The Third of July, Today and One Year Ago

What are people entertaining in their memory at this moment? Some may be going back to the midnight celebrations of 1st July twenty-three years ago, but others may remember demonstrations of a completely different kind (similar radically opposed reactions are taking place now at the passing of the National Security Law).

Some may remember with nostalgia the rally that took place on 1st July last year: Was it perhaps the last one in the history of Hong Kong? Was that peaceful, rational, non-violent resistance a failure? Some are asking themselves: what have we achieved with the Anti-Article 23 resistance, with the “Occupy Central” movement, and with the cooperation between “Peaceful Resistance” and “Aggressive Resistance” fighting the extradition law and police brutality?

Some say the National Security Law is here, what can we do?

What I myself have been remembering all this time, is what happened to me last year on 3rd July in Rome.

On 28th June last year a document (Bulletin No. 554) was issued by the Holy See: “Pastoral guidance for the civil registration of clergy in China” (Italian, English and Chinese).

It’s absolutely not normal that a document be issued by the Holy See without the specification of the particular Department and without the signature of the responsible authority. I questioned the then Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelization, Cardinal Filoni: “Did you refuse to sign the document?” He answered: “Nobody asked me to sign.” I questioned the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Had you ever seen the document before it was issued?” The answer was: “Now everything about China is exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State.”

Since the document appeared to me to be very wrong, I took a flight to Rome the next day. In the morning of 30th June, I delivered a letter to Santa Marta, asking the Holy Father to be present, in one of the following days, at a dialogue between me and Cardinal Parolin, the obvious author of the document.

On the 1st of July, receiving no answer, I sent another letter with my “dubia” about the document, which I judged to be absolutely against the doctrine of the Church, because it encourages people to be part of a schismatic Church.

On 2nd July I was given the answer from the Pope: “You just talk to Parolin”. I said to the carrier of the answer: “It would be completely useless; so, please, tell the Holy Father I’m going back empty-handed”.

On 3rd July, the Holy Father invited me to supper with the presence of Parolin. I thought I was having a chance.

The supper was very simple during which I talked about the situation of Hong Kong. Parolin didn’t say a word. At the end I said, “May we talk about the document?” The answer from the Holy Father was: “I will look into the matter”. Then he showed me off to the door. That answer was the only reward of my long journey? Not exactly. During the supper I noticed in the Holy Father much affection for me, but also some embarrassment. I understood the supper was a plan of Parolin, who wanted to tell me: “The Holy Father has much affection for you, but he listens to me, not to you; and I refuse to talk with you about the ‘Pastoral Guidelines’ in His presence. That is the end of it.  Go home and don’t come any more.” So, I did not come back empty-handed. I had a chance to see with my eyes that Parolin is manipulating the Holy Father.

Receiving no word from the Holy Father, when I sent my book “FOR LOVE OF MY PEOPLE, I WILL NOT KEEP SILENT” to all the Cardinals at the end of September, I enclosed a letter asking them to take that matter at heart.  I received a few answers showing compassion and promising prayers. Regrettably, the new Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Re wrote a letter to all Cardinals criticizing my letter. Obviously, Parolin forced that on him. I answered him immediately (read my blog of 1st March) with a supplement later (10th March).

It’s now a whole year since my visit to Pope Francis, but still no word from him. I am not sure whether my letters can reach him, so I put now on my blog what I want to say, hoping that he may get the chance to read it through somebody.

During the last two years, the Holy See did three things that damaged our Church in China:

1) A secret agreement with Chinese government on the appointment of bishops

The peculiarity of this agreement is its secrecy. It’s not even given to me to see it. Strictly speaking we couldn’t say anything either pro or against it.  But one thing we know is that it is about the appointment of bishops.  Pope Francis said that he had the last word in the matter, but I cannot be sure of that unless I can see the Chinese version of the document. In fact, I doubt whether there could be found such a clear statement that the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church has the supreme power of these appointments.

Now, even before the signing of the agreement, there was a non-written compromise by choosing a candidate acceptable to both sides, that’s why many bishops had a double approval.  The papal bulla could not be read during the ordination ceremony, but before the ceremony, in the sacristy; it used to be read to the bishops and the priests present.

As for the two recent episcopal ordinations, their double approval was decided a long time ago, before the signing of the agreement.

Whether the agreement, which is about to come to termination, will be renewed or not, we have nothing to say, we don’t even see its importance.

2) More damaging: the legitimization of seven ex-communicated “bishops”

Before and after the Cultural Revolution, the government had forced several priests to accept illegitimate ordination. Those who refused were sent to prison or labour camp where they could die.  Many who accepted ordination were not bad people. During the time of the government’s “Open Door Policy”, especially when cardinal Tomko was the Prefect of the Congregation of Evangelization, many such illegitimately ordained bishops had a chance to present to the Holy See their humble petition for legitimization. The Holy See after some investigation approved these bishops to great consolation and encouragement of the bishops and their people.

Unfortunately, after the retirement, because of age, of cardinal Tomko around the year 2000, people in the Holy See, with high illusion on the “Ostpolitik”, adopted the policy of appeasement with the Communists. Opportunists, who considered the episcopacy as a career, infiltrated the Church and they got ordained as bishops. Seven such ex-communicated bishops, supported by the government, for many years challenged the doctrine and the law of the Church and under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party worked hard to make the Church subservient to the Party.

In September 2018, the Holy See, besides signing the agreement, also legitimized the seven bishops in an astonishing way.

At the beginning we believed that the Pope only lifted the ex-communication welcoming them back to the Church.  We supposed that they had recognized their mis-behavior and obtained the forgiveness from the Pope, but we could not see any sign of repentance and gratitude.

Later we came to know that the Pope even gave them the jurisdiction over those dioceses. That was astonishing for us: “He is giving the sheep to the wolves!” The seven bishops showed no change in their behavior. They reaffirmed their loyalty to the atheist government. They showed no humble gratitude for the kindness of the Pope.  Instead, they went around singing triumph: “Look, how clever we are to be on the side of the government. We are the winners. How stupid those bishops who followed faithfully the Vatican! Now they have even to surrender their episcopacy (Shantou and Mingtung) to us.”

We have been told that the agreement is to guarantee true shepherds to the people of God in China.  Are those seven fellows such shepherds? The event is celebrated with great joy by Vatican people because now all the bishops in China are legitimate!?  We are simply confused!

In the past Thirteenth Week of the Year in the liturgy, we have been praying, in the Collect, to God “who made us children of light, to give us the splendor of Truth”, but for so long time we found ourselves left in confusion, and bewilderment.

Cardinal Parolin says: “This is the beginning of the journey.”  No!  It’s the end of degradation!

3) The most cruel thing is what happened last year around this time, as I have narrated in the beginning of this article: With the “Pastoral Guidelines” cardinal Parolin served the last blow to murder the Church in China.

The first thing he did was to silence my voice by making the “Commission for the Church in China” surreptitiously disappear. Then he sent Archbishop Savio Hon in exile to Athens. [On last Thursday, the first reading in the Holy Mass was from the prophet Amos: “Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don’t prophesy any more at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom.” (Amos 7,12-13)]

Parolin single-handedly completes now the trilogy of murdering the Church in China.

He encourages those from the underground to join the Patriotic Association, thus becoming members of a schismatic Church, to sing the song of Sion in the bird-cage (like the Hebrew slaves beside the rivers of Babylon).

He allows the government to confiscate the churches of the underground, to prevent the priests from saying Mass in their private homes and to bar from church functions and religious activities those under eighteen years of age.

Since the Holy See will appoint no more bishops in the underground, the community will die by natural dead (but the faith can survive in the “catacombs”).

While everybody is concerned about the National Security Law, how can I be so “selfish” to be concerned only about our Church?

The freedom of the people and religious freedom cannot be separated.  In China there is no religious freedom, because there is no freedom for the people; when religion is deprived of freedom, it can no longer help the people to fight for freedom. When Hong Kong loses its freedom, the Church will not be spared either.  And when the Church loses its freedom, it can no longer defend Hong Kong’s freedom with the people.

When the whole society is challenged to choose between right and wrong, can the Church be dispensed from that choice and enjoy privately its own peace?  No! It’s not possible! It’s not allowed!  In the present situation, can We, people of the Church be united at any cost? United in the Truth? Or in obeying the dictatorship?

Let us hear again the prophet Amos: “Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.” (Amos 5, 15). The Lord doesn’t take delight in our offerings or songs, “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5, 24).

Why in the roaring of all the nations, the voice of the Vatican is missing? Is it true that money has to do with this? Why is the Vatican not coming out to deny the rumors?

Lastly, let the words of Amos give us encouragement and hope: “In that day, I will restore David’s fallen shelter — I will repair its broken walls and restore its ruins — and will rebuild it as it used to be (I will liberate Hong Kong).” …… “The days are coming…..I will bring my people Israel back from exile, they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine…..I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them.” (Amos 9:11-15) (See you there – near the Legislative Council Building where the popular resistance started).

Cardinal Charles Bo, thank you for speaking out for Human Rights!







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


(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。







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)。



[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






[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


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。








[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













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。





(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!)。



(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?」



(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?」



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。




(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。



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。


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」〉。














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。









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.











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.




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


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?)


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」!


(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。


(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!?)


3. 我們一定要澄清一下:「不好的協議」究竟是什麼。



雷:「三位教宗 — 支持並伴隨了協議的起草」。





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?