c*****s
发帖数: 993 | 1 立此存照。
二零一八年一月廿九日
新聞界的各位朋友
亞洲通訊社日前報導了一些消息，關於中國大陸天主教某些合法主教被教廷要求辭職，
為讓位給非法的，甚或被絕罰的，所謂主教。接着，在媒體上出現了一些不同的陳述和
解釋，相當混亂，大家又知道我早前曾去羅馬，就都來問我能否為事件作出一些澄清。
其實去年十月汕頭莊建堅主教已收到教廷的指示，他請我幫他聯絡教廷。我托人親手把
他的信送去傳信部，又請傳信部部長轉交一份副本給教宗，不過我不知道那副本是否到
達教宗枱上。還好那時韓大輝總主教還在羅馬，他向教宗道別時有機會和他談了汕頭及
閩東的事，原來教宗並不知情，且答應韓總主教他會關注。
聽了韓總主教轉告我教宗說的話我放心了。但十二月發生的事使我更加吃驚。當傷心而
年老的莊主教請我把他對「教廷赴北京代表團」所傳訊息向教宗回應的信傳去羅馬，我
當然一口答應了。但我有什麼辦法能保證他的信能到教宗手裡（我自己的許多信也不肯
定是否到了他手裡）？
為能肯定教宗聽到我們的聲音，我毫不猶疑決定去羅馬走一趟。我一月九日晚上啟程，
十日清早到羅馬正好及時趕到（該說「稍遲到」）參與教宗每星期三公開接見教友的
udienza。在udienza完結前樞機和主教們能向教宗行「親手禮」並交換兩句話。我就在
這機會上把信件交在教宗手裡（莊主教的信，我的意文譯文及我的一封信），我對教宗
說我來羅馬就是為能把信交到他手裡，希望他有空看看。
我本來希望我的出現不要引起太多注意，但我的遲到使大家格外注意到我的在場。其實
現在誰也可以在網上見到梵蒂岡電視台的錄影（有些傳媒報導錯了，udienza是在保祿
六世大禮堂，不是在伯多祿廣場；我雖稍遲到，卻沒有需要「在寒冷中排隊等候入場」
）。
在羅馬我見過亞洲通訊的貝納德（B. Cervellera）神父和他談了我來羅馬的目的，但
我請他不要寫任何新聞，他答應了。但現在既然另有人向他詳細報告了汕頭的事情，我
也不介意肯定那報告是正確的（至於那報告中說「相信」那位率領教廷到北京見莊主教
一組人的那位主教是克勞迪奧‧瑪利亞‧切利（Claudio Maria Celli），
我不知道他以什麼身份參與了這事，但我也有理由「相信」那人正是切利總主教）。
在這關鍵的時刻，訊息又混亂，我既直接知道汕頭的事，又間接知道閩東的事，覺得有
責任分享我對事件的瞭解，關心教會的人有權到知道真相。那末我這樣做會不會洩漏一
些秘密呢？我以為在這事上「知情權」跨越「保密的責任」。
抱着這信念我決定繼續分享事情的發展。那天（一月十日）下午我接到「聖瑪爾大之家
」來電，告訴我星期五（一月十二日）傍晚五時半教宗會接見我（在教廷新聞版上這「
接見」，祇在星期日才登出來）那正是我85歲的最後一天，上天給我一份大禮物！（其
實教宗那天正在預備智利、秘魯之行，一定很忙。）
見面約半小時，我說話也不太有次序，但我以為我成功讓教宗意識到了他在中國的忠誠
兒女們的憂慮。
我對教宗問了一個我在信上也提出的問題：他是否已有機會，如他答應了韓主教的，處
理了那些事情？教宗說：「有，我告訴了他們（教廷的高官）不要製造另一個敏真諦（
Mindszenty）事件！」我現在這樣說不是洩漏了秘密嗎？但我以為我那時是代表國內受
苦的兄弟在教宗面前，教宗的話更該是為了安慰和鼓勵他們而不是我！
我覺得教宗的答覆實在不能更對題，更富意義。（Mindszenty樞機在共產政權下的匈牙
利首都任主教，也是全匈牙利的首席主教。他被共黨監禁數年，受盡折磨。在1956年「
短暫革命成功」的日子，革命者把他從監獄救出。在紅軍鎮壓革命前，他到美國大使館
找到庇護。在政府的壓力下教廷命令他離開祖國，並立即任命一位政府歡迎的主教接他
的職位。）
我以為新聞界的朋友及我們國內的兄弟有權利知道這真理。
目下我們該做的是為教宗祈禱。傳統的那支 “Oremus” 特別適用。
“Oremus pro Pontifice Nostro Francisco. Dominus conservet eum et vivificet
eum et beatum faciat eum in terra et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum
ejus.”
———————-
我順此也回答一些媒體朋友的疑問
1. 合法主教們為何拒絕辭職？
他們並不反對辭職，有些老主教，雖然在國內退休年齡的法例從來沒有執行，他們多次
請教廷給予接班人，但不得回覆。另一些已由教廷任命了他們的接班人，甚至也已有教
宗委任狀，教廷也不准他們進行祝聖，為免得罪政府。
他們反對的是讓非法的及被絕罰的所謂主教來接班。
2. 我知道的是汕頭和閩東的事。還有另外五位非法的，教廷是否也準備一起承認他們
合法我不知道。不過似乎教廷也計劃認可四川的雷世銀。我見過一封信的副本，一位年
長的女士，已退休的大學教授，很熟悉國內教會的，她寫信給切利總主教，勸他千萬不
要贊同把雷世銀合法化。
3. 我是悲觀者？我可以承認，但我的悲觀是基於我長期的直接經驗。在1989至1996年
的七年中，我每年六個月在大陸地上修院教書，親眼見證政府如何奴化，侮辱我們的主
教。
現在也沒有理由改變我的悲觀：政府訂出了更嚴格的宗教規則，有些早已存在而不執行
的規則也要嚴格執行了。從二月一日起地下教友絕不許參與地下神父的彌撒了（大家等
着看吧）！
4. 那些說現在教廷的政策是為避免裂教，那真可笑極了。現在獨立自辦的教會客觀上
早已是裂教了，歷代教宗避免用「裂教」兩字祇因為在這「裂教」裡許多不是自願的，
而是被逼的，有的還陽奉陰違。現在教廷逼所有教友加入這「裂教」，完成「合一」，
且給予教宗的祝福。甘願在那裂教中做奴才的終於可以挺胸抬頭，他們投注成功了；有
些一直堅持不入愛國會的，現在也可能放心到地上去了。（教廷說沒有問題了！）
5. 解決中梵多年的敵對不是好事嗎？但和一個獨裁政權能有協議嗎？他們要你投降或
你必要被磨難（聖若瑟能和黑落德王達成協議嗎？）
6. 教廷目下的政策可以說是負賣教會嗎？當然，若看看這幾年他們所做的，我不能不
這樣說。
7. 有教會事務專家說：以為習近平要收緊宗教政策不合邏輯。但我們這裡不是在討論
邏輯，而是想澄清一些事實，鐵一般的事實。
8. 我是不是中梵修和的最大阻礙？如果那協議是不好的，我絕不介意做成其最大的阻
礙！
http://oldyosef.hkdavc.com/?p=971
Monday, 29 January, 2018
Dear Friends in the Media,
Since AsiaNews has revealed some recent facts in the Church in mainland
China, of legitimate bishops being asked by the “Holy See” to resign and
make place for illegitimate, even explicitly excommunicated, “bishops”,
many different versions of the facts and interpretations are creating
confusion among the people. Many, knowing of my recent trip to Rome, are
asking me for some clarification.
Back in October, when Bishop Zhuang received the first communication from
the Holy See and asked me for help, I send someone to bring his letter to
the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, with,
enclosed, a copy for the Holy Father. I don’t know if that enclosed copy
reached the desk of the Holy Father. Fortunately, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai
Fai was still in Rome and could meet the Pope in a fare-well visit. In that
occasion, he brought the two cases of Shantou and Mindong to the knowledge
of the Holy Father. The Holy Father was surprised and promised to look into
the matter.
Given the words of the Holy Father to Archbishop Savio Hon, the new facts in
December were all the more a shocking surprise to me. When the old
distressed Bishop Zhuang asked me to bring to the Holy Father his answer to
the message conveyed to him by the “Vatican Delegation” in Beijing, I
simply could not say “No”. But what could I do to make sure that his
letter reach the Holy Father, while not even I can be sure that my own many
letters did reach him.
To make sure that our voice reached the Holy Father, I took the sudden
decision of going to Rome. I left Hong Kong the night of 9th January,
arriving in Rome the early morning of 10th January, just in time (actually,
a bit late) to join the Wednesday Public Audience. At the end of the
audience, we Cardinals and Bishops are admitted to the “bacia mano” and I
had the chance to put into the hands of the Holy Father the envelop, saying
that I was coming to Rome for the only purpose of bringing to him a letter
of Bishop Zhuang, hoping he can find time to read it (in the envelop there
was the original letter of the Bishop in Chinese with my translation into
Italian and a letter of mine).
For obvious reasons, I hoped my appearance at the audience would not be too
much noticed, but my late arrival in the hall made it particularly
noticeable. Anyway, now everybody can see the whole proceeding from the
Vatican TV (by the way, the audience was held in Paul VI Hall, not in St.
Peter’s Square and I was a little late to the audience, but did not have to
“wait in a queue, in a cold weather”, as some media erroneously reported).
When in Rome, I met Fr. Bernard Cervellera of AsiaNews. We exchanged our
information, but I told him not to write anything. He complied. Now that
someone else broke the news, I can agree to confirm it. Yes, as far as I
know, things happened just as they are related in AsiaNews (the AsiaNews
report “believes” that the Bishop leading the Vatican Delegation was Msgr.
Celli. I do not know in what official capacity he was there, but it is most
likely that he was the one there in Beijing).
In this crucial moment and given the confusion in the media, I, knowing
directly the situation of Shantou and indirectly that of Mindong, feel duty-
bound to share my knowledge of the facts, so that the people sincerely
concerned with the good of the Church may know the truth to which they are
entitled. I am well aware that in doing so I may talk about things which,
technically, are qualified as “confidential”. But my conscience tells me
that in this case the “right to truth” should override any such “duty of
confidentiality”.
With such conviction, I am going to share with you also the following:
In the afternoon of that day, 10th January, I received a phone-call from
Santa Marta telling me that the Holy Father would receive me in private
audience in the evening of Friday 12th January (though the report appeared
only on 14th January in the Holy See bulletin). That was the last day of my
85 years of life, what a gift from Heaven! (Note that it was the vigil of
the Holy Father’s departure for Chile and Peru, so the Holy Father must
have been very busy).
On that evening the conversation lasted about half an hour. I was rather
disorderly in my talking, but I think I succeeded to convey to the Holy
Father the worries of his faithful children in China.
The most important question I put to the Holy Father (which was also in the
letter) was whether he had had time “to look into the matter” (as he
promised Archbishop Savio Hon). In spite of the danger of being accused of
breach of confidentiality, I decide to tell you what His Holiness said: “
Yes, I told them (his collaborators in the Holy See) not to create another
Mindszenty case”! I was there in the presence of the Holy Father
representing my suffering brothers in China. His words should be rightly
understood as of consolation and encouragement more for them than for me.
I think it was most meaningful and appropriate for the Holy Father to make
this historical reference to Card. Josef Mindszenty, one of the heroes of
our faith. (Card. Josef Mindszenty was the Archbishop of Budapest, Cardinal
Primate of Hungary under Communist persecution. He suffered much in several
years in prison. During the short-lived revolution of 1956, he was freed
from prison by the insurgents and, before the Red Army crashed the
revolution, took refuge in the American Embassy. Under the pressure of the
Government he was ordered by the Holy See to leave his country and
immediately a successor was named to the likings of the Communist Government
).
With this revelation, I hope I have satisfied the legitimate “right to know
” of the media and of my brothers in China.
The important thing for us now is to pray for the Holy Father, very
fittingly by singing the traditional song “Oremus”:
Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco, Dominus conservet eum et vivificet
eum et beatum faciat eum in terra et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum
eius.
————————————-
Some explanations may still be in order.
1. Please, notice that the problem is not the resignation of the legitimate
Bishops, but the request to make place for the illegitimate and even
excommunicated ones. Many old underground Bishops, though the retirement age
law has never been enforced in China, have insistently asked for a
successor, but have never received any answer from the Holy See. Some others
, who have a successor already named, may be even already in possession of
the Bulla signed by the Holy Father, were ordered not to proceed with the
ordination for fear of offending the Government.
2. I have talked mainly of the two cases of Shantou and Mindong. I do not
have any other information except the copy of a letter written by an
outstanding Catholic lady, a retired University professor well-acquainted
with affairs of the Church in China, in which she warns Msgr. Celli against
pushing for the legitimization of “bishop” Lei Shi Ying in Sichuan.
3. I acknowledge myself as a pessimist regarding the present situation of
the Church in China, but my pessimism has a foundation in my long direct
experience of the Church in China. From 1989 to 1996 I used to spend six
months a year teaching in the various Seminaries of the official Catholic
community. I had direct experience of the slavery and humiliation to which
those our brother Bishops are subjected.
And from the recent information, there is no reason to change that
pessimistic view. The Communist Government is making new harsher regulations
limiting religious freedom. They are now strictly enforcing regulations
which up to now were practically only on paper (from the 1st of February
2018 attendance to Mass in the underground will no longer be tolerated).
4. Some say that all the efforts to reach an agreement is to avoid the
ecclesial schism. How ridiculous! The schism is there, in the Independent
Church! The Popes avoided using the word “schism” because they knew that
many in the official Catholic community were there not by their own free
will, but under heavy pressure. The proposed “unification” would force
everybody into that community. The Vatican would be giving the blessing on
the new strengthened schismatic Church, taking away the bad conscience from
all those who are already willing renegades and those others who would
readily join them.
5. Is it not good to try to find mutual ground to bridge the decades-long
divide between the Vatican and China? But can there be anything really “
mutual” with a totalitarian regime? Either you surrender or you accept
persecution, but remaining faithful to yourself (can you imagine an
agreement between St. Joseph and King Herod?)
6. So, do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in
China? Yes, definitely, if they go in the direction which is obvious from
all what they are doing in recent years and months.
7. Some expert on the Catholic Church in China is saying that it is not
logical to suppose a harsher religious policy from Xi Jinping. However, we
are not talking about logical thinking, but the obvious and crude reality.
8. Am I the major obstacle in the process of reaching a deal between the
Vatican and China? If that is a bad deal, I would be more than happy to be
the obstacle.
http://oldyosef.hkdavc.com/?p=967 | o*****p
发帖数: 2977 | 2 好。呵呵呵。其实让梵蒂冈进来有负面影响。他们自己这么瞎折腾挺好。 | w*p
发帖数: 16484 | 3 他这最后一句话的意思是不是梵蒂冈和中共的协议如果不合他的意，他打算对抗不合作？
【在 c*****s 的大作中提到】
: 立此存照。
: 二零一八年一月廿九日
: 新聞界的各位朋友
: 亞洲通訊社日前報導了一些消息，關於中國大陸天主教某些合法主教被教廷要求辭職，
: 為讓位給非法的，甚或被絕罰的，所謂主教。接着，在媒體上出現了一些不同的陳述和
: 解釋，相當混亂，大家又知道我早前曾去羅馬，就都來問我能否為事件作出一些澄清。
: 其實去年十月汕頭莊建堅主教已收到教廷的指示，他請我幫他聯絡教廷。我托人親手把
: 他的信送去傳信部，又請傳信部部長轉交一份副本給教宗，不過我不知道那副本是否到
: 達教宗枱上。還好那時韓大輝總主教還在羅馬，他向教宗道別時有機會和他談了汕頭及
: 閩東的事，原來教宗並不知情，且答應韓總主教他會關注。
| W*****B
发帖数: 4796 | 4 他跳出来是不是给双方上眼药搅局？本来双方在慢慢谈，很多细节不便披露。现在可好
，把教宗的裤衩也拔下来给人看。教宗本人和梵蒂冈内部的高层估计对这家伙也是烦的
要死吧？ | q*********o
发帖数: 1299 | 5 貌似是这个意思。不过对抗某个教皇即使在天主教内部也不算啥新鲜事吧。
作？
【在 w*p 的大作中提到】
: 他这最后一句话的意思是不是梵蒂冈和中共的协议如果不合他的意，他打算对抗不合作？
| h**o
发帖数: 1084 | 6 不太明白把维稳看得这么重的我党，在和梵蒂冈建交上为什么显得有点积极， 其实有
陈日君跳出来做黑脸正好， 也算临死前发挥点余热， 给党和人民做点贡献。 | c*********n
发帖数: 1282 | 7 这老狗纯属：螳臂挡车，不自量力。
果然跟湾湾是一伙的，都属于不知道自己几斤几两，太把自己当什么玩意了。 | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 8 对抗教皇就是对抗主
【在 q*********o 的大作中提到】
: 貌似是这个意思。不过对抗某个教皇即使在天主教内部也不算啥新鲜事吧。
:
: 作？
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 9 按照教规，陈日君要下地狱了
【在 c*********n 的大作中提到】
: 这老狗纯属：螳臂挡车，不自量力。
: 果然跟湾湾是一伙的，都属于不知道自己几斤几两，太把自己当什么玩意了。
| m********s
发帖数: 55301 | 10 居然敢对抗主的圣命？
当年主为了拯救世人(好人坏人)，宁愿自己被钉死在十字架上。这主教居然为了自己一
点私利就跳着脚跟教皇嚷嚷。 | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 11 主说了，让罗马的归罗马。他可好，想让罗马压制教皇。
【在 m********s 的大作中提到】
: 居然敢对抗主的圣命？
: 当年主为了拯救世人(好人坏人)，宁愿自己被钉死在十字架上。这主教居然为了自己一
: 点私利就跳着脚跟教皇嚷嚷。
| w*p
发帖数: 16484 | 12 他其实就是在执行他自己说的第8条
【在 W*****B 的大作中提到】
: 他跳出来是不是给双方上眼药搅局？本来双方在慢慢谈，很多细节不便披露。现在可好
: ，把教宗的裤衩也拔下来给人看。教宗本人和梵蒂冈内部的高层估计对这家伙也是烦的
: 要死吧？
| m********s
发帖数: 55301 | 13 这种主教连狗都不如。直接开除教籍，把他全家钉死在十字架上
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: 主说了，让罗马的归罗马。他可好，想让罗马压制教皇。
|
|
