平安抵岸全靠祂

Deputy Editor-in-chief of the Sunday Examiner

I gave you the dead-line 16 May, some kind person asked me to move it to 23 May, but what I find now is no apology at all.

Please, you can ignore me, but don’t take me for a fool.

You say: the two articles were neither the official stand of the Church nor of the Sunday Examiner, and you apologize for the confusion created.

What confusion? Have you made them to appear as the official stand of the Church? Have you made them to appear as the official stand of Sunday Examiner? No, you did not.

What you did and for which you have to apologize is the fact that you have willfully chosen to publish those two articles, one of which is an arrogant and preposterous insult to the two popes we so deeply venerate and love, and the other is a biased and untruthful criticism of a CDF statement, which is faithful to Catholic moral teaching that homosexual partnership can not be blessed as marriage, but in the same time (as you were forced to admit in your following piece of news) it calls the Christian community to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, because no one can be excluded from the care and love of the Church.

I am justified to say that you did it willfully and not as a casual overlook, because you had thousand possibilities of choice, but you chose those two poisonous pieces.

It betrays a seriously wrong mindset, for which you (or the one who has to take the responsibility for you) are to be considered as a dangerous person and unfit for the job, which is to give healthy food to the faithful who read this our paper.

Either you resign or I should warn the faithful to avoid reading the paper.

An enraged old man

Cardinal Joseph Zen

在三月廿八日的Sunday Examiner（英文公教報）（第十二頁全頁）一篇從UCAN（天亞社）轉載的文章使我又震驚，又忿怒。他們怎麼可以把那篇高傲地侮辱我們兩位教宗（若望保祿二世和本篤十六世）的文章登在我們的Sunday Examiner上？！

在四月四日、四月十一日的Sunday Examiner，我不見有人出來抗議，四月十六日我就在我博客上作了一次抗議。

接着來的Sunday Examiner（四月十八日）（第十二頁全頁）一篇，又是由UCAN ／ La Croix International轉載的，非常偏激的文章使我更害怕Sunday Examiner根本是有計劃用這些文章來毒害我們的教友（各位兄弟姊妹要知道，現在的天亞社不是以前的天亞社，La Croix International和La Croix也不是同一件事）。

今期（四月廿五日）的Sunday Examiner轉載了一篇報告，看來是為改正前一篇文章的偏激言論。大概是「堅道十六號」的權貴看了我的博客吧！

但還有人應該出來解釋發生了的是什麼事，是誰讓那兩篇文章被登出在我們的Sunday Examiner上？是那副總編輯Fr. Josekutty Mathew？是總編輯何嘉麗女士？是蔡神父？是……？應該有人出來解釋並道歉，否則我們就接受一切，繼續吞下藏毒的Sunday Examiner？

I could not believe my eyes when I spotted on Sunday Examiner (28 March, page 12) a full page article copied form UCAN, in which the author was incredibly arrogant in insulting our beloved and highly respected Pope J.P. II and Benedict XVI. Seeing no protest appearing on the following two issues (4 April, 11 April) I posted one on my blog on 16 April.

The following issue of Sunday Examiner (18 April, page 12) reproduced  another full page article from UCAN / La Croix (for those who do not know the facts, this UCAN is no more the old UCAN, and the La Croix is La Croix International, two rather different entities). It only confirmed my fear that our Sunday Examiner has a plan of feeding our readers with similar poisonous rubbish.

Today’s issue of Sunday Examiner (25 April, page 12) reports a piece of “news” from Vatican CNS which seems to be a very much needed correction of the previous article. Maybe the people at 16 Caine Road have visited my blog.

But they still owe us an explanation of who were those responsible for the articles on issues 28 March and 18 April (Fr. Josekutty Mathew? Ms. Susanne Ho? Fr. Choy? ….) Somebody must take the responsibility and apologize! Otherwise should our faithful still support Sunday Examiner?

奇怪的事太多了，奇怪的言論也日日傳播，但我們可以習以為常，不必理會嗎？

在三月廿八日的 Sunday Examiner（英文公教報），12頁，有一篇文章這樣開始：「我們很多人記得在教宗聖若望保祿二世在任時及教宗本篤退休前那些日子，我們怎樣生活在壓迫下。那兩位教宗束縛教會，嚴厲禁止言論自由並阻止實行梵二大公會議的某些決議。」

真不可思議，太過份了！他們難道以為香港教友會忍聲吞下這類高傲而侮辱性的胡說嗎？

我實在很忙碌，希望有人會出來在同一媒體上作一個強烈的抗議，但並沒發生。難道現在祇有菲籍姊妹們看 Sunday Examiner 嗎？

但我知道以前也有許多別處的教友對我們的 Sunday Examiner 很有信心，而 Sunday Examiner 那時對 UCA News（天亞社）也可以很有信心，但現在情形很不同了。

那末我不能不大聲疾呼：有人該出來解釋，該道歉！

那篇整頁文章的作者是孟買的一位神父，但文章刊於 UCA News 而 UCA News 卻作出聲明：「此文純屬作者看法，未必代表 UCAN 的官方立場」。

那是謊言！

粗略看看Sunday Examiner主編為讀者選擇的文章，我怕本港這刊物已附屬於 UCAN（今日的UCAN）及 La Croix International（十字架報）了。

其實影響這一切的是「今日之星」Fr. Michael Kelly, SJ，天亞社的總裁也是「曾」很有名的 La Civiltà Cattolica（公教文明雜誌）英文版的主編。他是教宗方濟各「密友」Fr. Spadaro的朋友！

UCAN 那聲明不是真話，那篇文章十足代表上述兩刊物的官方立場，作者祇是比較率直、放縱地把那些九流謬論高調播放了出來。

他以為識得把 orthodoxy 和 orthopraxis 對立起來真了不起了（其實教宗本篤不是說過：「一個沒有以真理為基礎的愛是一個空殼，你能把任何什麼東西放入去」）。

他似乎說一切問題是因着天主教神父的獨身制（連教宗方濟各也沒有這麼果斷地說過）。

還有那 “Sinodality”，我們在聖經和傳統裡都找不到這件東西，多謝 Fr. Myron J. Pereira的指示，才知道原來那就是今天在德國教會正開始實行的（但這並不來自梵二大公會議〔難道梵二已是過時的了嗎？〕）。

教友們！是時候我們聲明我們選擇屬於哪個教會！

 

原文：http://www.examiner.org.hk/2021/03/26/whats-coming-next-from-a-man-from-a-far-country/features/

 

Incredible things keep happening today in the world; incredible things are being said and written, but should we just let everything go, as if all this was normal?

I read on page 12 of Sunday Examiner 28 March 2021: “Many of us still remember how depressed we all were during the last days of the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. Both he and his predecessor Pope St. John Paul II had fettered the Church, clamping down harshly on freedom of expression and sabotaging several Vatican Council initiatives.”

How incredible, how outrageous! Do they expect the Hong Kong readers to swallow such arrogant and insulting nonsense?

Being very busy, I left to others to make some strong protest on the following issues of the paper. But nothing appeared! Maybe nobody today, except our Philippino sisters, read the S.E. anymore?!

But there used to be many foreign readers who used to trust S.E., which could (for a long time) trust UCAN.

So I feel my duty of conscience to sound the alarm and call the people responsible for explaining and apologizing.

The full-page article is signed by a certain priest in Mumbai, but the article appeared on UCAN, with the declaration that “the views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCAN.”

Lie, Lie, Lie!

A cursory glance at the articles, chosen by our Sunday Examiner’s Deputy Editor in Chief to feed its readers, makes me suspect that our weekly paper is going to be a subsidiary of UCAN (today’s UCAN) and of La Croix International.

Behind all this is our new star Fr. Michael Kelly SJ, executive director of UCA News and editor of the English edition of the (once) prestigious “La Civiltà Cattolica,” so a friend of the friend of Pope Francis, Fr. Spadaro.

UCAN’s disclaimer is a lie. The article is perfectly faithful to the spirit of today’s UCAN and La Croix International. The author of the article is only a candid messenger, blatantly shouting some common places.

He is proud to oppose orthopraxis (compassion) to orthodoxy (faith) [Pope Benedict says that “love” without foundation on “truth” is an empty shell you can fill with anything!].

He seems to be putting all the blames on the “celibacy” of the clergy [But even Pope Francis abstained from doing that].

And the “Sinodality,” a word we don’t find in the Holy Scripture, neither in the Tradition, but thanks to Fr. Myron J. Pereira, SJ, we know it to mean what we see being practiced nowadays in Germany [but this is not in continuity with the Vatican II (which should belong already to the past?)].

Dear brothers and sisters living in Hong Kong, it is time we declare to which Church we want to belong!

 

Original text: http://www.examiner.org.hk/2021/03/26/whats-coming-next-from-a-man-from-a-far-country/features/

他講了一些難得的真話，講了一些明顯不符事實的話，又講了一些自我矛盾的話。

教廷國務院秘書長（也就是教廷外長）在接受《America》訪問時額外坦誠地說了一些使我們更有理由堅持我們立場的話。

(１). 他說：“the Holy See actually negotiate with a very, very small group of people from that (huge) structure (of chinese republic). So it is quite difficult to understand what the impact is, or what they take back to Beijing or what we bring to Beijing.”（恐怕他想說 “what we bring to Rome”？）中梵談判祇「在某一等級」。

也就是說並不到政府最高層，那末那2018年的秘密協議是誰簽的？不是兩方外交部的副外長代表兩方政府簽的嗎？如果不是，那末祇在哪個層面生效？這是非常嚴重的聲明，秘書長是否犯了大錯，說了真話？又問：那歷史性的「兩外長握手禮」又代表什麼？並不真有什麼重要了？

(２). 他說：“The Holy See does not have a policy, a diplomatic policy, of denunciation almost anywhere in the world.” 教廷並沒有外交原則為世界任何冒犯人權的國家提出指摘。

但教宗多次也作了嚴厲的指摘。秘書長難道忘記了比約十一世反納粹政府的 “mit brennender Sorge”，反法西斯政府的 “non abbiamo bisogno” 及比約十二世的 “Humani generis”？

還有那些教宗比約十二世指摘中國無神政府的 Cupimus in primis（1952）Ad Sinarum gentes（1954）。

直至極溫和慈祥的本篤十六世，在他2007年致中國內的天主教子民的信中，也清澈而決斷地說：「與合法的政權持續衝突並不能解決現存的問題。但同時，當政權不恰當地干涉教會的信仰和教律時，我們也不能就此屈從。」（第四章第七節）

(３). 他說：“you have to ask what effect a statement is going to have. I don’t think that grandstanding statements can be terribly effective.” 你作一聲明時該問這聲明會有什麼效果。我不以為一些大聲指摘的言論會有什麼了不起的效果。

但（一）教廷不還是作了這樣的「言論」嗎？（見上）

    （二）如果要期望有好效果才作出聲明，那末教廷真的幾乎什麼也不該說了。

    （三）而且：什麼是好效果，什麼是壞效果？按信德的角度還是按世俗的利害？

    （四）聖經不是說真理常該宣講的嗎（不論合時不合時 opportune et importune）？！

    （五）對緬甸政府的指摘未必會見效，但對中國和香港的緘默卻重重傷了無數忠誠信友的心！

(４). 他說：“democracy has different forms…democracy gets into difficulties if that culture is very superficial.” 民主能有不同方式，如果某地方的文化膚淺，民主會有問題。

難道他以為香港還不配有民主？？

(５). 他說：“Catholic community (in H.K.) in itself is significantly divided” 教廷不易任命香港主教，因為香港內部也分裂。

（一）那末，一直分裂存在，教廷什麼也不能做了？新主教也無限期不會有了？

（二）分裂是勢均力敵嗎？其實人民都站在抗爭民主自由的一邊，而親中的也是為了服從教區當局，而教區當局莫非為服從 Parolin？

(６). 他說：“the responsibility (for the appointment of the Bishop) is with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.” 他不知香港幾時有新主教，因為任命香港主教是傳信部處理的。

謝謝你，Archbishop Gallagher 現在我們知道向誰寫信了。

教友們，快寫信給 Cardinal Tagle 吧！

親愛的薩拉樞機閣下：

聽到這個令人難以置信的新聞，我不禁感到痛心和憤怒：他們禁止了在聖伯多祿大殿舉行私人彌撒！？

若不是新冠病毒限制了出行，我會第一時間飛去羅馬，跪在聖瑪爾大之家（現在教宗的住所）門前，直至聖父把這法令撤回。

每當我來到羅馬，正正是在聖伯多祿大殿開的私人彌撒最能堅定我的信念：準時七點，我進入祭衣房〔我幾乎總會碰到原為總主教的保祿．薩爾迪樞機（Paolo Sardi），這位充滿聖德的人〕，有年輕神父會趨前，助我穿上祭披，然後他們會領我到一個祭台（在大殿內或在墓室中，但這對我毫無分別，我們就在聖伯多祿大殿！）。我認為這些彌撒，是我生命中最充滿情感和情緒的祭獻，有時還在淚中為我們在中國活著的殉道者祈禱（他們如今已被羅馬教廷拋棄，並推入分裂教會的懷抱〔2020年6月那份文件也來自羅馬教廷，沒有署名和沒有經信理部審視〕。）

現在是時候處理國務院過大的權力了。不能再讓這些褻瀆的手插入全球信徒共享的家！就讓他們與謊言之父玩世俗的外交吧，就讓他們把國務院「做成了賊窩」吧，但千萬不要再來騷擾虔誠的天主子民！

「那時，正是黑夜！」（若13:30）

你的兄弟

陳日君

 

（由Lucia Cheung翻譯）

To His Eminence

Card. Robert Sarah

Dear Eminence,

Pain and indignation invade my heart to hear certain incredible news: They have forbidden private masses in St. Peter’s!?

If it were not for the restrictions imposed by the Coronavirus, I would take the first flight to come to Rome and get on my knees in front of the door of Santa Marta (now the Papal residence) until the Holy Father has this edict withdrawn.

It was the thing that strengthened my faith most every time I came to Rome: at exactly seven o’clock I would enter the sacristy (where I almost always would meet that holy man, the Archbishop, then Cardinal Paolo Sardi); a young priest would come forward and would help me to dress in the vestments, and then they take me to an altar (in the Basilica proper or in the grottoes, that would make no difference to me, we were in St. Peter’s Basilica!). I think these were the masses that, in my life, I celebrated with more fervor and emotion, sometimes with tears praying for our living martyrs in China (now abandoned and pushed into the bosom of the schismatic church by the “Holy See” [as that document of June 2020 was presented without signatures and without the revisions of the Congregation for Doctrine]).

It is time to reduce the excessive power of the Secretariat of State. Remove these sacrilegious hands from the communal home for all the Faithful in the world! Let them content themselves with playing worldly diplomacy with the father of lies. Let them make the Secretariat of State “a den of thieves”, But leave the devoted people of God alone!

“It was night!” (John 13:30)

Your Brother

Joseph Zen, SDB

Translation by Bree A. Dail

A Sua Eminenza

Card. Robert Sarah

Care Eminenza,

Dolore ed indignazione invadono il mio cuore a sentire certe incredibili notizie: hanno proibito le messe private in S. Pietro!?

Se non fosse per le restrizioni imposte dalla Coronavirus io prenderei il primo volo per venire a Roma e mettermi in ginocchio davanti alla porta di Santa Marta finchè il Santo Padre faccia ritirare quell’editto.

Era la cosa che più fortificava la mia fede ogni volta che venivo a Roma: alle sette precise si entra in sagrestia (incontravo quasi sempre il sant’uomo, l’Arcivescovo e poi Cardinale Paolo Sardi), un giovane prete si fa avanti e mi aiuta a vestire i paramenti, poi mi portano ad un altare (in Basilica o nelle grotte non fa differenza per me, siamo nella Basilica di San Pietro!). Penso che sono state le messe che, in vita mia, ho celebrato con più fervore e commozione, qualche volta con le lacrime pregando per i nostri martiri viventi in Cina (ora abbandonati e spinti nel seno della chiesa scismatica dalla “Santa Sede” [cosi si presentava quel documento del giugno 2020 senza firme e senza la revisione della Congregazione per la Dottrina]).

È momento di ridimensionare lo strapotere della Segreteria di Stato. Via le mani sacrileghe dalla casa commune di tutti i fedeli del mondo! Si accontentino di giuocare la diplomazia mondana con il padre della menzogna. Facciano pure della Segreteria di Stato “un covo di ladri”, Ma lascino in pace il devoto popolo di Dio!

“Era notte!” (Giovanni 13:30)

suo fratello

Giuseppe Zen, SDB

前幾天（好像還是昨天）我看了蘋果《名采》的一篇文章，心血來潮寫了四百多字。昨天早上我把《名采》頁放在背囊裡，卻整天未有機會看它。

今天我看中了在週六《名采》上郭梓祺的「願一切行人平安早得歸還」。我估中了，那「行人」說的果然是我渴望能探望的手足。但想不到在文章下半篇還有別的收獲。

那短故事〈復活節星期日〉：獄中犯人沒有餅、沒有酒舉行的彌撒默劇，使我想起在上海獄中1955年聖誕夜，那些彼此見不到面的囚友卻同聲唱了聖誕歌。

還有，那「恐懼的歷史」：一隻粗心的動物誤傳了訊息，說「月亮重生，你們不會」；原來的訊息是「真如月亮會重生，你們一樣會」。

我太愛月亮了，每夜睡前會去天台看看它露面嗎，問候它，託它把我的祝福帶給鐵窗後的兄弟姊妹。去年月餅送不成，希望今年中秋月亮更圓，更希望那時手足們都能和親人在家中嘗月餅了。

郭文旁邊是杜杜的《布萊頓硬糖》。見到說的是格林格雷（Graham Greene），我又忍不住，一直讀下去了。

我不會鼓勵所有教友去閱讀格林格雷（他的傑作是The Power and the Glory）。但在今天這正邪惡鬥的世界裡，倒希望成年的教友能有機會閱讀他的作品（他堅信：有時正邪難辨，但主的仁慈在一切之上）。

杜杜文的最後一句話（小說中一位老神父的話）：「教會並沒有要我們相信有任何靈魂被擯棄在慈悲之外」。請教友看看天主教教理第1037，尤其是伯多祿後書3:9「天主並不願意任何人喪亡，只願眾人回心轉意」。千萬勿求天主罰某人下地獄，祂期望的是全勝：人人升天堂！

我教了幾年末世論，也順便給大家介紹Hans Urs von Balthasar 的 “Dare we hope that all men be saved?”

---

又心血來潮，寫了五百多字。怎麼辦？這樣下去我一天廿四小時肯定不夠用了。豈不是應該決心戒絕閱讀《蘋果》的《名采》嗎？但又怎麼捨得？