And by doing so, are they not afraid to disavow the great talk of Pope Francis regarding “periphery”?

On one thing we agree with our professor: the importance of the question, yes or no, that there has been a continuity between the recent Pontiffs regarding the line in dealing with China.

I am not here to repeat a long speech. Reading my book For Love of My People I Will Not Remain Silent will help. But it is also enough to read my answer to Cardinal Re on 1st March with a supplement on 10th March.

The two previous Popes obviously encouraged dialogue in the hope of reaching a “good agreement,” but they certainly would never accept a “bad” one, that is, an immoral agreement, even if it is “the only one possible.”

I stand on my word: “I have ground to believe, and I hope one day to be able to demonstrate with archival documents, that the agreement now signed is the same one that Pope Benedict had, at the time, refused to sign.”

After all, the controversy can be easily resolved: as long as I see the secret agreement (in Chinese and Italian text) and Cardinal Re shows me the evidence from the archives referred in his letter.

To the question “then why was the agreement not signed 10 years ago?” The professor says the answer is simple: there have been objections and resistances, the same as today.

Here there is an ignorance of the facts.

At the time of Cardinal Tomko, the negotiator, who was Msgr. Claudio Celli, would inform the participants of certain “secret meetings” (of the two dicasteries, the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, plus some experts from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) on the progress of the negotiation.

At the time, instead, of the negotiator Msgr. Parolin (with Cardinal Dias behind), the negotiations were kept exclusively to the “insiders,” not even the members of the Commission for the Church in China knew about it, so objections and resistance was not an issue.

Lately the negotiations still remain “top secret.” But rumors have leaked, on which speculations construed and objections arise against them.

Cardinal Re, who certainly knows the content of the Agreement, only tells us “it includes the intervention of the Pope’s authority in the process of appointing Bishops to China.” But is this a big win? Doesn’t it seem too little to you? Would it not be preposterous if the Pope had no right of intervention at all?

It is known that even without an agreement, there was a way of compromise: the Vatican and Beijing tried to come up with names of candidates who are “acceptable” to both sides. But now with the agreement, Beijing no longer needs to make this effort. They have the right to present whoever they want, and they will see if the Pope dares to veto it, and for how many times (assumed that this right of veto really exists in the agreement).

The professor solemnly tells us that our use of the word “Ostpolitik” is improper. Obviously, we are not talking about Germany or Europe but about Chinese Communism. The word is currently used to mean the “compromise strategy” in face of a totalitarian regime. It makes no difference whether it is Pharaoh or Nero, Hitler or Stalin, Mao Zedong or Xi Jinping; a totalitarian power admits no compromises. It wants unconditional surrender, slavery!

The Lord has been too good to the Italians. They have not suffered under a true totalitarian regime (Mussolini’s fascism can hardly be qualified as totalitarianism regime), so they have difficulty knowing how terrible a true totalitarian regime, especially an atheist regime, could be.

The professor, again, wants to make a point to remind us that it is improper to say that the Pope signs an agreement.

Ok. We know very well that that the negotiator is the undersecretary of the Secretariat of State; the one who signs could be he or his superior, the archbishop secretary of the Secretariat of State; and always with the approval of the Secretariat.

These subtleties do not tell the whole reality. While Msgr. Parolin was the negotiator, he was really the one who negotiated, with Cardinal Dias in his ears, and they both tried to get over Pope Benedict (this is my belief), but when Msgr. Camilleri was the negotiator, it was (always according to my belief) always completely under the dictate of Parolin.

Cardinal Re quoted correctly my serious objection to the “pastoral guidelines” of 28th June but replied with the gratuitous affirmation that “they were designed precisely to safeguard the faith.” It seems that he has not read carefully my “dubia,” which I had presented to Pope Francis on 1st July and that His Holiness promised me three days later to take note of it. But to date, I have not yet received an answer word.

In dialogo col Prof. Agostino Giovagnoli alla ricerca di “Elementi di chiarezza”

Wuhan virus ci obbliga a stare a casa. Stanco di questa forzata mancanza di veri contatti, vado a cercare quelli “virtuali” sulla rete. Mi capita sotto occhio l’articolo del Prof. Agostino Giovagnoli dal 6 Marzo col titolo “una lettera del Cardinal Re a tutti i porporati offre elementi di chiarezza sulla lunga trattativa con Pechino”.

Da tempo non leggo scritti del Professore, perchè una volta ha avuto la sfacciataggine di negare di avermi attaccato in un suo scritto.

Anche questa volta mi pento di essere caduto nella tentazione di leggerlo, perchè ora non risisto all’altra tentazione di rispondergli, sciupando le poche forze che rimangono ancora a questo povero vecchio di 88 anni.

Quello che mi ha fatto perdere la pazienza è stato proprio quell’arrogante discorso iniziale sulla pazienza e sulla verità.

I prepotenti signori nel Vaticano, e specialmente il vicepapa Card. Parolin, quando mai hanno avuto pazienza?

Una imponente Commissione per la Chiesa in Cina è stata fatta sparire senza una parola di congedo; i più alti ufficiali della Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei popeli silurati tranquillamente!

E la verità? L’autorità di sorvegliare per proteggere la verità di fede viene ora passata dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina al Decano del Collegio dei Cardinali? Ma non è dichierato che il Decano è “Primus inter pares”, senza nessuna autorità sui suoi fratelli cardinali?

Card. Re l’ho trovato sempre simpatico, e lo sarà ancora per me. Ma come fa ad avere una competenza su fatti cinesi, più di un cardinale cinese con lunghe e privilegiate esperienze e con frequenti contatti ancor oggi con la realtà cinese? Solo perchè il Segretario di Stato gli conferisce tale competenza?

E non hanno paura di sconfessare, così, il gran parlare della “periferia” di Papa Francesco?


Su una cosa siamo d’accordo con il nostro Professore: l’importanza della questione si o no ci sia stata una continuità tra i recenti Pontefici riguardo la linea nel trattare con la Cina.

Non sto qui a ripetere un lungo discorso. Leggere il mio libro “Per amore del mio popolo non tacerò” può aiutare. Ma basta anche leggere la mia risposta al Card. Re (1o Marzo) con un supplemento (10 Marzo).

I due Papi precedenti hanno ovviamente incoraggiato il dialogo nella speranza di arrivare ad un “buon accordo”, ma certamente non avrebbero mai accettato un accordo “cattivo”, cioè immorale, anche se è “l’unico possibile”.

Non ritiro la mia parola: “ho fondamento per credere, e spero un giorno di poter dimostrare con documenti di archivio, che l’accordo ora firmato è lo stesso che Papa Benedetto aveva, a suo tempo, rifiutato di firmare”.

Del resto la controversia è facilmente risolvibile: basta che io possa vedere l’accordo segreto (testo cinese ed italiano) e Card. Re mi mostri l’evidenza dall’archivio, di cui nella sua lettera.


Alla domanda “allora perchè l’accordo non è stato firmato dieci anni fa?” il Professore dice che la risposta è semplice: ci sono state obiezioni e risistenze, le stesse di oggi.

Qui si constata l’ignoranza dei fatti.

Ai tempi del Card. Tomko il negoziatore, che era Mons. Claudio Celli, ragguagliava sull’andamento del negoziato i partecipanti a qualle “riunioni segrete” (dei due dicasteri, Segreteria di Stato e Congregaziona per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, più alcuni esperti da Hong Kong, Macao e Taiwan).

Ai tempi invece del negoziatore Mons. Parolin (con alle spalle Card. Dias), i negoziati erano di competenza esclusiva degli “addetti ai lavori”, neanche i membri della Commissione per la Chiesa in Cina ne sapevano niente, per cui non c’era la questione di obiezioni e resistenze.

Ultimamente i negoziati sono ancora “top secret”, ma delle indiscrezioni sono trapelate, su cui si potevano costruire delle congetture e contro queste sorgono le obiezioni.


Il Card. Re, che certamente conosce il contenuto dell’Accordo, ci dice solo “esso comprende l’intervento dell’autorità del Papa nel processo di nomina dei Vescovi in Cina”. Ma è questa una grande vittoria? Non vi sembra troppo poco? Mancherebbe che il Papa non intervenisse per niente.

Si sa che senza un accordo c’era un modo di compromesso: Vaticano e Pechino cercavano di convergere su nomi di candidati “accettabili” da ambe le parti. Ma ora con l’accordo Pechino non ha più bisogno di fare questo sforzo. Hanno diritto di presentare i nomi che vogliono, e staranno a vedere se il Papa osa dare il veto, e per quante volte (supposto che nell’accordo esista veramente questo diritto di veto).


Il Professore arzigogola sulla parola “Ostpolitik”. Ovviamente non stiamo parlando di Germania o dell’Europa, ma del Communismo cinese. La parola è usata, correntemente, per significare la “strategia di compromesso” davanti ad un regime totalitario. Non fa differenza se sia Faraone o Nerone, Hitler o Stalin, Mao zedong o Xi jinping; un potere totalitario non ammette compromessi, vuole la resa incondizionata, la schiavitù!

Il Signore è stato troppo buono con gli italiani, non hanno sofferto sotto un vero regime totalitario (il fascismo di Mussolini è una dittatura all’acqua di rose- manganello ed olio di riccino), per cui hanno difficoltà a sapere quanto terribile può essere un vero regime totalitario, per di più, ateo.


Il Professore arzigogola anche sulla distinzione tra chi negozia, chi firma e chi approva l’accordo.

Sappiano che il negoziatore è il monsignore sottosegretario della Segreteria di Stato; chi firma può essere lui o il suo superiore, l’arcivescovo segretario della Segreteria di Stato; sempre con l’approvazione del Pontefice.

Queste sottigliezze non dicono tutta la realtà. Mentre, quando Mons. Parolin era il negoziatore, era veramente lui che negoziava, con alle orecchie Card. Dias, e tutti e due cercavano di scavalcare Papa Benedetto (questa è la mia convinzione), quando invece è negoziatore Mons. Camilleri, questi (sempre secondo la mia convinzione) è sempre completamente sotto il dettato del Parolin.


Card. Re cita correttamente la mia grave obiezione agli “orientamenti pastorali” del 28 giugno, ma risponde con la gratuita affermazione che “sono stati pensati proprio per salvaguardere la fede”. Sembra che non abbia letto con attenzione i miei “dubia”, che avevo presentato a Papa Francesco il 1o Luglio e che Sua Santità il giorno 3 mi promise di interessarsene. Ma fino ad oggi non mi è venuto ancora una parola di risposta.

陳樞機2019年九月致樞機們的信

尊敬的樞機兄弟們:

請原諒我的信給你們帶來的不便。可我這麼做是出於良心,我相信我在這裡提出的問題不僅關係到中國的教會,而且關係到整個教會,而我們樞機有責任幫助教宗領導天主教會。根據我對2019年6月28日《梵蒂岡關於中國神職人員向政府登記的指南》的分析,很明顯這份文件鼓勵信眾參與一個裂教(不以教宗卻以共產黨為領導的教會)。2019年7月1日,我向教宗方濟各提交了我的「質疑」。在7月3日,他答應過我,會關注這事,但直到今天我仍然沒有收到任何回覆。

教廷國務卿多次說,今天當我們談論「獨立」自辦教會時,這「獨立」不應再被視為「絕對獨立」,因為在與中國簽成的協議內他們已承認教宗在天主教會中的身份。首先,我不相信協議中有這樣的聲明(順便問一句,為什麼這協議必須保密,甚至作為一位華籍樞機的我也不能一睹?),而且協議簽署後的事實明示國內教難的情形沒有任何改變,反而變本加厲。

教廷國務卿引用教宗本篤十六世信中的一句話斷章取義(第一部份,第八章,第十段「秘密狀態並非屬於教會生活的常規」),實際上,他說的與本篤十六世原話內容截然相反,教宗本篤說的是「因着政府逼教友脫離教宗,放棄信仰的完整性,地下教會才不得不採取不正常的生活狀態」。這是嚴重對本篤十六世的不尊重。更應該說,這樣對待一位仍然健在的教宗,簡直是一種侮辱。

最令我反胃的是:他們經常宣稱自己的所作所為,與前任教宗的想法是一致的,可事實恰恰相反。我有理由相信,並且我希望有一天能夠用教廷檔案的文件來證明,他們所簽署的協議與教宗本篤十六世當年拒絕簽署的協議是一樣的。

尊敬的閣下們,我們能眼睜睜地看着中國教會,死於那些原本應該保護她的人手中嗎?

向你們下跪哀求的兄弟

陳日君

2019年9月27日

Letter to the Cardinals (27 September 2019)

27 September 2019

Dear Rev. Eminence,

I am sorry for having to trouble you with this my mail, but something terrible has been done by the “Holy See”, which concerns the whole Church, and so concerns you, as a Cardinal, responsible to help the Holy Father is leading the Church.

On 28/6/19 a document was issued by the Holy See “Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of clergy in China”. It encourages the clergy (and faithful) in China to be members of a schismatic Church (independent from the Pope ed obedient to the communist Party).

On the 1st of July I presented my “dubia” to the Holy Father, he promised me on 3rd July he would look into the matter, but I have heard no word since.

Card. Parolin says: when today the word “independent” is used, should no more be taken in a absolute sense, because in the “Agreement” they recognized the special role of the Pope in the Church.

First of all, I doubt there could be such clear affirmation in the agreement, unless I can see the agreement (is it not strange, that I, a Chinese Cardinal, am not qualified to have a look of it?)

More cogently all the facts, after the signing of the agreement, prove that nothing has been changed in the religious policy of the country, … things got worse.

Card. Parolin quotes from the letter of Pope Benedict one sentence completely out of its context, in sharp opposition to the meaning of the whole paragraph.

Such manipulation of the thought of the Pope Emeritus is a grave insult to the person of a living Pope.

It is also repugnant for me to hear these people protest that they are acting is continuity with the recent Popes; the opposite is true.

I believe strongly, and I hope, one day to be able to prove with archive material, that the agreement which has been signed, is the same which Pope Benedict, before his retirement, refused to sign.

Dear Eminence, can we assist silently to this complete distruction of the Church in China at the hand of those who have the sacred duty of protecting it?

begging on my knees, your brother

Card. Joseph Zen, S.D.B.

Lettera ai cardinali (27 settembre 2019)

27 settembre 2019

Cara Eminenza,

Mi scusi del disturbo che questa mia Le causerà. È che, in coscienza, credo il problema che presento non riguarda solo la Chiesa in Cina, ma tutta la Chiesa, e noi cardinali abbiamo la grave responsabilità di aiutare il Santo Padre nel guidare la Chiesa.

Ora, dalla mia analisi del Documento della Santa Sede (28/6/19) “Orientamenti pastorali circa la registrazione civile del Clero in Cina” risulta abbastenza chiaro che esso incoraggia i fedeli in Cina ad entrare in una Chiesa scismatica (indipendente dal Papa ed agli ordini del Partito comunista).

Il 1o Luglio presentai al Papa i miei “dubia”. Sua Santità, il 3 Luglio, mi promise di interessarsene, ma fino ad oggi ho sentito niente ancora.

Il Card. Parolin dice che quando oggi si parla della Chiesa indipendente non si deve più intendere questa indipendenza come assoluta, perhè nell’accordo si riconosce il ruolo del Papa nella Chiesa Cattolica.

Anzitutto non riesco a credere che ci sia tale affermazione nell’accordo se non la vedo (tra l’altro, perchè tale accordo deve essre segreto e non è dato neanche a me, un Cardinale cinese, di averne visione?), ma, ancora più chiaramente, tutta la realtà dopo la firma dell’accordo dimostra che niente è stato cambiato, anzi, …

Il Card. Parolin cita dalla lettera di Papa Benedetto una frase completamente fuori del contesto, anzi, diametralmente in opposizione a tutto il paraprofo.

Questa manipolazione del pensiero del Papa emerito è grave mancanza di rispetto, anzi, deplorevole insulto alla persona del mitissimo Papa ancora vivente.

Mi fa ribrezzo anche che sovente dichiarano che ciò che stanno faccendo è in continuità con il pensiero del Papa precedene, mentre l’opposto è vero. Ho fondamento per credere (e spero un giorno di poter dimostare con documenti di archivio) che l’accordo firmato è lo stsso che Papa Benedetto aveva, a suo tempo, rifiutato di firmare.

Cara Eminenza, possiamo assistere passivamente a questa uccisione della Chiesa in Cina da parte di chi dovrebbe proteggerla e diffenderla dai nemici?

supplicando in ginocchio, vostro fratello

Card. Joseph Zen, S.D.B.

為我回應雷若翰樞機的信(三月一日)補充一些分析(3月10日)

為我回應雷若翰樞機的信(三月一日)補充一些分析

(3月10日)

1. 目下的爭論不是我和雷若翰樞機之間。借雷樞機的手攻擊我的當然是教廷國務卿帕羅林樞機

我不能想像怎麼這個人成了教廷的無敵強人。他竟敢,一句話也不說,讓教廷關注中國教會的委員會「不見了」,也沒有人出來對這甚不禮貌的行為提出抗議。他把韓大輝總主教趕出了教廷,並使人以為主要原因是韓在關島處理了新慕道團而得罪了斐洛尼樞機。最後他也成功使斐洛尼樞機離職,本來樞機還有兩年也就會退休的了。我看是斐樞機未能全面和他合作。關於大陸神職向政府登記的《牧民指示》本是傳信部職責範圍內的,卻沒有斐洛尼樞機的簽字。

有關信仰問題的文件本來都該讓信理部過目的,現在有關中國教會的事卻全由帕羅林一手包辦。這責任竟已由帕羅林放在樞機團團長身上?(《公教文明》雜誌的編輯身上?或是教廷傳媒負責人Tornielli 先生身上?)

維加諾總主教勇敢地站出來支持我,我非常感謝。但他說帕羅林純粹是教宗方濟各的工具,我卻不以為然,我親眼見到的是帕羅林操縱着教宗方濟各。

2. 現在最嚴重的問題還不是那20189月簽署的秘密協議,而是20196月末以「教廷」名義頒佈的《牧民指引》。對那「秘密協議」我們根本不能說什麼,因為我們不知道它的內容。我們祇可以堅決要求教廷把那文件展示出來。那《牧民指引》的內容我們卻知道,那是壞透的文件:教廷鼓勵大家進入那獨立自辦的「裂教」!

其實那「指引」有多層的矛盾。

(甲) 帕羅林在文件裡說(也早在別處說過)「協議簽署後再論到獨立自辦時,那「獨立」已不應該被以為是絕對的獨立,因為在協議裡中方已承認教宗在天主教會內最高領袖的身份。除非我看到協議的中文版本我不相信中方會作出這樣的表態。

而且,如果帕羅林真相信自己所說的,那末他對政府要神職人員簽字加入獨立自辦的教會不應該覺得有問題了。

(乙) 但他卻自我矛盾以為有問題,所以他要求簽字的信徒在簽署時也該作出一個抗議(書面的或口頭的,有證人或沒有證人都可!?)

一面簽字肯定,一面抗議否定,這不是矛盾嗎?難道簽字為欺騙政府?抗議為欺騙教會?但人不能欺騙自己呀!

3. 我們一定要澄清一下:「不好的協議」究竟是什麼。

雷:「陳樞機多次宣稱說:沒有協議比一個『壞協議』更好。三位教宗並不認同這立場。」

陳:這是什麼意思?難道他們主張一個壞協議比沒有協議更好?我們這裡所謂的「壞協議」當然是指「不道德的」「違反天主教信徒良心的」協議啊!

雷:「三位教宗 — 支持並伴隨了協議的起草」。

陳:當然,教宗們鼓勵談判者爭取得到一份好的協議,但他們並不能肯定一定得到所願,因為要有一個好的協議,我們單方的善意是不夠的。

雷:「這項(現在簽成的)協議是唯一可能達成的」。

陳:但如果唯一可能的是一個壞的、不道德的、違反天主教教會學基本原則的,那末怎麼可以簽署呢?我們可以接受一個不完美的,不太理想的協議,但不能接受一個不道德的協議。

教宗本篤2007年的信內有一段話正把這問題講清楚了(第一部份,第四章的末段):「與合法的政權持續衝突並不能解決現存的問題。但同時,當政權不恰當地干涉教會的信仰和教律時,我們亦不能就此屈從。」

4. 最後一個問題:我們真的朝向國內天主教會的修和合一嗎?怎麼樣的合一?合成怎麼樣的教會?

在2000年左右,我們真以為很有希望不久能重建國內教會的合一,在政府的開放政策下教廷(秘密地)把不少非法的主教合法化了。那時我們也看到國內教眾的大多數,幾乎可以說全體,包括所謂地上教會的,都心中歸依羅馬教宗。因此,雖然地上教會在組織上是獨立自辦的,但教宗也避免稱它為裂教。我大概是第一個有機會在一個全球主教會議上公開肯定國內祇有一個教會:羅馬天主公教會。

今天我已不能這樣肯定了,這最近二十年,教廷有權處理在國內教會的一些官員竟敢不遵從教宗的立場,而選擇了錯誤的政策。「地下團體」越來越覺得他們不被教廷支持,甚至被遺棄,被認為是阻礙合一的份子。同時,在地上的團體裡,「投機份子」越來越多,越大膽,越無法無天,因為在教廷內,圍繞着教廷,有很多沉醉於「東方政策」(妥協、讓步)的人為他們撐腰。

在這情形下,教宗方濟各上任後,他們輕易地完成了他們的「合一大計」。第一步:簽成秘密協議,我們有理由以為他們把任命主教的主權送給了無神的政府。第二步:把七位非法主教合法化了,他們多年來向教會堅持反叛的態度,現在也並沒有絲毫可見的表示懺悔。有兩位地下合法主教卻被命令退下。最後,第三步,教廷鼓勵所有地下的信眾參與由「愛國會」領導的地上教會,進入「鳥籠」,「鳥籠」裡的老地主大奏凱旋,新入閘的忍痛忍辱,害怕否則會被指責不服從教宗。

這是重建天主教的合一嗎?可惜有人要教宗相信這真是!?

Supplement to my answer to Cardinal G.B. Re (10 March 2020)

Supplement to my answer to Cardinal G.B. Re

10 March 2020

1. The Problem is not between me and Re. The problem is with Cardinal Parolin.

It’s difficult to understand how this man has become so powerful to dominate the whole Roman Curia. He could dismiss the Commission for Church in China without a word and nobody stood up to protest against such impoliteness. He got rid of Archbishop Savio Hon making it appear as having to do with Cardinal Filoni by way of Neocatecumenals in Guan. He got rid of Card. Filoni too. It would have been normal to let Filoni reach his age of retirement in 2 years’ time. A half way surrender could not satisfy Parolin? The pastoral guidelines (28 June 2019) are not of the competence of the Congregation for Evangelization? And there is no Card. Filoni’s signature on it!

Is it not the responsibility of the Congregation for Doctrine to issue “nihil obstat” to any document having to do with Faith? But the Prefect of that Congregation doesn’t know anything about the “Pastoral Guidance”.

Now this responsibility seems to be taken up by the Dean of the Cardinals! (Or by the editor of “Civiltà Cattolica” or by Mr. Tornielli?)

Archbishop Viganò is courageous in coming out to support me. I am grateful to him. But I don’t agree with him when he says that Parolin is a tool used by Pope Francis; my personal impression is that Parolin manipulates the Pope, at least in things regarding the Church in China.

2. The most serious problem is not the secret Agreement of September 2018 (by the way, what can you say about something “secret”, which you don’t know? The only thing to do is to demand that it be made public). The “Pastoral Guidance” of 28 June is more blatantly evil, immoral, because it legitimizes a schismatic Church!

There is much confusion and contradiction in that document.

(a) Here and elsewhere Parolin has repeatedly affirmed that the word “independent” should today no more be understood as “absolutely independent”, because in the Agreement the Pope is recognized as the Head of the Catholic Church (I cannot believe this, until they show me the Chinese text of the agreement).

Then, if we take the words of Parolin, he should see nothing wrong in signing a document where you promise to join an independent Church.

(b) but contradicting himself he sees something wrong in doing so, and so he says: you must, at the same time, make some protest (written or verbal, with or without a witness!?)

How do you reconcile the signing of a document and the protesting that you don’t mean what you sign? You use the signature to cheat the Government? Or you use the protest to cheat the Church? But you can not cheat yourself!

3We need to clarify what we mean by a “bad” agreement.

RE: “Card. Zen has frequently stated that no Agreement would have been better than “a bad Agreement”. The last three popes did not share that view.”

ZEN: What do you mean? You mean a bad Agreement is better than no agreement? Obviously by ‘bad” we mean “immoral”, “against the Catholic conscience”!

RE: “The last three Popes…supported and closely followed the drafting of the Agreement”.

ZEN: Of course, they encouraged the effort aiming at a good Agreement, but they could not be sure of the outcome, because a good Agreement does not depend only on our good will.

RE: “The (actually signed) Agreement at present appears to be the only one feasible”.

ZEN: But if the only one feasible is a bad, immoral agreement because contrary to the fundamental tenet of Catholic Ecclesiology, how can you sign it? We can accept a partial, imperfect agreement, but not a bad one.

I find very appropriate in this connection a quotation from the letter of Pope Benedict in 2007 (Part one, last paragraph of No. 4) “The solution of existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.”

4. A final question: are we going towards the unity of the Church in China? What kind of unity? Which kind of Church?

During the years around 2000 there was a real hope that we could soon reconstruct the unity of the Catholic Church in China. Given the open policy of the government many illegitimate bishops were (secretly) recognized. In the same time you could be sure that the majority, nay, almost the totality of the believers, even in the Church under the control by the Government, had their hearts united with Rome. The Popes abstained from qualifying those communities as schismatic, even though, objectively, in their structure, they were such. I think I was the first one to have the chance, in the full assembly of a Synod, to proclaim that in China there was one Church: Roman Catholic!

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same thing today. During the last 20 years, because of the wrong policy of the Holy See in dealing with the Church in China, pursued by a group of people who dared even not to follow the line of the Pope, the underground community was more and more like abandoned, considered inconvenient, almost as an obstacle to unity, while in the community officially recognized by the Government the “opportunists” grow more and more numerous, fearless and defiant because encouraged by people inside and around the Vatican, intoxicated by their illusions of the Ostpolitik.

In such situation, with the arrival of Pope Francis, the Vatican could easily conclude its “operation unity”. (1) A secret Agreement, in which, we guess, the determining power in the selection of bishops is given into the hands of the Government. (2) seven illegitimate, excommunicated “bishops” made real bishops, without a visible sign of repentance for their incredibly defiant attitude in the past (in the process two legitimate bishops in the underground were ordered to step down). (3) finally everybody were invited to enter the ‘birds’ cage”, where the leaders of the old residents sing victory, while the new immigrants join them in sadness and feeling humiliated, fearing that otherwise they may be accused of disobedience to the Pope.

Is this the Catholic Church reunited? Only because the Pope has been made to believe that this is “the real thing”?