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.


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。


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。



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。


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.

追悼余理謙神父逾越彌撒 (2020年4月20日)











(一) 人生是一個旅程,人生是一塲戰爭。旅程就要對住目的,戰爭就要堅持崗位。


(二) 各位兄弟姊妹,教會說:在追思彌撒中講道的主題不該是亡者,而是天主的道理。既然今天我們追念的亡者是一位司鐸,我還是讓他給我們講天主的道理。



(三) 現在網上參與這禮儀的兄弟姊妹,多數是正義和平委員會的成員或支持者。


(四) 在今天特別情況下的這樣安排,不允許我們讓多位兄弟姊妹出來,以余神父的生平為他的訓導作見証。(希望日後有機會)


(1) 余神父維護公義特別是他對弱勢者的倍加眷愛。



(2) 我在主教任內雖然已並不年輕,很喜歡在身邊還有幾位長者,真如在家庭中,長者的臨在帶來安全感。那時有艾巧智神父(Fr. Einaudi)、明鑑理神父(Fr. Mencarini)、力理得神父(Fr. Lerda),他們都是教區的大功臣,他們同我並不多說話,但一個點頭,一個微笑給我很大的支持。當他們一個一個離開我們歸返天鄉,我很失落。


(五) 有一次他說:「我想不到你一位慈幼會士竟這樣……」我說:「這樣什麼?這樣出位?」他的印象好像慈幼會士素來保守,我不怪他。而且他明顯是在鼓勵我繼續參與社會。

今天我卻能反過來向余神父說一句使他很高興的話:「我也很詫異在一百萬、二百萬為民主自由遊行的香港人中,竟見到了他的一位兄弟,九十多歲的劉勝義神父(Fr. Russell)。


(六) 今天新冠形肺炎並沒有使強權政府降低他們對抗爭者的大力鎮壓,勇武派的、和理非的,他們都不放過,讓我們把一切放在天主手中。





~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~






我很自然地聯想起一支意文的聖誕歌,其中有一句常使我很感動:“Ahi, quanto ti costò l’avermi amato!”(中文是:噢,為了愛我,你付出了多大的代價!但意文唱起來特別動人)。我再三回味了教宗那天的講道。


聖週二(四月七日)教宗在彌撒開始時說「耶穌被法律學士窮追猛打,無罪的他被判了罪,他們對他窮追猛打(教宗說了三次accanimento: si sono accaniti contro di lui, è stato giudicato sotto accanimento, con accanimento)。

就在幾小時前佩爾樞機George Pell)在澳洲寃枉地坐了400多天監,終於被宣布無罪。教宗沒有提佩爾樞機的名,但我們有理由以為教宗說話時想到了他。教宗很信任佩爾樞機,把清理教廷財務的大任交了給他,佩爾樞機勇敢地回到澳洲面對法庭,經過很長、很彎曲的「旅程」終於他被宣告無罪,教宗一定很「高興」。

看看當天教廷新聞處的報告卻看不到有什麼「高興」(可能一份這樣的報告不能用任何情緒化的詞語?)。報告說「教廷con favore接受到這消息」。con favore當然可以譯成「樂於」或「滿意」,但也可以有較低程度的意義:「認同」或「贊成」(它的反面也就是「反對」)。


有人訪問了佩爾樞機(Andrew Bolt, Sky News)




—    以為可能有問題(possibility

—    以為問題相當可能真有probability

—    真有事實facts






在結束這些「默想」和「聯想」時,讓我們首先在我們心內找出那些教宗稱為「小小的負賣者」,我們的不忠,然後哀求充滿仁慈的「痛苦的僕人」耶穌,既然他為我們付出了這麼多,請他不要讓他的苦難被浪費(tantus labor non sit cassus)!




(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.