收到上期《公教報》及《Sunday Examiner》，我看了，有一個疑題；我以為留心的讀者也會發覺到。關於對離任代辦尤蒙席的訪問，《公教報》和《Sunday Examiner》的報導都比較簡短，但答應會在今期（有更多）報導。
關於教廷任命楊主教接班人的程序《Sunday Examiner》這樣報導：「尤蒙席說了：“The process of finding a new bishop started long before the death of Bishop Michael.” “In fact, during his ad-limina visit, Bishop Michael reminded the Holy Father that earlier, there were two auxiliary bishops to assist the bishop, but that now he had only one. Therefore, the process was already on.” 」我覺得把那兩件事連接在一起有些奇怪。
From the first page of Sunday Examiner (17 Feb) I read that the Most Rev. Mons. Ante Jozic said “The process of finding a new bishop started long before the death of Bishop Michael”, but strangely he related that process to the request made by Bishop Michael to the Holy See for some more auxiliary bishops.
Actually it was reported recently in the media that a consultation was being carried out on the selection of some new auxiliary bishops, besides Bishop Ha, to assist Bishop Yeung. Now, as far as I understand, that consultation has become irrelevant with the death of Bishop Yeung.
A very different consultation is needed for the selection of the new Bishop (full right Bishop of the Diocese).
In the consultation for the auxiliary the opinion of the Bishop is heavily determinant, the auxiliary in given, mainly, to the bishop (the coadjutor, on the contrary is given, mainly, to the Diocese, so the Holy See’s will is much more determinant than that of the Bishop).
Now in question is the selection of the (full right) Bishop of the Diocese, successor to the one who died. Bishop Ha and any other priest may be considered in the consultation (by the way, academic qualification is not even the most important element to be taken in consideration).
My question is: is your report accurate? If so, are my comments correct? Has Mons. Ante an answer to my doubt?
18 February 2019