月份: 2020 年 3 月
致樞機團團長Re（雷若翰）
本人在去年九月尾把英、意文版的《為了熙雍，我決不緘默》一書寄給所有樞機，也附上了我對六月底教廷 〈對國內神職人員向政府註冊一事的牧民指示〉所提出的質疑和我的一封信。後來那封信被公開了，我當然並不介意。
二月廿九日有人傳來一封樞機團團長二月廿六日致所有樞機的信，到今天我還沒有收到那應該寄了給我的正本。信的內容簡直像是向我宣戰，斥責我關於中梵關係的言論。
這位新上任的所謂樞機團團長並非中國事務專家，那封信當然不是他主動寫的。信中的許多謬論我們也都多次聽過。在意大利已有人在媒體上為我辯護。但那封信既指姓道名針對本人，本人有責任稍作回應。
其實這很容易，這些都是大家已聽過、讀過的；祇是別人把謊言不厭其煩地重複一百次，你也至少應該答他十次吧！請讀者原諒。也請讀者原諒我在此不把樞機團長那封信的譯文登上，在甘保祿的網站上有登出。再請原諒我先寫了意文回應，原因當然是為先讓意籍樞機及意籍媒體對照我們的兩封信。
致樞機團團長Re（雷若翰）
三月一日
樞機大人閣下，
請容忍我以公開信方式回應你的大函，這樣我們的對話在時間上更直接。
閣下二月廿六日的信在昨天（二月廿九日）才有人傳給我看，原來那是閣下上任後的第一封公函，而此函內容卻是針對我，我豈能不受寵若驚？但閣下這樣做法倒頗勇敢。閣下也知道信中討論的問題相當複雜，這樣插手看來似有危險會影響閣下在樞機團內的形象及以後的運作。不過看來今天在教廷有一位「副教宗」能給所有合作者驚人的勇氣。
讓我來分段回應閣下的大函。
1. 信中強調三位教宗對中梵問題的看法，基本上是連貫的。我請大家參考《最後的談話》（Ultime conversazioni）一書，161-162頁。（教宗本篤贈書給我，寫了「在祈禱中及思想上我倆共融」。）
記者Peter Seewald問教宗本篤：
「你有否贊同及支持過教宗（若望保祿二世）的『東方政策』？」
教宗本篤回答說：
「我們有談論過。很明顯，卡薩羅尼樞機（Casaroli）所執行的政策，雖然目的良好，但事實上是失敗的。
教宗若望保祿二世的新方針是來自他親身和那些政權交手所得的經驗。
當然那時誰也想不到（歐洲的）共產黨會這麼快倒台，但很明顯的（教會面對那些政權）不應該妥協和讓步，但要強力對抗到底。
這是若望保祿二世基本的看法，我也同意。」
2. 閣下要向我證明教宗本篤十六已經通過了今天教廷和北京簽署的協議很容易：
一是給我看看協議正文（至今我未能一睹）
二是給我看看閣下在檔案處查到的證件。
當然大家還會問為什麼那時沒有簽成呢？
3. 至於說現在講「獨立自辦」已不是「『絕對』獨立自辦」。這樣的改變真是驚天動地，劃時代的。但我怕這改變祇存在在教廷國務卿大人的腦裡，恐怕也是在那位傳信部唯一識中文的文書的翻譯中出了問題（他也有份翻譯了教宗本篤2007年的信，至少犯了十個錯）。不過這位很聰明的國務卿，雖不識中文，也未必真會被誤導，看來他更可能是樂意被誤導了。
4. 大函的第四部份讀來頗混亂，我不太明白。
其實，發生的事擺在我們眼前（秘密協議，七位被絕罰者被任命為主教，鼓勵地下的入愛國會）。
我有理由肯定是國務卿誤導、操縱教宗。教宗對我非常親切但不答覆我的許多問題。許多教廷的指示我絕不了解。大陸的兄弟哭着問我「怎樣辦」。我說教廷說可以做的，有人做了你們不要批評。還好教廷也說會尊重你們的良心，那末你們安靜地真正退到地下去吧（如羅馬初期教會的地窑處境）。對任何不公道的遭遇不要強力反抗，免得受更大損失。
請閣下指出我錯在哪裡？
5. 至於祈禱，我絕對同意是最重要的事。
不久前我注意到教廷特別鼓勵用“Sub tuum praesidium”呼求聖母及一篇呼求聖彌額爾總領天神的經文。當然最傳統為教宗祈禱的“Oremus pro Pontifice Nostro”，尤其是那最後一句「願主不要讓他陷於敵人的詭計」。
祝閣下在樞機團團長高職任內有比今日更喜樂的時光！
卑微的
陳日君樞機
四旬期第一主日
瑪竇福音（4:8-10）
魔鬼又把他帶到一座極高的山上，將世上的一切國度及其榮華指給他看，對他說：「你若俯伏朝拜我，我必把這一切交給你。」耶穌就對他說：「去罷！撒殫！因為經上記載：『你要朝拜上主，你的天主，惟獨事奉他。』」
To His Eminence Cardinal John Baptist Re
To His Eminence Cardinal John Baptist Re
Dean of the Collegium of Cardinals
Your Eminence,
Please allow me to address myself to you with an open letter for the sake of more speedy communication.
Yesterday (29 Feb), from the media, I came to know your letter of 26th February, its Protocol No. 1/2020 makes it look like the inaugural address of your high office as the Dean of the Collegium of Cardinals.
I admire your courage in venturing into problems you yourself acknowledge to be complex, thus, risking the prestige of your newly inaugurated high office. But then, we have nowadays this our “vice pope” capable to infuse such courage in many workers in the Holy See.
Now let’s come to your letter to which I try to answer briefly.
1. To clarify the position of John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding Communism, it is enough for me to refer you to the booklet Last Conversations (p.161-162) (by the way, Pope Benedict sent a copy of the book to me with the dedication “in communion of prayer and thought”).
The reporter Peter Seewald asked: “Have you shared and supported actively the Ostpolitik of John Paul II?”
Benedict answered, “We used to talk about that. It was clear to us that this strategy pursued by Casaroli with very good intentions was a failure.
The new line pursued by John Paul II was fruit of his own personal experience, living under that regime.
Obviously, nobody could expect the Communism (in Europe) to collapse so soon. But anyway, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, it was necessary to resist it forcefully.
This was the fundamental vision of John Paul II which I shared.”
2. If you want to prove to me that the recently signed agreement was already approved by Benedict XVI, you just have to show me the text of the agreement, which I am barred from seeing till now, and the archival evidence which you say you could verify. Then there remains to be explained why it was not signed at that time.
3. The so-called epochal change of the meaning of the word “independence” I am afraid might exist only in the head of the Most Eminent Secretary of State, maybe caused by an erroneous translation from Chinese by the young minutante of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, now probably the only Chinese in the office. (Actually, he bears part of the responsibility of the not less than 10 mistakes in the translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter of 2007.)
But given the intelligence of His Eminence, I hesitated to believe that he could have been misled. It looks more probable that he willingly allowed himself to be cheated.
4. The last part of your letter seems rather confused to me.
What I have to say is: the facts are there for everybody to see.
I have strong evidence to believe that Parolin is manipulating the Holy Father, who always shows so much affection to me when we meet, but never answers my questions.
Now, there are guidelines coming from the Holy See which I could not understand. When many of my brothers in despair come to me for advice, I tell them: don’t criticize those who follow the guideline from Rome. But since the guideline leaves room for objection of conscience, you can quietly retire into the state of catacombs and don’t resist by force to any injustice, you could only suffer more losses. Am I wrong in all these?
5. I 100 percent agree with you when you invite to prayer. I was aware that even the Holy See recommended that traditional invocation to Our Lady: “Sub tuum praesidium” and the other to Archangel St. Michael.
Obviously, there is the “Oremus pro Pontifice,” which concludes with “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus.”
Wishing you more happy moments in your long service as Dean of the Collegium of Cardinals.
Yours,
Cardinal Zen
The First Sunday of Lent
Gospel according to Matthew (4:8-10)
Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, “All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.” At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’”