Let me join Fr. Giampietro in remembering Vatican II (free translation from my blog – 19-7-2020)

Fr. Giampietro started a series of written articles and videos to commemorate the 50 years of Vatican II, presenting a recent book by an Australian theologian Ormond Rush “The Vision of Vatican II”.

Vatican II happened 50 years ago, but it surely doesn’t belong to the past, its light still leads the Church through the darkness of her journey today.

I and Fr. Giampietro are almost coeval. When he left Italy to come as a newly ordained missionary priest to Hong Kong, I went to Italy to pursue my studies of theology in view of priestly ordination. Around that time John XXIII announced his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council, we young priests and seminarians, welcomed that announcement with jubilation.

The last Ecumenical Council (Vatican I) was already 90 years back away, and with the Papal Infallibility proclaimed in that Council, few expected any more Ecumenical Council.

But in the 90 years of history fast and deep changes happened in the society in many fields. A thorough assessment of the new situation in which the Church found herself was strongly felt necessary.


From Fr. Giampietro’s first article I can understand what kind of expectations from the council were nurtured in his mind. He said: “from 19 to 24 years of age I realized big changes in my way of thinking”: moving away from the “Tridentine culture” through different readings, some of which belonged to “forbidden literature”.

As about me, I grew up in Shanghai till 16 years of age. Experience of foreign invasion and poverty was part of my childhood, but on the other side I received a rich formation in Catholic faith from French Jesuits first, and then from the Salesians of Don Bosco, that faith and the accompanying joy  always reigned in my heart in spite of all the hardships of life.

In 1948 I moved to Hong Kong just in time to avoid the atheist dictatorship. Life in Hong Kong was more comfortable than in Shanghai, but the religious fervour and spiritual joy kept growing through the years of novitiate, philosophy studies and training in Salesian work.

When in 1955, I was sent by my religious superior to study in Italy (Turin) I was 23, more or less 3 years before Fr. Giampietro left Italy for Hong Kong. That means I went into a similar situation as Fr. Giampietro described in that short quotation above. I also “realized big changes in my way of thinking”. In the Pontifical University, with students coming from all continents, I found myself in the real big world, in a Church new to me, which was in a state of awakening and confusion. “A thorough assessment of the situation was strongly felt necessary”.

To me, a simple-minded young man, the “Italian” situation of those days appeared to be very “nervous”, “on the defense”.

Fr. Giampietro mentioned the “forbidden literature”. Even in the Italian Church traces of “fascist” style governance could be seen. Few Italian theologians dared to write, most theological books in Italian were translation from other European languages.

(One day 4 notoriously conservative Italian Cardinals pressured the Salesian superiors to fire our Professor of social ethics, considered too “progressive”. But fortunately, that was an isolated episode.)

The teaching community in our University was open-minded enough to let “the wheat and the weeds grow together”: as students of an university we were allowed to be informed of all the many “currents” of ideas in the Church, but our Professors were also wise enough to help us to distinguish between the two.

I am afraid it was this “fascism in the Italian Church” to cause that strong reaction, an expectation of a “liberating” Council, to free the Church from the so called “Tridentine Culture”.


I have not read the book of Fr. Ormond Rush, innumerable such books appeared after the Council, they present a “comprehensive” vision of the Council, the “fundamental principles” behind the many documents. They may be useful to help having a general understanding of the Council,

but there is a danger: a particular “comprehensive” presentation of the Council may not be faithful to the documents of the Council, but rather a subjective understanding of it.

I repeat: I have not read the book by Fr. Rush, but I allow myself to say that Fr. Giampietro’s “comprehensive” presentation of the Council’s vision seems to be out of focus. In the article he seems to say that Vatican II has the merit of undoing the “Tridentine” like the cleansing of Michelangelo’s “Ultimo giudizio”. That would be extremely negative and terribly narrow a vision, and above all: out of focus.


Let us start from the fundamentals.

What are the Ecumenical Councils for?

They are not for the creation of a new Church, but for a new self-understanding. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles. The conclusion of the Frist Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem declared: “It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves (apostles)…”.

Guided by the Holy Spirit the Ecumenical Council are the milestones on the journey of the Church through centuries, accumulating a rich heritage, showing ever brighter the true face of Christ, the Redeemer of mankind.


The Bishops, the protagonists of the Vatican II worked hard from 1959 to 1965.

I was in Rome from 1961 to 1964, working hard on my thesis of Doctorate in Philosophy. In spare time, I enjoyed, like other young priests and seminarians in Rome, all the daily hot news and gossips about the Council; the fierce battles along the stereotype of divide between conservatives and progressives; Council Fathers accusing each other with leaflets flying over Saint Peter’s square…The jokes!” (of course, the most memorable thing is the moving “good night”, that 11 October, of John XXIII, from his studio, to the faithful on St. Peter’s square, under the shining moon, concluded with “give a caress to your children, on my behalf”.)

There is a saying, not far from the truth: an Ecumenical Council starts from human efforts, then comes the devil to make trouble, but at the end the Holy Spirit brings everything to an Happy Ending.

The seed of Vatican II were sown in the minds and hearts of many believers long before 1959, then the Pope convoked the Council and set up the Preparatory Commission, which gathered materials from all the Churches and drafted the working papers; then the fierce debates in the hall. In the process sometimes charity and good manners left to be desired (the devil came!); Then the many rewritings of the documents (sometimes days were spent on a single sentence or word. How ungrateful those who despise the “minute details” in favour of the “comprehensive spirit” of the Council), only because of such hard work it was possible to reach that almost unanimity in the approval of the final documents.


The fruit of Vatican II are those 16 Documents, especially the 4 Constitutions. Through those documents you hear the real voice of the Holy Spirit.

Seminaries, comprehensive presentations, comparative analyses etc. are useful means to understand the Council, but not by ignoring the Documents themselves or manipulating the Documents.

Unfortunately, the polarization between the Conservatives and Progressives did not disappear after the Council. Fr. Giampietro mentions those who had difficulty to understand, or even refused to accept the “novelties” in Council’s decisions: they are the extreme conservatives; but there are also extreme progressives who claim that now on everything can change in the Church.

The Church is a living body it certainly grows and changes, but, as Cardinal John Henry Newman puts it, the development is “homogeneous”, i.e. with the substantial identity not altered. A boy grows into maturity and he is still the same person.

The extreme conservatives say: the Church after the Vatican II is no more the Catholic Church I received baptism in. But you were baptized in a Church which believes in one apostolic Church, led by the Pope and the Bishops as authentic teachers of faith.

The extreme progressives say: before the Council nothing was allowed to change, now with Vatican II many changes have been made, so, many things should be allowed to change also in the future. Yes, but only by a decision of the legitimate authority, not by an arbitrary choice of anybody, and surely not by undoing the past. The Holy Spirit of today doesn’t contradict the Holy Spirit of yesterday.


Let me spend few words on this “anti-Tridentine Complex”.

It is true that most Ecumenical Councils in the history were convoked to deal with a crisis (e.g. a heresy), the Tridentine (1545-1563) was one. But by fighting the heresy the Church deepened her self-knowledge.

The heretics say “sola scriptura!”, “only the Bible is enough”. The Church answered: Bible is precious but it’s a book, Jesus entrusted His Church to living human beings with the promise of His presence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The heretics say “sola fides!”, “just believe and you are saved” The Church answered: salvation is not simply a covering of sins leaving us interiorly still a “massa damnata”, the grace transforms us radically and we are given the capacity and duty to live a really “holy” life.

(Today we don’t call them heretics, we call them brothers, and rightly. But when facing mortal danger you may be excused if you forget the niceties.)

In the Council clarifications were given on the nature of the Sacraments, especially of Holy Eucharist and the Priesthood.

For such enriching supply of Church teaching into the deposit of faith, how can we not to be grateful to the Lord?

When searching for the causes of the protests of the protestants, Tridentine Council recognized serious deficiencies in the formation and care of the clergy. Wise and effective remedies were agreed upon and hence a formidable revival of faith, piety and of missionary zeal: this is the Catholic reform or “Counter-reform” in opposition to protestant reformation. I think both I myself and Fr. Giampietro are beneficiaries of that reform.


The protesters say “latin is invented by the devil”! Come on! The Church saved the Greek-Roman Culture (philosophy literature, art, music) and used it to educate the invading “barbarians”, after the fall of Roman Empire, laying foundation of the modern European civilization.

Some may not know that the modern philosophers and scientists still used to write in latin (Francis Bacon 1561-1626, Galileo Galilei 1564-1642, René Descartes 1596-1650, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1646-1716, Immanuel Kant 1724-1804).

The Tridentine theology mainly in latin saved the faith of the Church of the lay, and the Tridentine liturgy in latin with the gregorian chant (including the “dies irae”) nourished the piety of generations and sustained the courage of innumerable martyrs.

It sounds blasphemous to say that Vatican II had to clean the Church of the Tridentine “dirt”.


Then, are we not talking about vision? Vision is looking ahead, not backwards. The vision of Vatican II is in the Opening speech of Pope John XXIII, 11 October 1962: “from the renewed, serene and calm adherence to all the teachings of the Church, in its integrity and precision, as resplendent mainly in the conciliar acts of Trent and Vatican I, the Christian and Catholic spirit of the entire world awaits to go one step further towards a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences that is in a more perfect correspondence with fidelity to authentic doctrine, studying it and exposing it through the forms of research and the literary formulas of modern thought.”

This is the meaning of “aggiornamento”, it does not mean to deny our past or to follow all the secular fashions!


Conclusion:

Let us admire the divin plan, the one history of salvation. Human freedoms may fail, but God guides the Church securely to the goal. It’s a journey in continuity not through ruptures.

  • The history of Israel was a continuous alternation of fidelity and unfaithfulness. But the true faith of Abraham, through Mary, Jesus and the Apostles, has been transmitted to us.
  • The Old Testament belongs to us too, and the Church of the New Testament is open to everybody.
  • The psalms are prayers which fit every situation of our life. The voice of the prophets rings still relevant to the Church in modern society.
  • We must be grateful to Greek Culture just for the word “Homoousios” which helped the Church to express with exactitude the divin nature of Jesus, true God and true man.
  • The latin language was instrumental to keep the many European and missionary Churches united to Rome. The rich heritage of centuries of liturgical music and ceremonials nurtured the piety of believes. Why should we be surprised, if today’s young people, while sincerely accepting the Church’s liturgical reform, still appreciate the Tridentine Mass?
  • The Church carries on her journey “admixt world’s tribulation and God’s consolation” (St. Augustin “city of God”) “to come to unity in our faith and in our knowledge of the son of God, until we become the perfect Man, fully mature with the fullness of Christ himself” (Eph. 4:13)
  • Vatican II is very aware that errors persist in the world, but the Council doesn’t intend to condemn them, it wants to help man to realize how those errors, especially a willful refusal of God, are not conducive to real human happiness.

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the modern world, the most typical expression of the Council’s Vision, lists all the threats to and anxieties of modern man, but is fully confident that the Church is able to come to man’s aid, if only she succeeds to reveal to him the true face of Jesus.

分類: 信仰 | 發佈留言

也談談梵二的憧憬

恩保德神父一向是我的朋友(這位講廣東話叻過許多上海佬的「鬼佬」,在香港誰不是他的朋友?),他在公教報開始了共五集的一系列文章(我的文章已沒有資格登上公教報,我怎能不眼紅?),那些文章的題目是《第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議》(這會議已在五十年前閉幕,但除了聖經還有什麼比這會議的訓導更能光照今天的教徒在亂世中找到方向?)。

恩神父的計劃是除了文章還出錄影,且已出了第一集,教友有福聽他用漂亮的廣東話講論梵二這個重要的題目。

我和恩神父幾乎是同年,我們的生命都和梵二分不開,我們兩個和梵二的關係和看法有許多地方相同,也有不少地方不同,我以為恩神父不會介意我把我的經歷與教內兄弟姊妹分享,來補充一些對梵二的感觀和瞭解。


恩神父直至24歲生活在意大利的教會內,那當然是一個大福份。天主安排了耶穌創立的教會在歷史中從羅馬普傳歐洲,又從歐洲傳到全球。我想像恩神父在一個充滿信仰氣氛的社會中渡過了那二十幾年,像那時代許多傳教士一樣,由那信仰中得到了傳教的神火。

天主藉着宗座外方傳教會和許多其他修會的男女傳教士,把信仰的大恩傳給了香港教會。在上海耶穌會及許多其他修會的傳教士,把信仰深深地種在我們上海教友心中。在我生命的最初十六年,許多上海教友家庭中也產生了許多神職及修會的聖召,在教堂、學校和修院裡,許多本地的福傳者也受到了栽培。在共產黨掌權而難為教會的時候,我們才見到那信仰的根已多麼深:殉道者成了「眾多如雲的證人」(希12:1)。

1948年,我16歲,來了香港,另一個福地:在這裡入了初學,讀了哲學,也在慈幼會備修院服務了三年。1955年,我23歲,離港去意大利受訓,29歲(1961年)晉鐸。

恩神父說他從19歲至24歲(1953-1958年)他開始覺得自己的思想有了重大的轉變。那幾乎正是我開始在意大利受訓的年代。我很容易明白恩神父那時的心態。

墨索里尼(Mussolini)執政的廿多年影響了意大利不少。連教會裡也有些法西斯主義(Fascist)作風。恩神父說他那時「開始接收不同的訊息,閱讀不同的刊物,甚至那些為當時的教會屬不合法的刊物」。那時政府和教會很嚴厲控制言論,意大利作者不敢多寫作,許多神學書也是從外文翻譯的。幾位意大利「保守」樞機聯合向慈幼會總部長上施壓,辭去了一位慈大社會倫理學的教授;又向耶穌會總部長上施壓,辭去了額我略大學兩位聖經專家,都是因為這些教授「太先進」。我們那時年輕的修生和神父當然都站在「先進派」那邊。教宗若望廿三召開大公會議,提創 aggiornamento(這詞準確的翻譯是「向今日的人類福傳」),使我們都很興奮。

恩神父那時剛到香港,我卻從1961至1964年正在羅馬慈大攻讀哲學博士學位,每天除了認真在學業上下功夫,也緊隨大公會議的進展(「八卦」新聞及梵二「笑話」也是我們的「日用糧」)(最不能忘記的是大公會議開幕那天晚上,若望廿三從他書房窗口給伯多祿廣場上信徒的good night訓話)。當然這些祇是大公會議的花絮,聖神所領導和催成的、大公會議的重要成果、正是恩神父所提的「十六份文件」。(我以為每位有知識的現代教友,除了聖經,都應該隨手有一本《梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議文獻》及一本《天主教教理》。)


講到這裡我想在一個「前題」性的問題上和恩神父切磋。

我們要用什麼方法(工具)來認識梵二

恩神父很欣賞一位澳洲著名神學家Fr. Ormond Rush的書“The Vision of Vatican II”(梵二的憧憬),他雖無意「推銷」那本書,但鼓勵大家去「閱讀它」。我慚愧未認識這本書。其實梵二後的50年內這樣的書多不勝數。

這些書對梵二介紹了一些「宏觀的看法」,為平常教友當然是提供了一件有用的工具,但也有一個實在的危險,就是作者把他主觀的取態介紹給了讀者,而那取態可能是兩種「極端」:極端保守、極端先進,都不尊重梵二的本意。

恩神父也提起:梵二後有人不易明白,甚至不接受梵二的訓導,他心目中的那些大概是「保守派」,他們以為梵二負賣了教會的傳統。但也有完全相反的取態:有人以為梵二證明教會內什麼都可以改變,所以以為堅持梵二的文件是負賣梵二的「精神」。

有需要「宏觀」,但不能輕視某些所謂「瑣碎片段」。恩神父一定知道梵二的二千多位主教有時會用幾天時間來討論一字一句,這樣最後才能有幾乎全體主教贊成了那些文件,且由教宗認同。疏忽「文件」祇談「精神」是危險的。

初期教會的宗徒們介紹耶路撒冷第一屆大公會議時說「聖神與我們決定了……」(宗15:28),大公會議的主角是聖神與宗徒(或他們的繼承人)(當然也有整個教會的參與)。

有人說在每個大公會議第一階段我們看到的是人的努力,第二階段魔鬼入場製造麻煩,但最後第三階段聖神「搞掂」一切。這講法未必沒有道理。

梵二不是六十年代才開始的,聖神早已開始把梵二大公會議的種子放在無數神長、神學家、牧者及教友心中。他們的祈禱、研究,甚至爭論準備了梵二主教們的「辨別」。有時甚至在爭論中也過了分,傷了愛德,那當然是魔鬼的作弄,但最後聖神領導教宗和與會的神長(也有他們神學顧問的輔助)為教會作出「祂」以為最好的決定。

記着這些我們也容易以適當的心態去接受大公會議的訓導

既然歷代大公會議的主角是聖神和基督的教會,那末把梵二的憧憬說成是「把教會在歷史中所積累(累積)的污垢陋習清除」恐怕真太負面了!把梵二前的教會說成是特倫多的教會也太近視了。難道梵二的成就在於推翻特倫多?那末,下一屆大公會議的意義就在於推翻梵二?今天的聖神否認昨天的聖神?

教會是一個生活的個體,每屆大公會議都是這生命旅程中的里程碑。藉着歷史中的大公會議,聖神帶耶穌建立在宗徒們身上的教會成長到今天,……「直到我們眾人都達到對於天主子,有一致的信仰和認識,成為成年人,達到基督圓滿年齡的程度」(弗4,13)。


我們要有謙虛感恩的心接受天主在歷史中對我們的安排。

  • 祂經過以色列彎彎曲曲的旅程,把舊約中寶貴的信仰,藉着瑪利亞、耶穌、宗徒們傳給了我們。難道我們不承認亞巴郎為信德之父,甚至以他為恥嗎?
  • 耶路撒冷的會議認定了新約教會的普世性,難道也就否定了舊約嗎?
  • 初期教會經過嚴重的危機,用希臘文的「同性同體」肯定了耶穌是真天主真人,我們能不欣賞希臘的文化嗎?
  • 羅馬教會這麼長久的歷史中,藉着拉丁文及額我略歌豐富了我們的信仰理解及祈禱熱情。沒有好好在拉丁文神學中吸收了信仰的首批傳教士,誰會把那信仰用我們的語言傳給我們?有人,尤其青年人,絕不抗拒梵二,但也喜歡以前的祈禱方式,我們該感到奇怪嗎?

恩神父用了一大片段講述他看了西斯汀小堂刷新了的米高安哲奴(Michelangelo)的壁畫非常欣喜。我很高興。(我本來以為他對那公審判的圖像會有意見;那不是代表比較保守的dies irae的末世觀嗎?梵二的末世觀不是比較樂觀的嗎?當然天堂地獄是當信道理,但梵二不是更強調天主意欲拯救每個人的心願嗎(LG 16, GS 22)?)

不過,他用這壁畫的刷新來形容梵二,把梵二的作用放在「去除舊漬」,而這舊漬竟是特倫多大公會議,似乎說:「因除去了特倫多這污漬,梵二才給我們看到教會的真面目,教會的真傳統」,那我就不能苟同了。

每個大公會議都幫我們看到教會的真面目,特倫多的、梵二的都是。所有大公會議加在一起正豐富了教會傳統的寶庫。


固然在歷史中大公會議多在某一危機發生時才召開,在大會中也反省當代教會的缺失。特倫多會議為應付誓反教的崛起,在三位教宗的領導下由1545年至1563年處理了很多問題,對教會的成長起了不可衡量的貢獻。

它面對了兩個危險的異端:「sola scriptura, sola fides。聖經是信仰唯一準則;人祇要信就能得救。」不,教會說,聖經是書,而耶穌把教會交給一班活生生的人;有信仰才能得救,但信仰帶來內在的救恩,使獲救者應該,且有能力按信仰生活,結出善行的果實。還有關於鐸品和聖體聖事的重要信道也在大會中得以澄清。

特倫多細察這些異端產生的背景時,也覺察一些當代教會的缺失:教會高級神長沒有充分照顧神職人員及關注他們的培訓,這使神職人員服務教眾的質素也嚴重降低,並助長了教徒的離心力。

那時教會遇到的是空前的危機,是生死的關頭,自救的努力是不能手軟的,重病就要下重藥。藥當然不能當飯吃,但那時為救命是必須的,大會也豐富安排了「除病根」的措施和「康復後」正常的營養。藐視這大公會議,大概是出於無知或忘記了當時教會的處境。

每個大公會議當然有自我更新的一面,更有外來攻擊的可怕的一面。教會憲章說:「教會在自己的懷抱中,卻有罪人,教會是聖的,同時卻常需要潔煉,不斷實行補贖,追求革新……教會是在世界的迫害與天主的安慰之中,繼續着自己的旅程……教會有內在與外來的困難,並且在幽暗中向世界揭示主的奧跡。」(LG 8)

如果再用米高安哲奴壁畫的比喻,我們可說:特倫多大會那時的危機不祇是在壁畫上留些污垢,簡直是要把那幅畫徹底破壞。


其實梵二絕對沒有表示要改正特倫多,它的視線是向前的,不是向後的,講「梵二的憧憬」(Vision)不也是要我們向前看嗎?尤其在最劃時代的《論教會在現代世界牧職憲章》內更易看到梵二的這特點。這文件問的是:我們處在怎樣的世界裡?對這個世界我們可以供獻怎樣的服務?文件的開端是「我們這時代的人們、尤其貧困者和遭受折磨者、所有的喜樂與期望、愁苦與焦慮、亦是基督徒的喜樂與期望、愁苦和焦慮」。雖然「喜樂和期望」放在「愁苦和焦慮」之前,而且在拉丁文版中「喜樂和期望」兩個詞成了文憲的題目“Gaudium et Spes”,但梵二在描寫現代人類處境時,幾乎「危險和挑戰」勝過「喜樂和期望」。

我似乎越寫越長氣,但我們這裡討論的正是現代教會內的一個熱門問題:

所謂 The right hermeneutic of the Vatican Council,怎樣解讀梵二,  hermeneutic of rupture or hermeneutic of Continuity 按割絕原則還是連貫原則?

如果我們前面分析的沒有錯,那末當然是連貫原則、大公會議不是為另立一個教會,是對教會另一次的自我認識,為再次、更全面地知道自己是誰,這樣也會更知道自己在社會的定位是在哪裡。教會是誰,是早由基督決定了的,教會在時光的進展中常該忠於它的本質,這努力當然是前後連貫的,按紐曼(J.H. Newman)樞機的說法是Homogeneous同質的。一個孩子長大了肯定還是他,不會變成另一件東西。不能從新開始。變化的基礎正是那不變的本性,是由天賦的,不是自己設計的。設計者是全能全善,充滿愛心的天主,我們能不歡天喜地?


讓我大膽作個結論:

梵二的憧憬是:面對這抱負無限期望、但又會因迷路而自我傷害的現代人類,教會怎麼能以人們容易明白及接受的方式把基督―人類的救主―及祂所建立的團體―教會―介紹給他們,使我們能一起建設一個符合人性的「愛的文明」。


恩保德神父的錄影中談及本教區在60年代末的教區會議(Diocesan Convention)我有興趣分享參與那會議的經歷。(下回分解)

至於我提到梵二的「八卦新聞及笑話」,有人有興趣來聽聽那些故事嗎?(等武漢肺炎疫情過後我們可以組織一個輕鬆的聚會。)

分類: 信仰 | 發佈留言

Oggi 3 Luglio un anno fa

In questi giorni quali pensieri stanno occupando la mente della gente di Hong Kong? Qualcuno forse sta riandando alla mezzanotte del primo luglio 23 anni or sono: c’era chi festeggiava il ritorno alla madrepatria con canti e danze, c’era dall’altra parte della strada gente che gridava proteste (similmente oggi il passaggio della “National Security Law” ha diviso la popolazione di Hong Kong).

Qualcuno forse ricorda con nostalgia la marcia del primo luglio dell’anno scorso, “e’ stata l’ultima della storia?”. “Sono finite in una completa sconfitta le sfilate dei ‘pacifici–razionali–non violenti’?”. “Che cosa abbiamo ottenuto con le proteste contro l’articolo 23, con ‘Occupy Central’, con le proteste contro la legge dell’estradizione e contro le brutalita’ della polizia, noi uniti, i pacifici e gli aggressivi?”

C’e’ chi preoccupato si domanda: come facciamo adesso che e’ arrivata la legge della National Security?

Alla mia memoria invece si ostina a presentarsi quel che mi era capitato il 3 luglio l’anno scorso a Roma.


Il 28 giugno l’anno scorso usciva un documento della Santa Sede “Orientamenti pastorali della Santa Sede circa la registrazione civile del clero in Cina”.

La cosa strana era che il documento veniva emanato dalla “Santa Sede”, senza specificazione di quale dipartimento e con nessuna firma di persone responsabili. Piu’ tardi ho chiesto al card. F. Filoni, l’allora Prefetto della Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli: “Lei ha forse rifiutato di firmare?” La risposta fu “Nessuno mi ha chiesto di firmare”. Ho chiesto al Prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede: “Non e’ passato quel documento attraverso la Sua previa visione?” “No! Oggi tutto quel che riguarda la Chiesa in Cina e’ esclusivamente nelle mani del Segretario di Stato”.

Siccome giudico il documento estremamente immorale, il 29 giugno ho preso l’aereo per Roma, giunto la’ la mattina del 30 ho consegnato subito una mia lettera al Santo Padre presso la Casa Santa Marta, in cui pregavo Papa Francesco di concedere, entro 4 giorni, una seduta di discussione sul documento tra me e Parolin, alla Sua presenza.

Non ricevendo risposta il primo Luglio consegno un’altra lettera insieme con i miei “dubbia” (vedi il mio blog) sul documento che mi risulta contrario alla sana dottrina della fede in quanto incoraggia i fedeli ad iscriversi ad una Chiesa che oggettivamente e’ scismatica.

Il 2 luglio arriva la risposta: “Basta che parli al Card. Parolin”. “Dica al Santo Padre, fu la mia risposta, parlare con Parolin senza la Sua presenza sarebbe una perdita di tempo. Allora torno a Hong Kong a mani vuote.”

Il giorno 3 arriva un invito del Papa a cena, in Santa Marta, insieme con il Card. Parolin.

La cena fu molto semplice, durante la quale credendo disdicevole bisticciare durante il pasto, parlavo della situazione di Hong Kong. Il Card. Parolin stava zitto tutto il tempo. Il Santo Padre era pieno di affetto verso di me, ma notavo in lui qualche imbarazzo. Alla fine della cena dissi: “Allora possiamo parlare un po’ del documento?” Il Santo Padre  rispose: “Mi interessero’ della cosa, ci guardero’ dentro” e mi accompagno’ alla porta.”

“Me ne interessero’” e’ stato l’unico trofeo che portavo a casa con il mio lungo viaggio!? No! Non torno a mani vuote, ho potuto vedere finalmente coi miei occhi che Parolin manipola il Santo Padre. Lo ha obbligato a cenare con me ma non gli concede di assistere alla nostra discussione. Con cio’ mi ha voluto dire: “Si’, vedo che il Santo Padre ti vuol bene ma tu vedi che egli obbedisce a me. Vattene e non tornare piu’”.


Dopo 3 mesi di silenzio da parte di Papa Francesco, quando verso fine settembre, mandavo copia del mio libro “Per l’amore del mio popolo non tacero’” a tutti I cardinali, ho accluso una mia lettera con cui pregavo le Loro Eminenze di interessarsi della sorte della Chiesa in Cina (v. il mio blog). Ho ricevuto alcune gentili risposte con promesse di preghiera.

Uno spiacevole intermezzo capito’ quando il “neonato” decano del Collegio cardinalizio Card. Giovanni Battista Re credette suo dovere di rimproverarmi per quella mia lettera (non so con quale autorita’ perche’ il decano e’ solo il “Primus inter pares” senza nessuna autorita’; ma si sa che non e’ stata sua l’iniziativa). Risposi alla sua il primo marzo con un supplement il 10 marzo (v. mio blog).

Oggi 3 luglio un anno intero dopo quell’ultimo incontro con Papa Francesco non una parola e’ venuta da lui, avrei voluto scrivergli ma non sono sicuro se le mie lettere arrivano nelle sue mani, allora metto sul mio blog cio’ che voglio dire nella speranza che qualcuno glielo faccia avere in mano.


In questi ultimi 2 anni la Santa Sede ha fatto 3 cose riguardo alla Chiesa in Cina.

1. Prima ha firmato un accordo segreto con il Governo di Pechino sulla nomina dei vescovi.

La cosa strana e’ che esso sia segreto, non e’ neanche dato a me, un cardinale cinese, di averne visione, per cui non potrei neanche aver ragione per sostenerlo o disapprovarlo.

Una cosa si sa, esso riguarda la nomina dei vescovi e Papa Francesco dice che “il Papa avra’ l’ultima parola in materia.”

Se non posso vedere il testo cinese dell’accordo non sono sicuro se ci possa essere in esso una chiara affermazione che riconoscesse il Papa essere il supremo capo di tutta la Chiesa e percio’ l’autorita’ assoluta sulla nomina dei vescovi.

A dire il vero l’effetto dell’accordo non e’ molto evidente, perche’ anche senza un accordo c’era gia’ in pratica un modo non scritto di mutuo compromesso nel trovare un candidato accettabile da ambo le parti. E’ cosi’ che negli anni recenti molti vescovi sono stati ordinati con doppia approvazione. La Bulla di nomina, anche se non e’ permesso leggerla durante la cerimonia, la si proclamava davanti ai vescovi e preti in sagrestia prima dell’inizio della cerimonia.

Le due recenti ordinazioni episcopali, poi, hanno avuto la doppia approvazione gia’ molto tempo prima della firma dell’accordo.

Riguardo alla questione se al termine dei due anni si rinnova o no l’accordo, non abbiamo nessun elemento per averne un’opinione.

2. La seconda cosa e’ molto piu’ seria della prima: la Santa Sede ha legittimato 7 vescovi ordinati senza mandato pontificio e percio’ scomunicati.

Prima e dopo la Rivoluzione Culturale il governo ha forzato parecchi preti a ricevere l’ordinazione episcopale illegittima. Quelli che rifiutarono vennero mandati in prigione o ai campi di lavoro forzato dove molti morirono. Molti di quelli che hanno accettato l’ordinazione non sono persone cattive.

Al tempo della politica di apertura del governo, specialmente quando era Prefetto della Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione Card. Jospeh Tomko, molti di tali vescovi illegittimi hanno avuto la possibilita’ di presentare umili suppliche alla Santa Sede per essere legittimati. La Santa Sede, dopo dovuta investigazione, li ha legittimati con grande consolazione e incoraggiamento dei vescovi e del loro popolo.

Infelicemente dopo il ritiro per limiti d’eta’ del card. Tomko, attorno all’anno 2000, la gente nel Vaticano, infatuatasi della Ostpolitik, adotto’ la politica di arrendevolezza con i comunisti cinesi. Gli opportunisti, che consideravano l’episcopato come carriera, si infiltrarono nella Chiesa e si fecero ordinare vescovi. Sette di questi, sostenuti dal governo, per molti anni, sfidando la dottrina e la legge della Chiesa, sotto la direzione del Partito Comunista Cinese hanno lavorato zelantemente per rendere la Chiesa schiava del Partito.

Nel settembre 2018 oltre che firmare un accordo con la Cina il Vaticano ha legittimato i 7 vescovi in una maniera che ci sbalordisce.

In un primo momento pensavamo che il Papa avesse solo tolto la scomunica  riaccettando nella Chiesa i 7. Supponevamo che avessero riconosciuto i loro errori ed ottenuto il perdono dal Papa. Ma non ci e’ stato possibile constatare nessun segno di pentimento e di gratitudine.

Piu’ tardi veniamo a sapere che il Papa ha dato la giurisdizione di quelle diocesi ai 7. Questo ci stupisce assai, Egli ha dato le pecore in bocca ai lupi? I 7 non hanno cambiato per niente la loro condotta. Riaffermarono la loro fedelta’ al governo ateo; invece di dimostrare riconoscenza per il generoso perdono del Papa, vanno cantando trionfo dappertutto: “guardate, come siamo stati intelligenti a stare dalla parte del governo. Siamo vincitori. Come sono stati stupidi quei vescovi che hanno ciecamente seguito il Vaticano, ora devono perfino cedere a noi il loro episcopato (Shan Tao e Ming Tong)”.

Ci avevano detto che l’accordo firmato era per garantire che i vescovi fossero veramente pastori del popolo di Dio. Quei 7 lo sono? Dal Vaticano viene un coro di giubilo:”ora tutti i vescovi in Cina sono legittimi!” Ci sentiamo veramente confusi e allibiti. Parolin dice che questo e’ solo l’inizio di un viaggio. No! questa e’ la fine della degradazione!

3. La cosa piu’ crudele e’ cio’ che avvenne attorno questo tempo l’anno scorso come ho narrato poc’anzi. Con “Gli orientamenti pastorali” il card. Parolin ha dato il colpo di grazia alla Chiesa in Cina.

Anzitutto ha soffocato la mia voce facendo sparire alla chetichella la Commissione per la Chiesa in Cina. Poi ha mandato in esilio l’Arcivescovo Savio Hon ad Atene (giovedi’ scorso la prima lettura della Messa veniva dal profeta Amos “Amazia disse ad Amos: “Vattene veggente, ritirati nel paese di Giuda”, la’ mangerai il pane e farai il profeta. Ma a Bethel non continuare piu’ a fare il profeta, perche’ questo e’ il santuario del re ed e’ la casa del regno”.)

Parolin da solo ha completato la trilogia dell’assassinio della Chiesa in Cina.

Egli incoraggia quelli della comunita’ clandestina a farsi membri dell’Associazione Patriottica, membri cioe’ di una Chiesa scismatica, a cantare “i canti di Sion” nella gabbia, come gli schiavi ebrei “presso il fiume stranier” (Salmo 137).

Egli permette che il governo confischi le chiese della comunita’ clandestina, che proibisca ai preti clandestini di celebrare Messa nelle case private e che i minori di 18 anni siano tenuti fuori dalle chiese e da ogni attivita’ religiosa.

Siccome la Santa Sede non nominera’ piu’ vescovi per la comunita’ clandestina, questa morira’ di morte naturale (ma la fede vivra’, come una volta nelle catacombe). 


Mentre tutti gemono davanti allo spauracchio della legge della National Security, come posso io essere cosi’ egoista a pensare solo alla mia Chiesa?

La liberta’ del popolo e la liberta’ religiosa non possono separarsi l’una dall’altra. In Cina non abbiamo liberta’ religiosa perche’ tutto il popolo non ha liberta’; e se alla religione e’ negata la liberta’, essa non sara’ piu’ in grado di aiutare il popolo a lottare per la liberta’.

Se Hong Kong perdera’ la sua liberta’, la Chiesa non sara’ risparmiata, e se la Chiesa perdera’ la sua liberta’, non potra’ piu’ difendere la liberta’ del popolo.

Quando tutta la societa’ deve affrontare la sfida di scegliere tra il giusto e l’iniquo, puo’ la Chiesa dispensarsi e godere la sua pace nella sua nicchia? No! non e’ possibile, non e’ permesso!

Ci viene chiesto nella presente situazione di mantenerci in una posizion“unita”. Ad ogni costo? Uniti nella verita’ o nel compromesso? Ascoltiamo ancora Amos (capo 5): “Cercate il bene e non il male…odiate il male e amate il bene e ristabilite alla porta il giudizio, forse sara’ clemente Jahve’, Dio degli eserciti, con il resto di Giuseppe”. Il Signore non si compiace delle nostre offerte e dei nostri canti, ma che “il diritto scorra come l’acqua e la giustizia come un torrente perenne”.

Perche’, mentre tutte le nazioni gridano all’ingiustizia, manca proprio la voce del Vaticano? C’entrano davvero i soldi? Perche’ il Vaticano non viene fuori a smentire la calunnia?

Alla fine lasciamoci consolare ed incoraggiare dalle parole di speranza del profeta  Amos: “In quel giorno rialzero’ la capanna caduta di Davide, riparero’ le sue brecce, rialzero’ le sue rovine e la ricostruiro’ come ai tempi di una volta (“ristabilire Hong Kong!”)…ecco viene un tempo…cambiero’ la sorte del mio popolo Israele, ricostruiranno le citta’ distrutte, vi abiteranno e pianteranno vigne e ne berranno il vino…piantero’ i giardini nelle loro terre e non saranno piu’ divelti via dalla terra che ho dato loro (Amos capitolo 9)”. (“See you there” – Arrivederci vicino al Palazzo del Consiglio Legislativo dove ha avuto inizio la resistenza popolare alla tirannia).

(Grazie Cardinal Charles Bo per aver parlato in difesa dei diritti umani).

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

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!

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

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。

分類: 中國教會 | 發佈留言

今年的六四(回顧這過去的31年)

六四事件發生至今日已31年,回歸也已23年,我們教徒每年紀念及祈禱,不祇為追悼那些為正義而犧牲了自己的烈士們,也不是祇為求主安慰那些為這事件而仍在忍受磨難的親人、同道,也為提醒我們自己應該拾起烈士們倒地時留下的旗幟繼承他們的使命。天主這麼多年讓我們生活在這自由平安的島上,現在我們有責任維護這福份,不祇為傳給我們的下一代,也為國內的同胞爭取,使他們也能擺脫奴役,享有天主子女應有的尊嚴。

回歸時我們都相信「一國兩制」的許諾給我們機會去完成那使命,可是很快我們發覺受騙了。


中共蠶食香港的高度自治

2003年我們並不反對23條立法,但我們拒絕政府在幾乎沒有諮詢的情形下,把一套剝削許多人權的惡法壓到我們頭上。跟着是2004年北京違法釋法,否認我們在2007、2008年可以有普選。政府說要「循序漸進」,但提出的都是「遊花園」的方案,在方案被否決後政府也不再努力重啟政改。在沒有民選的政府的情形下,根本沒有希望能產生一套合理的國安法。

祇有真普選才能解決香港深層的問題,但政府食言,拖了又拖,不理會我們合法的要求

由「佔中三子」領導,在六天和平的「毅行」後,我們進行了一個「民間公投」,把出線的方案遞交香港政府。政府不祇否認公投的合法性,甚至不屑一睹,藐視八十萬人民的要求,給中央作了一個不信不實的報告。中央否定了自己定出的五步曲,作了一個「八三一」決定,粉碎了真普選的希望,佔中行動勢在必行。學生們接過了那「公民抗命」的行動,引發了七十多天的「佔鐘」(雨傘運動),引起了國際的注意和讚賞,可是政府一點也沒有讓步。示威者祇點到了暴力的邊緣,但被捕、被告的,都安然付出公民抗命的代價。一切彷彿全歸正常。


政府以為可以得寸進尺

2019年(不知是否在中央指示下)林鄭特首提出一個《引渡逃犯條例》(我們稱之為《送中條例》),意在製造恐懼而窒息言論自由。一百萬、二百萬人的和平遊行未能勸服特首撤回計劃,而是一批勇武青年成功阻止了建制派立法會議員進行二讀、三讀。從此勇武派「不要大台,一如流水」地嘗試做「和理非」派未能做到的事,他們冒着生命危險,不斷提醒執政者不能不理我們的訴求。可惜特首和中央縱容警方狂用暴力趕盡殺絕,幾乎天天有許多青年及市民被打、被捕,也有我們懷疑是「被自殺的」。

在中文大學、理工大學發生的簡直是兩塲戰爭,警方的暴力如軍隊打敵人一樣殘忍。市民在區議會選舉中表達了他們的憤怒。

武漢病毒虐行時,香港政府卻致力「暴制動亂」多過控制病毒。習大大置親信掌管港澳辦及中聯辦決意執行極權控制,基本法根本已名存實亡了。

終於人大通過:由人大常委草擬一套「港版國安法」,還厚着面皮說:基本法還活着。


讓我們看看事情怎麼發展到今天的地步的

一九四九年我在香港剛入了慈幼會,見那些在內地多年傳教的神父、修士被驅逐出境,他們安心在香港留下來,服務那些有幸逃出赤幕的難民。

一九四八年離開上海時我們以為四年後能回去,開始參與慈幼會會士的工作。但一九五二年上海已不再是我們的家了。離別上海廿六年,文化大革命還未結束,他們開了半扇門讓香港同胞回鄉探親,我回去看見的上海是一個灰色的城市,彷彿在廿六年裡他們沒有建過新屋,舊屋也從沒有刷新。

過了三、四年再回去,情景已相當不同,但還像一個不屬於我們的世界。多年失了聯絡的會士還在監獄裡,他們已不算犯人,但不能回到上海。

一九八九年香港人都在電視見證到北京的「屠城」,心裡的痛使我們再肯定我們是中國人。這悲劇發生了不久,我卻有幸能去佘山修院教書。在國內(地上)修院生活的那七年內我發現許多同胞已像是另一個國家的人,擁抱了另一套價值觀。七年後我們回歸了,還是那「一國兩制」的承諾使我們稍為放心。


中國富了中國強了,香港人放棄那優越感吧!是嗎

中國人多,又勤勞,如有機會當然富起來,機會來了,「全球化」!中國加入了「世貿組織」!和中國人交易的經驗並不鼓勵人的信心,但這麼多廉價勞工、廉價產物還是有吸引力的。大家又以為在多接觸中,中國一定會學習到世界的價值觀。

實情是怎麼樣?

教宗保祿六世多次說過:「大家進步,整個人進步,才是真的進步!」

資本和勞動的配合當然造了財富,但中國人民並沒有得到公道的一份

在這交流中,中國人民也並沒有學到普世價值卻失落了一些傳統的美德

教宗若望保祿二世說:「全球化可以是好的:全球成一大家庭,彼此關懷;全球化也可以是壞的:強者剝削弱者將他們邊緣化。」可惜全球化的歷史多是後者。國際的強者說是幫助弱者,但他們和窮國的權貴合作,推行的是對他們自己有益的計劃,幫助了的是窮國的富者、貪官,不是人民

中國再出現在世界舞台上了,以前是窮的,現在富了。窮國的人民以為中國會幫助他們也富起來。習大大提倡一帶一路」,大家一起走上繁榮的大道吧!但窮國的人民漸漸看不到他們所期望的。中國人借錢給你做基層建設,但你要買他們的材料,用他們的服務。還不起債時就出讓一些特權吧(如開礦權),甚至借出「租界」、「租埠」。完成了那些工程的中國人會留下來,成了新的殖民主義者新的帝國主義者。許多人已看到這一切為國際和平正成為威脅。


正在這時刻在武漢出現了一個「大頭佛」── 冠狀新病毒肆虐全球。全球化使人們容易流動,病毒當然容易傳開,但全球化使信息也流動,本該使大家及時收到警號。但控制訊息、隱瞞真相的制度使中國害死了世界各國。人命和經濟的損失難能計算,且還在繼續增加。(參考緬甸貌波樞機對中國共產黨的譴責)。各國正群起聲討中國且要求賠償。

病毒使國內也受到嚴重損失,習近平的政敵當然也乘機歸咎於他。

在這四面楚歌的情形下,習近平橫了心要整頓不聽話的香港特區,當它和中國的其他城市一樣。

但這樣做法他不祇違反國家對香港人的承諾,也損害許多國家在香港的利益,他們怎會輕易容忍?而且這樣做法也嚴重損害中國自己的利益。這樣做法不祇是愚蠢,更可說是瘋狂。有句成語說:「天主要人滅亡,先使他瘋狂」。

我們希望中共臨崖勒馬,為自己、為全世界人民的福祉千萬不要引起另一次世界大戰。

其實獨裁國家的國安法不是為國家,而是為維護政權,但香港根本沒有能力威脅中央,我們的食物和水都靠大陸供應。

香港將是另一個天安門或是另一個西柏林?我們更似等待被宰殺的羔羊。我們害怕,但我們知道上天愛祂的子民,我們驅除害怕,挺胸抬頭對「他們」說:「回頭吧!做天主的子女才是真正的幸福。」

分類: 六四 | 發佈留言

ICLN(2020)第二次視頻會議 -「疫症過後如何重建人類」

 

ICLN(2020)第二次視頻會議 

「疫症過後如何重建人類」

「疫症過後的全球化:中美的角色 ── 分析與行動」

陳日君樞機的發言

(經編輯版本)

這是對仍在發生的悲劇性現實的簡短反思:世界末日般的疫症大散播,造成了生命和經濟資源上無法估量的損失。我們還沒有看到終局,但是我們可以並且必須總結一些明顯的事實,並分析它們的因果關係。只有這樣做,我們才能為社會的重建做好準備,並為我們人類的未來提供新的防禦措施。

事實是:疫症在中國開始,並且迅速傳播到全世界。

分析:它定必與全球化有關。全球化是事實,人民的流動性大大增加,在一定程度上解釋了流行病的迅速蔓延。但是,現代通訊技術的進步本可以及時發出警報,遏制它的蔓延。顯然有地方出了問題。


讓我們記住,全球化可以是好事,也可以是壞事,這取決於我們怎樣管理它。

教宗若望保祿二世過去曾將「互相關懷的全球化」與「邊緣化的全球化」區分開來,前者是以關心全人類的真正利益為目的,後者是由個人和團體的自私利益所驅動。

還應記住教宗保祿六世所說的話:

「當每個人都有進步,整個人都在進步之時,才是真正的進步。」

在這些前提下,讓我們來看一下實際的情況,特別是中國的情況。


許多人歡迎全球化的來臨:隨著世界成為一個「地球村」,一種「大家庭式」的合作與互助,將使世界變得更美好,富者和強人可以幫助窮人和弱者。可惜的是,實際的結果令人失望。一些問題可以激發我們的思考:「例如,為何那些,曾多次流血的抗議,在世界貿易組織會議的場地出現?」答案是:窮國的窮人覺得他們沒有從全球化的世界經濟中得到任何幫助。那些把握經濟全球化的人是世界上有財有勢的人(世界銀行、國際貨幣基金等),它們的目的本該是幫助窮國,但他們往往最終是幫助了窮國的政府、幫助了這些國家內的有財有勢者而非窮人,因為窮國的窮人沒有機會去積極參與這運作。

全球化的管理者在計劃世界經濟時,很少考慮地方的實際情況和需要。地方政府和其他有財有勢的經營者,可能更願意將錢投進自己的口袋裡,而不是幫助自己國家的窮人。


在這一切變得顯而易見的時刻,中國進入了世界舞台,這個原來貧窮的國家如今富強了,成為亞洲和非洲國​​家的模範和領袖。中國給他們帶來了希望:大家來建設一個更加公平公正和繁榮的社會。

對於這樣的認知,有很多東西要討論。中國真的變得富強了嗎?我們必須區分人民與國家。中國變得富強,是因為中國人民勤力工作,學習迅速。中國是人口最多的社群,為世界提供大量勞動力,能夠數量龐大地生產商品,並為國庫帶來收入。

但是人民呢?在極權主義政權中,人民為國家的財富做出了貢獻,但在國家的繁榮中卻得不到應有的份額。在中國,人民是共產黨的奴隸。奴隸是不允許有奢侈的尊嚴。在主人的統治和惡劣榜樣下,中國人民失去了傳統美德。在一個「鬥爭求存」的社會裡,奴隸像其主人一樣,以謊言和暴力為人生之道。中國成為對世界的威脅。

世界一定有機會意識到這一切,但他們可能從未聽說過「道德投資」和「道德消費」的責任,直到他們意識到自己是滋養這頭危險怪物的幫兇。


中國的國家資本主義發起人鄧小平曾經說過,要使國家富裕,就必須讓一部份人先富起來。但是誰能成為最先富起來的那一批?這種「先富」狀態要維持多久呢?顯然,他們就是當權者,中國共產黨的人,而一旦他們富起來,就會變得更加強大,他們可以永遠保持這種狀態。

現在,中共成了剝削同胞的資本家,由此到成為剝削其他國家的帝國主義者,只有一步之遙。

「一帶一路」項目(現代的「絲綢之路」)。習近平向許多亞洲和非洲國​​家展示自己作為救世主,可以使他們擺脫殖民者留下的貧困。

「我們借錢給你,特別是用來建設作為進步基礎的基礎設施」(共產黨「借錢」,他們從不白送「禮物」)。

「我們為你們提供專業人員,我們派遣工人來完成這項工作」(顯然,其意思是你們必須支付這一切。這意味着借來的錢還是用在中國身上)。

如果他們無法償還這筆錢,則要求他們以給予壟斷和特權來交換,甚至割讓領土和港口(99年)。

新的殖民者比舊的殖民者更可怕!


一場疫症大爆發,一個世界性的災難。它讓每個人覺醒。

現在是時候我們認真思考一下人類走上的是什麼路。我們能為我們的科學進步、更多可能的消費選擇而感到自豪嗎?突然間,我們失去了一切,發現自己無能為力。

現在,我們意識到真理、我們的知情權和言論自由是多麼的重要。

在與死亡的密切接觸中,我們受到鼓勵更具決心地追求人類和生命的福音價值。

我們發現真正的英雄不是我們曾經在屏幕上欣賞的那些,而是那些為病人服務而犧牲自己的英雄,那些保持環境清潔、讓我們健康的英雄。

最後,我們欣賞我們的信仰,它教導我們是天主的孩子,是人類大家庭中的兄弟姐妹。

感謝主,從這次流行病中給予我們的教訓。

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

Second video conference ICLN (2020) – “Preparing for Post-Pandemic Humanity”

 

Second video conference ICLN (2020)

“Preparing for Post-Pandemic Humanity”

“Post Pandemic Globalization: the Role of China and the United States – Analysis and Action”

Input by Cardinal Joseph Zen

(heavily edited)

This is a short reflection on the tragic reality which is still in the happening: a pandemic of apocalyptical dimension causing incalculable loss of lives and of economic resources. We don’t see the end of it yet, but we can and must take stock of some obvious facts and analyse their cause-effect relation. Only by doing so we can prepare ourselves for the rebuilding of our society and providing new defences in the future for our humanity.

The fact is: a pandemic started in China and it spread quickly over the whole world.

The analysis: it must have something to do with globalization. Globalization is a fact and the enormously increased mobility of the people explains, in part, the fast spreading of the pandemic. But the modern progress in communication could provide timely alarm and contain that spreading. Obviously something went wrong.


Let us remember that the globalization is an ambivalent phenomenon, it may be good, it may be bad, it depends on the way we manage it.

Pope John Paul II used to distinguish a “globalization of solidarity” from a “globalization of marginalization”, one is operated by people who care for the real good of all human beings, the other is driven by selfish interest of individuals and groups.

It is opportune also to remember what has been said by Pope Paul VI:

The real progress is when everybody progress and the whole human being progresses.

With those premises let us come to examine the actual reality especially with reference to China.


Many people welcomed the arrival of globalization: with the world becoming a “village”, a “big family” cooperation and mutual help would make the world better, the rich and strong can help the poor and the weak. But, alas, the actual outcome was much disappointing. Some question may help us to think: “Why, e.g., all those, often bloody, protests at the venues of meetings of world trade organization?” The answer is: the poor of the poor countries did not feel they got any help from this globalized economy of the world. Those running the economic globalization are the world’s rich and strong, World Bank, International Monetary Fund etc., they are meant to help the poor countries, but too often they end up by helping the Governments of the poor countries, the rich and powerful people in those countries, not the poor people, because the poor people of the poor countries have not been invited to take active part in the process.

The managers of the globalization plan the world economy with scarce consideration of the real local situation and needs. Local governments and other operators, rich and powerful, may be more interested in getting the money into their own pockets rather than helping the poor people of their country.


At the moment when all this was becoming evident, China entered into the world scene, once a poor nation now rich and strong, model and leader of Asian and African nations. China brought them the hope in a more just, equitable, prosperous society.

There is much to be discussed about such perception. Has China become really rich and strong? We have to distinguish between the people and the nation. China became rich and strong, because its people are hard working and fast learning. China being the most populous community became a huge provider of labor in the world, capable of gigantic production and brings money to the nation’s coffers.

But what about the people? In a totalitarian regime the people contribute to the wealth of the nation, but they don’t get a fair share in its prosperity. In China the people are slaves under the Communist Party. To slaves it is not allowed the luxury of dignity. Under the dominion and bad example of their masters, the Chinese people have lost their traditional virtues. In a world of “struggle for survival” they make recourse to lies and violence, just like their masters. China became a threat to the world.

The world must have had opportunity to be aware of all this, but they may have never heard about the duty of the “ethical investment” and “ethical consumption”, until they realize that they were accomplices in nourishing a dangerous monster.


Deng Xiaoping the initiator of China’s State capitalism used to say that for the nation to become rich you must allow somebody to get rich first. But who can be those first to become rich and for how long? Obviously those in power, the CCP people, and once they become rich they are more powerful, and they can stay that way for ever.

Now, for the CCP from being the capitalists exploiting their countrymen to being the imperialists exploiting the other countries there is just one step.

“One Belt, One Road” project (the modern “silk road”). Xi Jinping presents himself to many Asian and African nations as the saviour, the one who can free them from the poverty in which they were left by their colonizers.

“We lend you money, specially to build the infrastructures which are the foundation of progress” (The Communists “lend” money, they never make “gifts”).

“We provide you with expertise and we send the workers to do the job” (Obviously you have to pay for all this. That means the borrowed money goes back to China).

When they are not able to pay back the money, they are requested to pay with monopoly rights and privileges, or even concession of territories and ports (for 99 years).

The new colonizers are worse than the old ones!


A pandemic exploded, a world disaster. It is an awakening for everybody.

It’s time we have a hard look at the journey in history of our humanity. Can we be proud of our scientific progress, of the many possibilities of more consumption? All a sudden we are losing everything and find ourselves powerless.

Now we realize how more important is the truth, our right to information and the freedom of expression.

In close contact with death we are encouraged to pursue the human and gospel values with more determination.

We discover that the real heroes are not those we use to admire on the screen, but those who sacrifice themselves in serving the sick, those who take care to keep clear and healthy our environment.

Finally, we appreciate our faith which teaches us that we are children of God, brothers and sisters in the human family.

Thank you Lord, for this lesson from the pandemic.

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

緬甸籍貎波樞機與法籍神學家尚邦先生

貌波(Charles Bo)樞機,他是亞洲主教團聯會的主席,在有關新冠狀病毒大流行起源的國際辯論中,作出了戲劇性發言(UCAN 天亞社英文新聞網 4月2日),將主要責任逕直放到中國共產黨的頭上。他的勇氣使我感到驚訝,但這篇文章非常準確和公正,我對英文天主教媒體《The Tablet》積極地報導它感到欣慰。

在同一《天亞社英文新聞網》,法籍“神學家”彌額爾.尚邦(Michel Chambon)於4月20日發表了攻擊這位樞機的評論:〈貌波樞機在中國臉上吐口水〉。在這位“神學家”(?)帶有如此感性標題的文章中,我找不到任何神學的東西,而其內容對分辨事實毫無貢獻,甚至是自相矛盾。

他說:「我同意貌波樞機所說,謊言和宣傳已使世界各地數百萬人的生命處於危險之中。」其實這正是貌波樞機的文章的主要思想。

但尚邦說:「這是不準確的」,因為「西方政府也有責任,他們拒絕認真回應(已有的信息)。」 貌波樞機又正說了同樣的話:「大家會對各地政府作出批評。許多政府被指責,當他們看到冠狀病毒在武漢首次出現時,沒有做好準備。」他絶沒有迴避指出各地政府的錯失。

但貌波樞機還說:「(但)有一個政府因其做了不該的事,又沒有做該做的事,對疫情的散佈負有主要的責任(他們封鎖了訊息,並對“吹哨人”滅聲)。」

尚邦指責貌波樞機「以政治立場分裂世界」。那是毫無道理的。把那對人民造成災難的政權、和那政權的受害者、置於分裂的對立面是正確的,並不存在甚麼政治不政治。

接著是尚邦在文章中的一個驚人說法:「侮辱中國政權,也就是同時向支持它的國家(國民?)的臉上吐口水。」 任何對中國有一點認識的人都會失笑,並且覺得浪費了時間去閱讀這位“神學家”和“研究中國教會的人類學家”的文章。

如果法國人都像彌額爾.尚邦一樣,在歷史中從不會有過法國大革命了。

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言

Bo and Chambon

Cardinal Charles Bo made a dramatic intervention in the international debate about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic (UCA News April 2), laying the primary responsibility squarely on the door of Chinese Communist Party. His courage surprised me, but the article is very accurate and fair. I am happy that “The Tablet” reported it very positively.

On the same UCA News (April 20) a French “theologian” Michel Chambon came out to attack the Myanmar’s Cardinal: “Cardinal Bo spits in China’s face”. I could not find anything theological in the article of this “theologian”, with such an emotional title, and its content is gratuitous and even self-contradictory.

He says: “I agree with Cardinal Bo that lies and propaganda have put millions of lives around the world in danger.” That’s precisely the main substance of Cardinal Bo’s article.

But Chambon says “it is inaccurate”, because “Western Governments are also responsible, they refused to take (the available information) seriously”. Again Cardinal Bo said the same thing: “Criticisms can be made of authorities everywhere, many Governments are accused of failing to prepare when they first saw the corona virus emerge in Wuhan.”

But Cardinal Bo says also “there is one Government that has primary responsibility for what it has done and what it has failed to do (they suppressed the news and silenced the whistleblowers)”.

Chambon accuses Bo of “politically dividing the world”. That is gratuitous. The one who inflicts calamity on people, and his victims are rightly put on two opposed sides of the division, but there is nothing political in this.

And here comes the astonishing statement in Chambon’s article: “Insulting the China regime is also spitting in the face of the nation which supports it”. Anybody with a little knowledge of China would laugh at it and consider the time wasted in reading this “theologian” and “anthropologist studying the Church in China”.

With people like Michel Chambon there would never have been a French revolution.

分類: 其他 | 發佈留言