主頁 » 羅馬教廷 » 陳日君樞機的公開信、梵蒂岡新聞稿、柏羅林樞機回應——立此存照 [With Updates]

陳日君樞機的公開信、梵蒂岡新聞稿、柏羅林樞機回應——立此存照 [With Updates]

此帖引述了陳日君樞機的公開信中英文版,以及同日梵蒂岡新聞處的回應。不評論,立此存照。

[更新]:加上了陳樞機的最新回應
[再更新]:加上國務卿帕羅林樞機的回覆
[再再更新]:加上陳日君樞機幾篇的回覆


cardinal_zen_stpeters

陳日君樞機

陳日君樞機的公開信 (中文版)

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。

  1. 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。

  2. 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)!

  1. 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!)

  2. 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?)

  3. 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。

  4. 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。

  5. 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!


Open Letter by Cardinal Zen (English)

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 12thJanuary (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).

  1. 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.

  2. 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?)

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


梵蒂岡新聞處 (English)

Declaration of the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke, 30.01.2018

With reference to widespread news on a presumed difference of thought and action between the Holy Father and his collaborators in the Roman Curia on issues relating to China, I am able to state the following:

“The Pope is in constant contact with his collaborators, in particular in the Secretariat of State, on Chinese issues, and is informed by them faithfully and in detail on the situation of the Catholic Church in China and on the steps in the dialogue in progress between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China, which he follows with special attention. It is therefore surprising and regrettable that the contrary is affirmed by people in the Church, thus fostering confusion and controversy”


陳日君樞機——答覆幾位記者朋友關於梵蒂岡國務院昨天發出的「聲明」(中文版) 2018.01.31

今天早晨我答應幾位記者朋友關於梵蒂岡國務院昨天發出的「聲明」,我會一次答覆他們的問題。

該「聲明」說了三件事

1.(直接):教宗知道他們在做什麼

2.(間接):教宗同意他們做的

3. 我的言論引起混亂和爭論

甲.

(1)其實我的文章中沒有說教宗不知道,但教宗確實對韓總主教說了「那小組為什麼沒有和我商量」。

(2)教宗對我說的話確實表示他和他們的看法不同,那末「聲明」既不可能懷疑教宗說了謊言,就是肯定我說了謊話。

我的文章說他們做了壞事(錯事?)卻沒有說他們說了謊,現在卻需要讀者判斷是我還是他們說了謊。

乙.如果他們強調的正是(2),那末也就是說教宗同意他們做的那些事。也就是要教宗為他們做的(壞)事負責了。那也就是我的文章想阻止的。

丙.我當然知道我的言論會引起爭論,但不是混亂,我希望爭論的結果是:大家承認他們現在做的是壞事(錯事?),他們該懸崖勒馬了。


帕罗林枢机谈“我们为什么与中国对话” (中文版)

圣座国务卿驳斥就正在与中国方面的接触问题对圣座的指责,强调“我们坚信中国教友们,得益于他们的信仰精神,他们会懂得认识到我们的行动是在对上主的信心激励下的,而不是回应世俗的逻辑”

种种迹象(包括不透明的举动、名副其实的政治操纵、破坏)表明,圣座与中华人民共和国政府的接触中可能会出现一些重要的进展。现在是倾听权威声音的时刻,帮助人们了解什么才是教宗和圣座心中真正关心的。他们所想的首先是中国的兄弟姐妹们,帮助驱散怀疑和人为的烟幕,从而脱离政治化的叙述去展望全部问题中教会的所思所想。为此,《梵蒂冈内部通讯》采访了教宗的国务卿皮埃罗帕罗林枢机。

Q: 尊敬的枢机,请您为我们谈谈圣座与中华人民共和国的对话?

众所周知,随着“新中国”的到来,教会在那个伟大国家的生活曾经经历了严重对立和十分痛苦的时刻。但是,自上个世纪八十年代以来,圣座同中华人民共和国的代表开始有了联系。这种联系几经波折和辗转。圣座始终本着牧灵的态度,寻求战胜对立、愿意与民事当局展开相互尊重的和建设性的对话。教宗本笃十六世在二OO七年给中国天主教的信中很好地体现了这种对话的精神,指出“与合法的政权持续冲突并不能解决现存的问题”。教宗方济各在任以来,正在进行的谈判完全是遵循这一路线的:建设性地向对话开放、忠实于教会的纯正传统。

Q: 圣座对这一对话有哪些具体的期待?

我首先要阐明一个前提:在中国,或许比任何一个地方,天主教徒们在无数艰难困苦中,懂得珍藏信仰的真正宝库,坚定不移地保持着主教们与伯多禄继承人圣统制共融的纽带,即信仰本身有形可见的保障。事实上,罗马主教与全体天主教主教的共融是涉及教会合一这一核心问题的:这不是教宗与中国主教或者宗座和民事当局的私事。综上所述,正在进行的对话中,圣座的主要目的恰恰是维护教会的共融、纯正的传统和恒定的教会纪律的共融。你看,中国不存在两个教会,而是两个蒙召走逐步修和的道路迈向合一的教友团体。为此,这不是两种对立的原则和机构维持长期的冲突,而是找到现实的牧灵解决办法,使天主教徒们善度他们的信仰、在中国的具体背景下共同继续福传事业。

Q: 您所谈到的共融涉及到了任命主教的复杂问题,而这一问题正在激起许多争议。就这一点可能达成的协议,能够以正确的方式解决中国教会的问题吗?

圣座了解也分担许多中国天主教徒所遭受的深重痛苦、以及他们为福音做出的慷慨见证。教会生活仍然有许多问题,这些问题不能一并得到解决。但是,在此框架下,主教的选择问题是关键的。此外,我们还不能忘记教会的自由以及主教的任命始终是圣座与各国关系中反复出现的议题。诚然,通过目前的接触与中国启动的历程是循序渐进的,还面临着许多意想不到的问题,就像还可能出现的新的紧急情况。平心而论,任何人都不能说有解决所有问题的完美办法。需要时间和耐心,才能治愈团体内部彼此造成的许多人身伤害。不幸的是,一定还会有许多要面对的误解、艰辛和磨难。但是,我们所有人都满怀信心,坚信一旦主教任命问题得到了相应的解决,其它的困难也就不再会阻挠中国天主教徒的彼此共融以及他们与教宗的共融。这是重要的事,是先教宗圣若望保禄二世和本笃十六世教宗非常期待和盼望的,也是今天方济各教宗远见卓识地继续的道路。

Q: 那么,什么才是圣座对中国当局的真正态度呢?

重申这一点是重要的:在与中国的对话中,圣座遵循的灵性方面的目的:做完完全全的天主教徒;感到自己是一名完完全全的天主教徒;同时,也是真正的中国人。本着坦诚和现实主义的态度,教会只要求更加平静地宣信自己的信仰,彻底终结漫长的对立时期,开启最大信任的空间、天主教徒为造福整个中国社会的益处做出积极贡献。诚然,今天还有许多尚未愈合的伤口。为了治疗这些伤口,需要用慈悲的香脂。如果要求某个人做出牺牲,无论大小,就应该让所有人都清楚这不是政治交换的代价,而是在为了更大益处、基督的教会的益处这一福音前景之中。我们希望,当上主愿意时,我们再也不用说中国教会合法的非法的地下的官方的主教了,而是兄弟手足之间的彼此相遇,重新学会合作与共融的表达方式。如果没有亲身善度这种经验,中国教会又怎么能重振福传道路、将上主的慰藉带给其他人呢?!如果没有做好宽恕的准备,那么不幸的是,便意味着还有其它利益要维护:可这不是福传精神的愿景。

Q: 如果是这种态度,也就没有一笔勾销过去还有今天的苦难的危险了?

不仅没有这种危险,恰恰相反。许多中国基督徒在纪念那些经受了不公的考验和迫害的殉道者时,会记得他们懂得把一切都交给天主,即使他们的人性是脆弱的。现在,敬礼这一见证、使他们的见证在现在结出硕果的最佳方式是在当前的中国天主教会团体生活中也要坚信上主耶稣。但这是不能用精神的或者脱离现实的方式来完成的。是在选择忠实于伯多禄继承人中完成的,本着孝爱的服从,即便是当并非一切都立刻十分明朗和可以理解时。再回到您的问题,这不是一笔勾销的问题,或者几乎神奇地铲除许多教友和牧人们所遭遇的苦难,而是在天主的帮助下,将无数考验人性和精神方面的资本投入到建设更加美好而友爱的未来中。中国天主教徒们迄今为止珍藏的精神,也正是今天支持他们走新道路的。

Q: 此时此刻,宗座可以给中国教友们一个建议、一个特别的要求吗?面向那些对可能的新进展感到高兴,也面向那些仍然困惑或者说持有异议的教友们?

我想以十分简单而明确的方式说教会永远不会忘记中国天主教徒们在过去和现在所经受的考验与磨难。这一切是普世教会的伟大宝藏。因此,我满怀着深厚的手足之情对中国天主教徒说:我们与你们同在,不仅藉着祈祷,也藉着每天努力伴随和支持你们走圆满共融的道路。为此,我们恳请你们,任何人都不要紧抱着对立的态度谴责弟兄,或者用过去作为借口煽动新的怨恨和封闭。相反,我们期望每个人都能满怀信心地展望教会的未来,超越各种人的局限。

Q: 尊敬的枢机,您真的相信这是可能的吗?您的信心是奠定在什么基础上的?

我坚信一点,信心不是外交或者谈判力量的产物。信心是奠定在领导历史的上主之上的。我们相信,中国教友们得益于他们的信仰精神,他们会知懂得认识到我们的行动是在对上主的信心激励下的,而不是回应世俗的逻辑。特别是牧人们要帮助教友们在教宗的领导中认出可靠的参照,从而把握天主在当前情况下的计划。

Q: 教宗是否被告知了他的助手们与中国政府接触中所做的吗?  

是的,圣父亲自关注着目前与中华人民共和国当局的接触。他的所有助手们都与他同心协力。任何人都不能私自行动。坦率地说,任何其它推断都是不合适的。

Q: 近一段时间以来,出现了一些对圣座在与中国当局对话中的做法的批评表述,包括教会内部。甚至指是不折不扣的出于政治原因的“投降”。您怎么看?

首先,我想教会内完全有权持不同意见和提出自己的批评,圣座有道义上的责任认真倾听和评估这些意见。我也坚信,在基督徒之间,批评应该旨在建设共融,而不是挑起分裂。我坦率地说:我还深信,中国教会所经受的部分苦难与其说是个人意志,更是由于情况的客观复杂性。为此,就解决过去和现在的问题提出最恰当的答案时持不同的意见是合理的。这是完全合情合理的。如此说来,我认为,任何人的个人观点都不能被视为是为了中国天主教徒益处的独家诠释。为此,圣座致力于探索一个真相的综合、一条可行的道路,从而满足海内外中国教友们合情合理的期待。为了共同发现天主对中国教会的计划,需要更大的谦逊和信徳的精神。需要所有人本着更加谨慎及温和的态度,避免陷入无意的争执,这些无意的争执只能伤害共融、夺走我们对美好未来的希望。

Q: 您指什么?

我是说我们都蒙召以最恰如其分的方式将灵修和牧灵层面同政治层面区分开来。例如,从我们每天所采用的话语开始。那种权力、背叛、抵制、投降、冲突、让步、妥协等表达方式应该为其它词汇让步,即服务、对话、慈悲、宽恕、修和、合作、共融。如果不愿意改变这种方法,就会有一个严重问题:就是只根据政治去思想和行为。就此,圣座希望所有人都能本着慈悲福音精神进行坦诚的牧灵皈依,学会兄弟间的接纳,也就是教宗方济各多次倡导的。

Q: 您对今天的中国领导人说些什么?

你看,在这一点上,我还是想引用本笃十六世教宗给中国天主教徒的信中的话。他教导说教会自身的使命不是改变国家的结构或者管理,而是依靠天主的大能向人们宣讲基督、世界的救主。在中国的教会无意取代国家,而是渴望为了所有人的益处做出坦诚和积极的贡献。为此,圣座的信息是善意的信息,希望继续进行对话,为在中国的天主教会的生活、为中国人民的利益以及世界和平做出贡献。


Parolin, “Why we are in dialogue with China” (英文版)

Pubblicato il 31/01/2018
Ultima modifica il 01/02/2018 alle ore 12:27

Several signals (including opaque operations, actual political manipulations, and even sabotage) indicate that important developments may occur in contacts between the Holy See and the Government of the People’s Republic of China. The time is right to listen to an authoritative word, which will help to grasp what the Pope and the Holy See really have at heart. And with our Chinese brothers and sisters in mind, help to dispel suspicions and artificial fumes, to look at the ecclesial heart of the whole question, outside politicized narratives. For this reason, Vatican Insider interviewed Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of His Holiness.

Eminence, what can you tell us about the dialogue between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China?

“As it is well known, with the advent of “New China", there were, for the life of the Church in that great country, moments of serious contrasts and severe suffering. Since the eighties, however, contacts have been established between representatives of the Holy See and of People’s China, who have known different seasons and alternating events. The Holy See has always maintained a pastoral approach, trying to overcome the contrasts and making itself available for a respectful and constructive dialogue with the civil authorities. Pope Benedict XVI well represented the spirit of this dialogue in his 2007 Letter to Chinese Catholics, “the solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities " (n. 4). In Pope Francis’ pontificate, the ongoing negotiations move exactly along these lines: constructive openness to dialogue and fidelity to the genuine Tradition of the Church".

Q: What are the concrete expectations of the Holy See from this dialogue?  

“First of all, I would like to make a premise: in China, perhaps more than elsewhere, Catholics have been able to preserve, despite the many difficulties and sufferings, the authentic deposit of faith, keeping firmly the bond of hierarchical communion between the Bishops and the Successor of Peter, as a visible guarantee of faith itself. In fact, communion between the Bishop of Rome and all Catholic Bishops touches the heart of the Church’s unity: it is not a private matter between the Pope and the Chinese Bishops or between the Apostolic See and civil authorities. Having said that, the main purpose of the Holy See in the ongoing dialogue is precisely that of safeguarding communion within the Church, in the wake of genuine Tradition and constant ecclesiastical discipline. You see, in China there are not two Churches, but two communities of faithful called to follow a gradual path of reconciliation towards unity. It is not, therefore, a matter of maintaining a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures, but of finding realistic pastoral solutions that allow Catholics to live their faith and to continue together the work of evangelization in the specific Chinese context".

Q: The communion of which you have spoken calls into question the delicate issue of the episcopal appointments, which are stirring up much controversy. Will a potential agreement on this issue succeed in resolving the problems of the Church in China in a fair manner? 

“The Holy See knows and shares the serious sufferings endured by many Catholics in China and their generous witness to the Gospel. She knows that there are many problems for the life of the Church and that they cannot all be solved together. But, in this context, the question of the appointment of Bishops is crucial. On the other hand, we cannot forget that the freedom of the Church and the appointment of Bishops have always been recurring themes in the relations between the Holy See and the States. Certainly, the path started with China through the current contacts is gradual and still exposed to many unforeseen events, as well as new possible emergencies. No one can say in conscience that they have perfect solutions for all problems. Time and patience are needed to heal the many personal wounds inflicted on each other within the communities. Unfortunately, it is certain that there will still be misunderstandings, fatigue and suffering to be faced. But we all have confidence that, once the issue of the Episcopal appointments has been adequately considered, the remaining difficulties should no longer be such as to prevent Chinese Catholics from living in communion with each other and with the Pope. This is the important thing, so long-awaited and desired already by Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI and today pursued with far-sightedness by Pope Francis".

Q: What is then the true attitude of the Holy See towards Chinese authorities?

“It is important to reiterate this: in dialogue with China, the Holy See pursues a spiritual aim: to be and feel fully Catholic and, at the same time, authentically Chinese. With honesty and realism, the Church asks nothing but to profess her faith with more serenity, definitively ending a long period of contrasts, in order to give more room for greater trust and offer the positive contribution of Catholics to the good of Chinese society as a whole.  Of course, many wounds are still open today. To treat them, we need to use the balm of mercy. And if someone is asked to make a sacrifice, small or great, it must be clear to everyone that this is not the price of a political exchange, but falls within the evangelical perspective of a greater good, the good of the Church of Christ. The hope is that, when God wills it, we won’t have to speak of “legitimate" and “illegitimate" Bishops, “clandestine" and “official" Bishops in the Church in China, but about meeting among brothers and sisters, learning the language of collaboration and communion again. Without this experience, how could the Church in China re-launch the journey of evangelization and bring to others the consolation of the Lord? If you are not ready to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective".

Q: If this is the attitude, is there not the risk of erasing the past and present suffering by wiping the slate clean?  

“Quite the contrary. Many Chinese Christians, when they celebrate their martyrs who have suffered unjust trials and persecutions, remember that they have been able to rely on God, even in their fragile humanity. Now, the best way to honor this testimony and make it fruitful in the present, is to entrust the present life of Catholic communities in China to the Lord Jesus. But this cannot be done in a spiritualistic and disembodied way. This is done by choosing fidelity to the Successor of Peter, with a spirit of filial obedience, even when not everything appears immediately clear and understandable. About your question, it is not a matter of wiping the slate clean, ignoring or, almost magically erasing the painful path of so many faithful and pastors, but of investing the human and spiritual capital of so many trials to build a more serene and fraternal future, with the help of God. The Spirit who has so far guarded the faith of Chinese Catholics is the same Spirit who supports them today on the new path they have embarked upon".

Q: Is there an advice, a particular request that the Apostolic See can address to the Chinese faithful at this moment? To those who are happy before potential new developments, but also to those who are confused or  have objections?

“I would like to say with great simplicity and clarity that the Church will never forget the past and present trials and sufferings of Chinese Catholics. All this is a great treasure for the universal Church. Therefore, to the Chinese Catholics I say with great fraternity: we are close to you, not only through prayer, but also through our daily commitment to accompany and support you on the path of full communion. We ask you, therefore, that no one should cling to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures. On the contrary, we hope that each one will look with confidence at the future of the Church, beyond any human limit".

Q: Your Eminence, do you really believe that this is possible? What is your trust based on?

“I am convinced of one thing. Trust is not the result of the strength of diplomacy or negotiations. Trust is based on the Lord who guides history. We trust that the Chinese faithful, thanks to their sense of faith, will know how to recognize that the action of the Holy See is animated by this trust, which does not respond to worldly logics. It is especially up to the pastors to help the faithful to recognize in the Pope’s guidance the sure reference point for grasping God’s plan in the present circumstances".

Q: Is the Pope informed of what his collaborators do in their contacts with the Chinese government?

“Yes, the Holy Father personally follows current contacts with the authorities of the People’s Republic of China. All his collaborators act in concert with him. No one takes private initiatives. Frankly, any other kind of reasoning seems to me to be out of place."

Q: In recent times, critical expressions have emerged, also within the Church, about the approach adopted by the Holy See in dialogue with the Chinese Authorities, judged by some as a true “surrender" for political reasons. What do you think? 

“I think, first of all, that in the Church there is a full right to disagree and to tell one’s own criticisms, and that the Holy See has a moral duty to listen to them and to evaluate them carefully. I am also convinced that, among Christians, criticism should be directed at building communion and not at stirring up divisions. To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation. Therefore, it is legitimate to have different views over the most appropriate responses to the problems of the past and present. That is entirely reasonable. Having said that, I think that no personal point of view can be considered as an exclusive interpreter of what is good for Chinese Catholics. Therefore, the Holy See works to find a synthesis of truth and a practicable way to respond to the legitimate expectations of the faithful, inside and outside China. It takes greater humility and spirit of faith to discover together God’s plan for the Church in China. It takes greater caution and moderation on the part of everyone in order not to fall into sterile polemics that hurt communion and rob our hope for a better future".

Q: What do you mean?  

“I mean that we are all called to distinguish more appropriately the spiritual and pastoral dimension from that of politics. Let us start, for example, with the words we use every day. Expressions such as power, betrayal, resistance, surrender, confrontation, failure, compromise, should make room for others, such as service, dialogue, mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation, collaboration, communion. If you are not prepared to change this approach, there is a serious problem: taht of thinking and acting only politically. In this regard, the Holy See hopes for everyone a sincere pastoral conversion inspired by the Gospel of mercy, in order to learn to welcome one another among brothers and sisters, as Pope Francis has often called for".

Q: What would you say to the Chinese leaders today?   

“Look, on this point I would like to refer again to Benedict XVI’s words in his Letter to the Chinese Catholics. He teaches that the mission proper to the Church is not to change the structures or administration of the State, but to proclaim to mankind Christ, the Savior of the world, relying on the power of God. The Church in China does not want to replace the state, but wants to make a positive and serene contribution for the good of all. Therefore, the Holy See’s message is a message of goodwill, with the hope of continuing the dialogue undertaken in order to contribute to the life of the Catholic Church in China, to the good of the Chinese people and to World peace".


陳日君樞機—— 答覆幾位記者朋友關於梵蒂岡國務院昨天發出的「聲明」/ Cardinal Zen: My “over-all” answer to questions put to me by friends in the media, after the Press release by the Holy See (or the Secretariate of State?) (中文版 & English)

今天早晨我答應幾位記者朋友關於梵蒂岡國務院昨天發出的「聲明」,我會一次答覆他們的問題。

該「聲明」說了三件事

1.(直接):教宗知道他們在做什麼

2.(間接):教宗同意他們做的

  1. 我的言論引起混亂和爭論

甲.

(1)其實我的文章中沒有說教宗不知道,但教宗確實對韓總主教說了「那小組為什麼沒有和我商量」。

(2)教宗對我說的話確實表示他和他們的看法不同,那末「聲明」既不可能懷疑教宗說了謊言,就是肯定我說了謊話。

我的文章說他們做了壞事(錯事?)卻沒有說他們說了謊,現在卻需要讀者判斷是我還是他們說了謊。

乙.如果他們強調的正是(2),那末也就是說教宗同意他們做的那些事。也就是要教宗為他們做的(壞)事負責了。那也就是我的文章想阻止的。

丙.我當然知道我的言論會引起爭論,但不是混亂,我希望爭論的結果是:大家承認他們現在做的是壞事(錯事?),他們該懸崖勒馬了。


My “over-all” answer to questions put to me by friends in the media, after the Press release by the Holy See (or the Secretariate of State?).

The Press release includes 3 statements:

  1. The Pope knows what “they” are doing.
  2. The Pope approves what they are doing.
  3. My article causes confusion and controversy.

A.

(1) I did not say that the Pope doesn’t know what they are doing. But, as a matter of fact, the Pope did tell Archbishop Savio “why that Commission has not conferred with me?”

(2) I did mean that there is difference between what they are doing and the mind of the Holy Father. Now the Declaration denies that. That means they accuse me to be a liar.

I accuse them of doing bad things (wrong things?) but not to be liars. Now people have to make up their mind: who, I or they, must be liar.

B.

If the point (2) is what they are actually most interested in, then they are making the Holy Father responsible for all their evil doings, which is precisely what I tried to prevent.

C.

I was well aware that my article would cause controversy, but my hope is that the controversy may bring to a good conclusion: an agreement that the things “they” are doing are bad (wrong ?), and consequently they must change direction.


陳日君樞機——東拉西扯 (中文版)

- 有些關心我的人勸我不要多講話了,還是多祈禱吧。當然多祈禱絕對正確,我們的希望全該放在天主身上,並依靠聖母的轉求。

- 勸我不要多講話的人大概是怕話講得多了也容易被人攻擊。這我倒不怕,祇要我肯定講的是公道的話,有益的話,那末憑我的年齡已不怕什麼得失了。

- 我之所以還想多嘴,是因為我怕很快我再不能講話了。請大家容忍我。

今天我想講的:

(一) 本主日第一篇讀經是約伯書,他承受「苦痛的長夜」,他說「我的眼晴也看不見幸福」。但答唱詠(詠146)立即回答說「請讚頌上主,他醫治了破碎的心靈」。

大陸的兄弟姊妹這幾天聽到了梵蒂岡準備向中共屈服了,心裡大概很不舒服。見非法、絕罰的主教都將被合法化了,而合法的反被逼退下了,那末地下的合法的主教們,不都會為他們的命運擔憂嗎?神父、教友們想想不久就要服從及尊敬那些今天是非法、絕罰的,明天因政府撐腰而獲教廷認為合法的主教,會有多少苦痛的長夜?

不要說明天,就是今天大災禍也已開始了。從二月一日開始政府會嚴厲執行宗教規則了,上海地下神父已通知教友們不要去參與彌撒了,固執不聽話的大概會被拘捕了!

不要害怕!天主會醫治破碎的心靈!

(二) 教廷國務卿說「我們了解中國兄弟姊妹們昨天和今天的苦痛」。哎呀!這個少信德的人,他懂什麼是真正的苦痛?!大陸的兄弟們不怕傾家蕩產,不怕鐵窗風味,也不怕傾流鮮血,他們最大的痛苦是被「親人」負賣!

帕羅林也作了一大篇訪問,全是似是而非的謬論(希望不是心口不一)。不過最不體面的,是一位堂堂國務卿竟敢侮辱榮休教宗本篤十六世,斷章取義地引用了他十年前給國內教會的信。帕羅林祇說教宗本篤說了「與合法的政權持續衝突並不能解決現存的問題」,但教宗本篤接着說的話他卻沒有提了:「同時,當政權不恰當地干涉教會的信仰和教律時,我們亦不能就此屈從(信4.7)」

Non è decente per un alto ufficiale della Santa Sede manipolare la lettera di un Papa, anche se già ritirato, citando la frese (4.7): “la soluzione dei problemi esistenti non può essere perseguita attraverso un permanente conflitto con le legittime Autorità civili” nascondendo che la lettera segue immediatamente dicendo“nello stesso tempo, però, non è accettabile un’arrendevolezza alle medesime quando esse interferiscano indebitamente in materie che riguardano la fede e la disciplina della Chiesa.”

教宗方濟各在亞洲青年日,在韓國,對亞洲主教們也說了「對話的第一個條件是要忠於自己的本質(Coherence to one’s own identity)。

「教廷高層消息人士」很謙虛地說:「我們仍將像籠中鳥,但鳥籠會大點……我們將寸土必爭鳥籠的空間。」天呀!問題不是鳥籠的大小,是誰在鳥籠裡呀?!地下團體的教友本不在鳥籠裡,現在是你們要逼他們進鳥籠,和已在鳥籠中的「合一」!?當然在籠中有些是奴隸,但有一些是甘願在籠中耀武揚威的奴才。(我是第一個說了在中國祇有一個教會,地上教會的人心中也都愛教宗。現在我不敢這樣說了。)

既然我已決定以真理及公義為優先價值(我所說的都是為了保護教宗的聲譽及給大家澄清教會的道理),我也不妨告訴大家:三年前我得到教宗方濟各私人接見。我用了四十分鐘向他報告了我對「對話」的看法,教宗留心聽了我四十分鐘,沒有打斷我,祇有當我說「大陸地上教會客觀來說已是裂教(獨立自辦,政府辦教)」,教宗說:「當然啦!」(“Certo!” “of course”)。

(三) 昨天不少人親身或電話來「安慰我」,因為我被教廷發言人痛駡了。這又是一個大誤會,我絕不需要同情,不如讓我們一齊去安慰那發言人吧!他才是籠中鳥,被逼擔任這麼尷尬的職務:這次他這麼有效率,第一時間對我的言論作了批評(當然是別人寫了,他讀出來的)。但一年多前,國內開第九屆中國天主教代表大會前,他不是說「看了大會確切的事實後才會作出判斷」嗎?(“Holy See is waiting for hard facts before it makes a judgment” “La Santa Sede attende di giudicare in base a fatti comprovati.”)已一年多了,我們還在等着那判斷哩!

(四) 南華早報的那評論員A. L.也很值得同情,他每天都要找個對象來批評、來諷刺,他該是萬能博士(能談論de omnibus et aliquibus aliis, 所有的題目,還有另外的一些。)他那天寫了文章說我喜歡政治多過宗教。我想提醒他 “Where angels fear to tread, the fools rush in”,他懂什麼是宗教?什麼是信德嗎?他說我決定要大陸的信友受苦,他懂得:為有信德的人什麼才是真的痛苦嗎?不過他最後一句話倒說對了:“The Vatican has to readjust its wordly diplomacy, whatever its spiritual preferences.” 不過,那些不祇是preferences,是not-negotiable principles!


陳日君樞機——我還是不明白他們為什麼要和中國對話 (中文版) 2018.02.18

〈我們為什麼要與中國對話〉一文的回應。

尊敬的帕羅林樞機(Parolin)接受了詹尼.瓦倫特(Gianni Valente)的採訪(亦即兩人之間虛構出來的採訪)。

我多次閱讀這個採訪,現在我又再次閱讀(即使閱讀它令我反胃),以便公道地發表我的意見。

我很感謝尊敬的樞機承認「持不同的意見是合理的」。

(1)

首先,我們注意到尊敬的樞機堅持認為他的觀點和活動的目的是屬於牧養、靈性、傳福和信仰的,而我們的思想和行為只是以政治為目的。

我們所看到的,卻是他崇拜他的導師卡薩羅利(Casaroli)的東方政策(Ostpolitik)外交,而鄙視那些堅決捍衛耶穌為宗徒建立的教會不受任何世俗權力干擾的人的真正信仰。

我永不會忘記,幾年前在《羅馬觀察報》讀到一篇報道,他曾在一次講話中,形容那些在共產主義政權下的中歐國家信仰英雄【不點名的指向維辛斯基(Wyszynsky)樞機、敏增蒂(Mindszenty)樞機和貝蘭(Beran)樞機】為「角斗士」,「從頭到尾反對政府和渴望出現在政治舞台上的人們」。這番言論讓我震驚萬分。

(2)

我們也注意到他對我們在中國的兄弟姐妹的深重痛苦一再表示同情。鱷魚淚!他講的是什麼痛苦?他非常清楚,他們並不害怕貧窮,也不害怕自己的自由受到限制或被剝奪,甚至準備喪失生命。但他對這一切根本毫不尊重。(他們是「角斗士」!)

他還談到了尚未癒合的傷口,以及他打算用「慈悲的香脂」來對待他們。但他說的是什麼傷口?

在訪問結束前,他提到一點:「我坦率地說:我還深信,中國教會所經受的部分苦難與其說是個人意志,更是由於處境的客觀複雜性。」

所以他非常清楚,在中國的教會裡,不是(至少很少是)私人冒犯或怨恨的問題,而是由無神極權勢力制造出來的迫害。使用慈悲的香脂?但前面已說了這不是私人怨恨的問題,問題是需要讓人從奴隸制度解脫出來。

講到慈悲,對迫害者慈悲?對他們的幫兇慈悲?獎勵叛徒?懲罰忠信的人?強迫一位合法的主教讓位給被絕罰的主教?這不是更像在這些尚未癒合的傷口上擦鹽嗎?

讓我們回來分析「客觀的處境」。痛苦的狀態不是由我們而是由政權制造出來的。共產黨想要奴役教會。有些人拒絕接受這種奴役,有些人忍受它;不幸的是,有些人卻擁抱它。

面對這一現實,我們有可能不談「權力、背叛、抵制、投降、衝突、讓步、妥協」嗎?

帕羅林希望我們談論共融和合作。但有條件嗎?在哪裡共融?我們如何合作?因此,我們必須分析兩個需要澄清的基本論點。

(3)

你想達到的是甚麼樣的合一?

a) 尊敬的樞機讚揚中國天主教徒,指出「在中國不存在兩個教會」。如果我沒有記錯,我是第一個,在世界主教會議上,肯定這一點的人,因為在兩個教會團體裡,信眾在心裡都是忠於教宗的(今天隨著在政府管理的教會團體裡的「機會主義者」越來越多,我已不敢再對整個中國教會有這種肯定)。

但是帕羅林不能否認的是,目前,有兩個基於兩種不同的、甚至對立原則的架構的團體。一個的架構是建基於耶穌建立的教會的伯多祿首席權原則上,另一種架構是由無神論政府強加的、旨在創造一個受其權力支配的裂教。

b) 消除這種分裂和實現合一,必須是每個天主教徒的願望,但不是魔術棒一揮就能達成,更不要說靠扭曲教宗本篤的信函來達成。

在榮休教宗的信函裡有這一段(8.10):「 有些主教因不願屈服於那加在教會生活上不當的控制,且為了完全忠於伯多祿的繼承人和忠於天主教的道理,被迫秘密地接受了祝聖。秘密狀態並非教會生活常規。歷史告訴我們,教會牧者和信友們只有當迫切渴望維護自身信仰的完整性,以及在教會生活的切身部份,不願接受國家機構干涉時,才會這樣做。」韓德力神父(Jeroom Heyndrickx)斷章取義地引用了「秘密狀態並非教會生活常規」,在國內宣揚這樣一句話作為他的使命:「地下團體不該再存在,所有人都必須公開,成為受政府控制的教會團體的一部分。」

在中國教會事務委員會中,我們指出了這個嚴重的錯誤,但是國務院和萬民福音傳播部當時都無視這警告,顯然是支持韓德力神父的理論。

直到兩年之後──當有關的錯誤已造成了巨大損害之時──我們才能在信函的《綱要》小冊子裡,加入了一些註釋,試圖把「結構上的合一」與「心靈的修和區分開來」。

c) 帕羅林說,人們不應該對「兩種對立的原則和機構維持長期的衝突」。但顯然這並不取決於我們自己,因為兩種架構中的其中一個是在政府的權力之下,這當然是指政權對它的控制,並且沒有表現出會放棄的跡象。

教宗本篤說,合一的道路「不容易走」,而且「不可能一天完成」(6.5, 6.6)。

但是我們的外交官想要一個奇蹟,他們現在就想要有,且不僅於此。他們還指責其他人「緊抱著對立的態度譴責弟兄,或者用『過去』作為藉口煽動新的怨恨和封閉」,並且不準備寬恕,「那麼不幸的是,便意味著還有其它利益要維護:可這不是福傳精神的願景。」。

對教會內忠實信眾這些責備才是太殘酷的,他們多年來因為忠於真正的教會而忍受過各種剝奪和壓迫!

當對方無意尊重天主教會的本質,而我們這一方希望不惜一切代價的合一時,就只有一種可能的選擇,就是強迫每個人都進入「鳥籠」。

d) 「擴大籠子」的解決方案會鼓勵人們走在一起嗎?走上一條新的路徑?內心會寧靜?會有信心?

據說,這將是一個漸進的過程,但是我們可假設,他們心裡面已有將非法主教認可為合法主教之後的下一步措施。

那些根據教會法是合法的、但沒有得到政府承認的主教,他們會怎樣?他們會被政權「接受」嗎?那就是,承認進到籠子?最終會有「一個」合法的主教團嗎?(由政府握著鳥籠的鑰匙?)

帕羅林集團承認這種解決方案並不完美,這是兩害取其輕。但,不要忘記你可以承受和忍受邪惡(傷害),但你不可以犯錯(罪),無論大小。

有人建立分裂的教會而我們遭受苦難,我們或不能避免,但我們不能協助他們去創立它。

此外,由黨建立的裂教不用怕它,它會隨著政權的垮台而消失。相反地,一個獲教宗祝福的裂教將會很可怕!

(4)

澄清了要達至的「合一」的性質後,考慮以下的問題就很容易了:我們如何實現這種合一?

修和(內部)與對話(與政府)。

a) 修和不是沒有困難的,但是有可能的,因為它只取決於我們的善意。與政府的對話則更加困難。

b) 教宗方濟各在首爾說過:「對話的首要條件是保持自己的本質不變」。

這是一個誠實和正義的問題。我們需要知道並讓對方知道我們想要到達的地方,也就是說,我們的良知決定對話的理想結果。具體說,那顯然是:「真正的宗教自由」,它不僅不傷害,而且有利於國家的真正益處。

我們能成功嗎?有沒有一綫希望?在中國共產黨比以往任何時候都更強大和咄咄逼人的現狀下,這希望有沒有至少最低的底線?它的言行都指向對每個宗教有更嚴格的控制,尤其對這個所謂的「外來」宗教。

共產黨已不再覺得需要掩飾事實了。各種照片在在顯示,這是一個國家主辦的中國天主教,它不再是天主教,而是中國教、裂教(愛國會和所謂的主教團的聯席會議,總是由政府官員領導)。教宗避免使用「裂教」一詞,是因為他同情有些人是在重大壓力之下身處其中。

從我們所能觀察到的情況看,教廷正在接受這種不能接受的現實。(這真的肯定是為了教會的益處嗎?)

為有真正的對話,它必須從平等的立場開始。獄卒和囚犯之間、勝利者和被征服者之間,沒有真正的對話。但我們這邊的人似乎正從一個弱勢位置開始。可靠的消息來源說,梵蒂岡代表團不能討論已經在政府手中二十多年的蘇志民主教的情況,因為我們的對話者拒絕了。我認為,我們的代表團早就應該離開談判桌回家去。接受他們的拒絕就像從一開始就跪在他們面前。

畢竟我們不是被征服者。難道我們的外交官不知道地下教會團體的信眾構成,可能仍構成,教會的大部份信徒人口嗎?不知道他們在各處有教堂和主教座堂嗎?在城市裡,他們顯然不能有教堂,但他們在私人住宅裡開彌撒公安部門當然知道,但並不干擾。不幸的是,自2018年2月起,我們可以看到政府對我們這些兄弟姐妹的活動進行更加嚴格的管制,這是因為政府知道,它現在也得到了教廷的同意。

c) 梵蒂岡在支持與政府進行外部對話的同時,扼殺了教會內部的對話。它以一種極其粗暴的姿態,取消了教宗本篤十六世設立的宗座中國教會事務委員會而不給一個解釋。在梵蒂岡,唯一有資格的華人聲音是韓大輝總主教,現在被調派到希臘當大使了。帕羅林所說「探索一個綜合的真相」就是這些!「一起找出天主的計劃」就是這樣!他們相信自己「已妥當地考慮所有事情」。

(5)

在整個訪問中,最令我反感的,是對教宗本篤信函的不誠實扭曲,使得看起來他好像是榮休教宗的忠實支持者,而實際上他和當時的萬民福音傳播部部長阻礙了拉辛格教宗將中國教會帶回正軌的努力。

在這次採訪的開始和結束,他分別兩次引用信函。

a) 在第4章第7段中,教宗本篤說:「與合法的政權持續衝突是不能解決現存的問題的。但同時,當政權不恰當地干涉教會的信仰問題和教律時,我們亦不能就此屈從。」

b) 在第6段中他說過:(引用《天主是愛Deus Caritas Est》通諭)「教會不能、也不應該代替國家。但同時,也不能、不應該置身於為正義而奮鬥的範圍之外。」

在這兩句引語中,帕羅林利用了前半句,而將後半句隱去,令教宗本篤的思想失去了平衡。

(6)

鑑於最近的爭議,我覺得有必要澄清我與教宗方濟各之間的關係:無論我什麼時候遇到他,他對我都充滿溫柔。

確實,我把私人對話披露可能會讓他感到尷尬,對此我感到抱歉。但我仍然相信,教宗的想法與他的合作者的想法,兩者之間存在著差異。他們很容易地利用了教宗的樂觀主義來實現他們的目標。除非另有事實證明,否則我確信我為教宗的好名聲作了辯護,他的合作者判斷錯誤的責任與他無關,我也以為藉著我他向我們在中國的兄弟們表達了他的鼓勵;國內的兄弟們,正如我們中國人所說,「正在陷入水深火熱當中」。

若果有一天與中國不好的協議簽署了,這顯然是得到教宗的批准,那麼我會默默退出,過「隱修的生活」。作為鮑思高的一個兒子(即使不堪當),我絕不會出來帶頭反對羅馬教宗 ── 基督的在世代表。

讓我們為教宗方濟各祈禱:「祈求天主保護他,賜他力量,讓他開心,並不讓他陷入敵人的手中。」


Cardinal Zen: I still don’t understand why they are in dialogue with China (English) 2018.02.17

A response to Why we are in dialogue with China, the interview that His Eminence Cardinal Parolin gave to Gianni Valente (that is, an interview cooked up between the two).

I read the interview several times, now I read it again (even if the reading repels me) in order to honestly make my comments.

I am grateful to His Eminence for recognizing that “it is legitimate to have different opinions”.

(1)

First of all, we note the insistence with which His Eminence affirms that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are of a pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and acting is only in a political key.

What we see instead is that he venerates the Ostpolitik diplomacy of his master Casaroli and despises the genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles from any interference by secular power.

I will never forget my amazement at reading a report in the Osservatore Romano a few years ago on a speech that he had given where he describes the heroes of the faith in the central European countries under the communist regime (Card. Wyszynsky, Card. Mindszenty and Card. Beran, without mentioning them) as “gladiators”, “people systematically opposed to the government and eager to appear on the political stage”.

(2)

We also note the repeated mention of his compassion for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in China. Crocodile tears! What suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of life. But he has absolutely no respect for all of this at all (they are “gladiators”!)

He also speaks of wounds that are still open and his intention to treat them by applying “the balm of mercy”. But what wounds is he talking about?

Towards the end of the interview, at one point he says: “To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation”.

So he knows very well that in the Church in China it is not (if not infrequently) a case of personal offenses or resentments, but persecution by an atheistic totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? It is not a question of personal offenses to be forgiven. It is a slavery from which to free oneself.

Mercy for the persecutors? For their accomplices? Rewarding traitors? Castigating the faithful? Forcing a legitimate bishop to give way to an excommunicated one? It this not more like rubbing salt on these still open wounds?

Let us return to the “objective situation”. The painful state was not created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this enslavement, there are those who suffer, unfortunately there are those who embrace it.

Faced with this reality is it possible not to speak of “power, resistance, conflict, compromise, giving in, surrender, betrayal”?

Parolin wants us to talk about communion and collaboration. But are the conditions right? Where is this unity? How can we collaborate? Thus, we must analyse the two fundamental points that need clarification.

(3)

What is the unity you want to achieve?

a) His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and states that “there are not two Catholic Churches in China”. If I’m not mistaken, I was the first to affirm this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, because, in both communities, the faithful in their hearts are loyal to the Pope (today with the increasing number of opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply this affirmation to the entire Church in China).

But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment, there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter on which Jesus established his Church, the other structure is imposed by an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church subject to its power.

b) Eliminating this division and achieving unity must be the desire of every Catholic, but not with one wave of a magic wand, let alone by manipulating the Letter of Pope Benedict.

In the Letter by Pope Emeritus there is this paragraph (8.10): “Some (bishops), not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church’s life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church’s life. “Father Jeroom Heyndrickx citing out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church’s life,” has made it his mission to spread the word throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “there should be no more underground communities, everyone must come to the open and become part of the community subject to the Government”.

In the Commission for the Church in China we pointed out this grave error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples ignored this warning, obviously supporting ​​Father Heyndrickx’ theory.

It was only two years later, when this mistake had already done immense damage, that we managed to include some notes in the “Compendium” booklet to try to distinguish the reconciliation of hearts from unity in structures.

c) Parolin says that one should not maintain “a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures”. But obviously this does not depend on us alone, because one of the two structures is under Government power, which certainly exercises control over it and shows no sign of giving it up.

Pope Benedict says that the journey of unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).

But our diplomats want a miracle and they want it now, and not only.  They also accuse others of clinging “to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures” and of not being ready “to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective”.

These are really cruel reproaches to address to faithful members of the Church, who for many years have suffered every kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!

When the other party has no intention of respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and on our part one wants unity at all costs, there is only one possible choice, that of forcing everyone to enter the “bird’s cage”.

d) With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will this encourage people to walk together? To embark on a new path? With serenity? With confidence?

It is said that it will be a gradual process, but let us suppose that the authors already have the next steps to be taken after the legitimization of the illegitimate in mind.

What will become of those Bishops who are legitimate according to the law of the Church but who are not recognized by the Government? Will they be “accepted”? That is, admitted to the cage? Will it finally be “a” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to the cage?)

Parolin and company recognize that this solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. You can endure and suffer an evil (damage), but you can never do wrong (sin), great or small.

Our suffering at the creation of a schismatic Church by others may be inevitable, but we cannot assist in its creation.

Moreover, a schismatic church created by the party is not a cause for fear, it will fade with the fall of the regime. Instead, a schismatic church with the Pope’s blessing would be horrifying!

(4)

Having clarified the nature of the unity to be reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this unity?

With reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue (with the Government).

a) Reconciliation is not without difficulty but possible, because it depends only on our goodwill, dialogue with the Government is more difficult.

b) Pope Francis in Seoul had said: “The first condition of a dialogue is consistency with one’s own identity.”

It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need to know and let it be known where we want to arrive, that is, what our conscience dictates as a desirable outcome to dialogue. In our case, obviously it is: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but favours the true good of the nation”.

Will we be able to manage this dialogue? Is there a hope of success? Is there at least a minimum foundation to hope in the present situation when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and overbearing than ever? When, both its words and actions point to an even more rigorous control of every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign” religions.

The Communists no longer feel the need to save appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic. (The joint meeting of the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference is [always] led by a government official”) The Popes refrain from using the word “schism” for compassion for those who find themselves not of their own will under severe pressure.

From what we can observe see, the Holy See is acquiescing to this unacceptable reality. (Is it really sure that this is for the good of the Church?)

In order for a dialogue to be true, it must start from a position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our own seems to start from a position of weakness. Reliable source says that the Vatican Delegation could not discuss the case of Bishop James Su Zhi Min who has been in the hands of the government for more than twenty years, because our interlocutors refused. In my opinion, our delegation should have left the negotiating table and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling down to them from the outset.

After all we are not the vanquished. Do our diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted, and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That they have churches and cathedrals in various places? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have churches, they say Masses in private homes so as not to be disturbed by the public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as of February 2018 we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on the activities of these our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows that by now it also has the consent of the Holy See.

c)    While supporting the need for external dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the Church. With a supremely rude gesture it dismissed the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China set up by Pope Benedict without so much as a word. The only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican was Archbishop Savio, sending him as Nuncio to Greece. So much for “finding synthesis of truth”! So much for “discovering God’s plan together”! They are convinced that they “have considered everything properly”.

(5)

The most repugnant thing I find in the whole interview is the dishonest exploitation of expressions of the Letter of Pope Benedict, making it appear as if he was a faithful supporter of the Pope Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for ‘Evangelization of the Peoples have thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to bring the Church in China back on the right path.

At the beginning and end of the interview he made two citations respectively.

a) In Chapter 4 Paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church..”

b) In Paragraph 6 he had said: (Citing “Deus caritas est”) “The Church cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice..”

In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the first half, leaving out the other half, losing the balance of Pope Benedict’s thought.

(6)

Given the recent controversies, I feel the desire to clarify my relationship with PopeFrancis who, whenever I meet him, fills me with tenderness.

It is true that my revelations of a private interviews may have caused him embarrassment and for this I am sorry. But I am still convinced that there is a void between the way of thinking of His Holiness and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who readily take advantage of the Pope’s optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from the responsibility of the erroneous judgement of his collaborators and that he has communicated his encouragement to my brothers in China who are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep water”.

If, by chance, one day a bad agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will withdraw in silence to “monastic life”. Certainly as a son, even if unworthy, of Don Bosco I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord will preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of his enemies.”


中梵談判,切磋、切磋 (中文) 2018.02.24

有一位從大陸來的神父與教友們分享了他個人觀點關於最近中梵談判引起的爭論。有些教友向我表示他們的不安和疑惑。我比一般教友「至少多吃了幾斤鹽,幾擔米」,覺得有責任出來也談談我的觀點。況且在這些問題上我似乎成了被告,那末也該有權利自辯一下吧。

耿占河「從大陸來的神父」那銜頭也壓不到我,我雖在「解放前」已離開了大陸,但我在89至96年之間在大陸接觸教會和政府的經驗肯定比他豐富得多。何況他多年學的也是西方的道理。我們儘可以平等身份切磋、切磋。

(一) 耿神父說教廷官員不可能不同教宗一致,因為他們是教宗選的

那我要先談談,我這幾年來,接觸教廷的痛苦經驗。

教宗本篤上任後選了伊萬•迪亞斯(Ivan Dias)任聖座萬民福音傳播部部長,迪亞斯的履歷包括多年在教廷國務院的服務,幾次任教廷大使,最後有孟買教區的牧民經驗,很了不起。他又是一位亞洲人,增加了教廷的國際性。

可惜的是他是阿戈斯蒂諾•卡薩羅利(Agostino Casaroli)樞機的徒弟,沉醉於他師父的“Ostpolitik”(東方政策=妥協政策),那時的國務院副秘書長帕羅林(Pietro Parolin)蒙席也同出Casaroli一族,兩人很配合,對中國實行Ostpolitik,對教宗的指示陽奉陰違。我罪大惡極,有一天向教宗本篤發脾氣,說:「你要我幫你照顧大陸教會,但我祇有發言權,沒有實權!我講話根本無用,你為什麼又不伸出援手?」,他回答說:「有時不想得罪人嚒!」最後本篤叫停了談判。迪亞斯滿75歲退休,教宗也調走了帕羅林。

教宗方濟各上任,請帕羅林回教廷任國務卿。帕羅林談吐斯文,外交手段絕妙,大家都拍手。但他畢竟也沉醉“Ostpolitik”。教宗方濟各既樂觀又愛心爆棚,很想去中國,帕羅林樂得配合,報喜不報憂,把現實又謹慎的本人和韓總主教排擠局外。教宗對中國共產黨沒有直接的認識,錯聽了他身邊的人,他們無底線地妥協,已到了準備全面投降的地步,按教宗對本人和韓總主教說的話,他並不知道他們計劃的細節。萬一他簽署他們談成的協議,我們當然也祇能接受,絕不可抗議。但在協議未簽署前,我們一定要苦口勸諫,使他們懸崖勒馬,也讓大家知道教廷的指示不一定來自教宗,不要讓國內兄弟錯怪了教宗。

(二) 耿神父說協議內容我們不知道,所以不該批評

談判的內容當然不能全部公開,但我是兩位中國樞機之一,也沒有資格過目嗎?為了不讓我們插嘴,連教廷照顧中國教會的委員會也消失了,韓總主教也被放逐了。

不知道內容就抽手旁觀,等米已成飯才批評嗎?

知道談判內容的人洩漏了相當資料,我們祇可以談談這些資料,發表我們的意見。

耿神父說神學專家、法律專家才有資格批評(他疏忽了歷史專家!)。難道教會不是由宗徒們的繼承人領導的嗎?當然個別的主教、樞機絕對能錯,其實帕羅林也能錯。在這些事上教宗也能錯!歷史上某教宗也曾需要某聖女的規勸。

民主選舉,主教團任命也就是政府揀主教,教宗能說最後的一句話也救不了他的職權,形式上像是維護了教宗的權,實際上是把決定權交在無神政府的手中。

我再說,如果教宗接受了這樣的協議,我雖不明白也不會出來批評他。但在協議簽成前我按良心大聲說,這是一個壞協議。

(三) 耿神父說必須達成協議,不能拖延。(壞協議比沒有協議好?)

理由是什麼?中國越來越強,和西方的矛盾也越來越多,所以對內的控制也越來越緊。我們既不能推翻政權,祇能及時妥協了。

中國是強是弱,讓政治評論家為我們分析吧。推翻政權不是我們的職責,不在我們的能力內,更不是我們的計劃。至於政權對內的控制越來越緊,這倒是有目共睹的事實。

一些堂區的夏令營不准辦了。上海教區在天安門事件後得到政府獎勵(修院沒有讓修生出去參加遊行),教友的孩子們可以領洗、初領聖體(法律准許的他們可以不給,法律不准許的他們可以給,他們就是法律)。最近在聖堂門口有貼牌「未成年者,不得進入」。

妥協就能阻擋控制嗎?

像教廷國務卿一樣,耿神父很「同情」地下團體。他說:「地下團體,至今還能存在,但空間就將不存在了,要趕快爭取合法化,讓北京承認它。」

耿神父倒也清楚地下團體至今還有空間,可是很快就將沒有了。恐怕有些香港教友並不知道在某些地方(如河北、福建)地下有聖堂,大聖堂、主教座堂,政府沒有命令拆毀,城市裡地下神父在家裡舉行彌撒很多教友參與,鄰居都知道,沒有人投訴,沒有人被抓。以後不同了,最近有地下神父向教友說二月一日後不要來了,政府說他們會執法了,危險了。

為什麼容忍這麼久,現在要執法了?因為有教廷幫他們執法了,誰不去地上不祇不聽政府的話,也不聽教宗的話了!?

我要問:究竟妥協了得到的是什麼?什麼是把地下「合法化」?北京「承認它」又是什麼意思?是讓它在地下自由運作?這豈不是妙想天開?承認地下主教是主教,請他們參加所謂的主教團,投入放大了的「鳥籠」?這樣爭得自由了嗎?壞協議比沒有協議更好嗎?

耿神父說如達不成協議那末政府自選自聖的非法主教越來越多,中國的教會就成裂教了。

難道獨立自辦的,政府辦的教不已是裂教了嗎?多了非法主教才是嗎?教宗祝福政府揀的主教,祝福政府辦的教,它就不再是裂教了嗎?

(四) 最可怕的(我絕不說最可笑的,我笑不出來)是耿神父的犧牲妙論

他說:「犧牲兩位合法的主教,要他們讓位給非法的、被絕罰的『主教』固然是不公義。」(他也坦白地說:「將來地下主教也都一樣被要求作犧牲」!)「但天父對聖子,要他死在十字架上也不公義。教會第一最高原則不是公義,是愛;為了愛,可以犧牲公義。」

天呀!這是什麼道理!?如果我們(慈幼會)的修生要受教於這樣的教授,我不願他們被犧牲,我會勸省會長讓我們的修生撤退出來!

耿神父沒有看過教宗本篤的訓導嗎?公義是最底限度的愛。要在真理中實踐愛德,真理是愛德的基礎。沒有真理,愛德就成了一個空空的殼子,什麼東西都可以放進去(墮胎、安樂死、背教)。天主犧牲了自己的聖子,是讓人殺了祂的聖子,還是祂殺了祂的聖子?(耶穌不是對比拉多說:「那把我交給你的更有罪。」也就是說那些使他無辜而死的都有罪!他當然可以寬恕他們,但沒有聽說選他們做了宗徒!)

是舊約那位母親殺了她的七個孩子,還是惡王惡人殺了他們?

現在不是政府逼兩位主教讓位,是教廷!

在大陸網上曾見有人寫過:「這麼多年來,敵人無法處我們於死地,現在是我們的父親要我們死。好吧。我們去死吧!」

耿神父分不清被人侮辱及自甘作賤,受傷及自殺,失敗和投降。哀哉!

陳日君樞機
香港前前主教

3 thoughts on “陳日君樞機的公開信、梵蒂岡新聞稿、柏羅林樞機回應——立此存照 [With Updates]

  1. 引用通告: 《蛇》——談《帕羅林樞機談“我們為什麽與中國對話”》 | 樂山樂水

  2. 看過帕羅林樞機的說話,我這個老教友不得不佩服得五體投地—-令我五內翻騰,久久不能自己 !教廷要自廢武功,自殘自宮 ! 竟然與虎謀皮,一廂情願,幼稚若此 ! 可悲 ! 可痛 ! 可惱 ! 可恨!
    地下教會經歷數十年的磨難痛苦,被無神論極權的中共所壓制迫害,但他們始終如一,堅貞不逾,無怕無懼,為的就是他們確信只要全心全意事主,信靠主,即使面對任何的驚濤駭浪,地動山搖,他們都是毫無懼色,因為他們深信主會帶領他們陪伴他們走過這條苦路,他們滿心歡喜,甘之如飴 ! 可敬 ! 可佩 !
    事實地下教會弟兄姊妹經歷數十年的苦難,他們已孕育出一套應對的方法,所謂上有政策,下有對策,他們能夠因時因地制宜,隨機應變,化整為零,化零為整,時聚時散,可令當局疲於奔命,没能禁絕,莫可奈何 !
    現卻快要給教廷破壞了,合法主教「被自願」讓位給非法主教甚至讓位給被絕罰的人,合法正權的要退居為副,好讓給非法的 ; 地下教會「被自願」由地下走出地上,「被自願」牢牢地困在帕樞機所謂的鳥籠變大了,空間大了,自由多些了的鳥籠裏 ! (不知所謂的邏輯理論 !)
    唉!不說了 ! 最後只能說句:痛心! 心痛! 痛痛痛!

    • 的確是令人完全不理解。但只能說,這不是教廷突然有的看法,而是過去近數年都的看法都已經是這樣。但當然,這樣無視現實的想法是令人難以理解,也漠視了大陸地下教會的忠信和孝心。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

w

連結到 %s