分類: 我們的教宗

常年期第十三週 星期二

    今天彌撒的兩篇讀經實在太合時了，我忍不住要和大家分享兩句。

    聖誕期後的常年期單數年在第五、第六週開始讀創世紀直到11章1-9節，復活期後的單數年第十二週又從創世紀12章1-9 節讀起，直至第十四周末讀完。

    (1) 今天讀的是創19:15-29

       （星期一讀的是創18:16-33）

    亞巴郎熱情款待了那三位過路客 —（一位該是天主，其他兩位該是天神）— 後來他們起身望着索多瑪前行，亞巴郎送他們，也一同前行。

    上主以亞巴郎為朋友，就告訴他「有控告索多瑪和哈摩辣的聲音實在佷大，他們的罪惡實在深重」，祂派其他兩位去看看事情是否這麼嚴重。

    亞巴郎知道天主發了義怒，決定要消滅索多瑪。他的姪子羅特住在索多瑪。他為索多瑪人求情，向上主說：「你真要將義人同惡人一起消滅嗎？假如城中有五十個義人，你還要消滅嗎？」，上主說：「我不會」。亞巴郎討價還價，直到問「如果祇有十個義人呢？」，上主說：「我不會」。終於亞巴郎不敢再問了。

    創19:1-14描索多瑪的邪行

    那兩位使者來到了索多瑪，羅特把他們接到家裡，備了宴席，吃了晚餐，尚未就寢，閤城的男人，全都來圍住羅特的家，要他把那兩位使者交出來。羅特出來，關上門，苦求說：「你們切不可對這兩位客人作惡，不如我將兩個童貞女兒交給你們。」他這樣做法聖經並沒有說他做得對，但這指示出，古人多認為男性逼男性做性行為比侵犯女性更邪惡。聖經也常這樣警告後人（申29:22；依1:9, 13:19；耶49:18, 50:40；亞4:11；智10:6-7；瑪10:15, 11:23-24；路17:28；伯2:6；猶7）。天使把羅特拉入屋內，關了門；使那些男人迷了眼，找不著門口。

    創19:15-29 描述天主用火消滅了索多瑪和其他三個城，祇救了羅特、他的兩個女兒、他的女婿和幾個親人。

    至仁慈的天主對同性的性行為如此厭惡，是因為這罪行實在太遠離天主對人的計劃，祂的計劃是一男一女以專一、永久的愛，結合成一體，和天主合作，使新的生命能在家庭的溫暖中誕生、成長。

    同性戀的傾向是怎麼來的？先天的？不幸經驗的效果？醫學也不能給一個簡單的答覆。但從倫理的角度，自然的傾向當然不是罪；如果不明白同性的性行為是罪惡，主觀的無知使它不成客觀的罪行；但知道客觀的善惡的人不幫助無知者認識真理則絕不是真的愛德。同性的行為不祇破壞天主的計劃，也明顯傷害社會，也更易造成個人的悲劇。

    教會當然愛所有的人，歡迎所有的人，不論他們目下生活在什麼認知中，但不能讓他們停留在無知中，該給他們機會在教會內認識天主的計劃，以祈禱和聖事得到力量，勝過誘惑，走貞潔的路，邁向永生。

    (2) 今天彌撒的福音，瑪竇8:23-27：門徒和耶穌在船上，忽然海裡（大湖似海）起了大震盪，耶穌卻睡著，門徒喚醒他，他醒了，說他們是「小信德的人」，起來叱責風和海，遂大為平靜。

    門徒們因為相信耶穌能救他們才喚醒祂，耶穌卻說他們是「小信德的人」，那末祂就是說他們該相信：有睡著的祂在身邊，他們已不該害怕了？

    教宗本篤已說過：伯多祿的船正在入水（而挑戰是從內部來的）。近年來教會內的混亂和分裂（尤其是由“Fiducia Supplicans”引起），使我們感覺耶穌睡著了。還好「小信德」的我們還是叫醒了祂，祂醒來了，給了我們一位能平息風浪的教宗良十四。

    願我們繼續為教宗祈禱，不要心急，不要給他壓力，不要製造假新聞，不要過份分析他每個行動或每句說話，幫助他成功打消混亂和重整團結，不但使教會內部合一，合一了的天主教才能幫助基督徒的合一早日成為事實。

    鞏固信德，提高希望！

陳日君樞機於樞機團會議（General Congregation）的發言稿

我們的樞機團團長在邀請函中已提醒我們，這些沒有選舉權的年長樞機（註：超過80歲）並沒有義務出席這些樞機團會議。但我這位93歲老人家，剛從一場長期糾纏、雖非嚴重但令我減重十公斤的疾病中康復過來；又於三年前因涉嫌違反國安法被拘捕後而很快地獲准保釋。我卻相信這是我應盡的責任（到羅馬參與教宗方濟各的葬禮及樞機團會議）。2023年，我獲發還護照前往羅馬，出席教宗本篤的葬禮——那次在羅馬只待了兩天；而這次，我獲准停留十日。感謝天主。

在發言前，我想先請求大家諒解——我可能無法談論某些議題，亦需要盡我所能在言行上謹慎並保持最大克制。謝謝大家的體諒。

我來，是為了參加已上了天堂的教宗方濟各的葬禮，我欣然與眾人一同高唱「賀三納（Hosanna）」，以悼念這位偉大的牧者（幾乎是「立刻封聖」的呼喊），我也願意與大家分享許多充滿喜樂的回憶。

我和當時仍為貝爾格里奧樞機的他第一次會面是在一次主教會議後的善後小組中，我欽佩他那份牧者的熱忱。這也解釋了為什麼在那次的選舉中，他是我心目中排名前五位的教宗人選之一。

他成為教宗後，展現出慈父的形象：每週三的公開接見活動，他乘坐的吉普車會圍著聖伯多祿廣場繞幾個圈，似在邀請每個人都去接觸他；講話結束後，他會特別接見輪椅上的病人。

我很享受與他之間的友誼。曾經是慈幼會學生的他有一天試著挑戰我：「聖若望鮑思高所推崇的三個敬禮是什麼？」我立刻回答：「熱愛耶穌聖體、孝愛聖母、擁護教宗。」他說：「沒錯，對教宗的虔敬！不要忘記這一點！」

我也曾有幸與他在聖瑪爾大之家共祭，那次還有另一位慈幼會主教。彌撒後，他打趣說：「我感覺像是耶穌站在兩個強盜中間。」

還有一次，在聖伯多祿廣場的彌撒後，他走來問候我們一群主教。那時正值香港的抗議浪潮。他靠近我時，做了個手勢說：「這是拿著投石器和石頭上戰場的那一位。」雖然語氣似在譏笑，但那當然是個稱譽：他把我比作聖經中的達味。

在本篤的葬禮那天，儘管教宗方濟各必定非常忙碌，他也安排了一個私人會面時間给我。

我更有兩個（關於教宗方濟各）猶為重要深刻的記憶：

  1. 在他開始牧職的那天——3月19日，聖若瑟瞻禮——他說：「聖若瑟首先是一位守護者，是聖家的守護者。同樣地，教宗也是教會大家庭的守護者。」
  2. 在亞洲青年節與亞洲主教們共祭時，他以「對話」為主題發表演說，並提出兩項原則：忠於自己的身份，以及用心聆聽他人。

我來到這裡也是為參加樞機全體會議，因為教會正處於一個混亂和分裂的關鍵時刻，如今一個沉重的責任落在我們的樞機兄弟們的肩上——在即將　　到來的秘密會議中為我們選出一位新教宗，能在聖神的輔助下引領我們重返和諧與平安。

我不認為我的樞機兄弟會對我以上所說的感到驚訝，但許多信友——也許在香港教區更佔大多數——可能都在慶幸我們有了一位偉大的「改革派」教宗，就如世俗媒體所說一樣。

「改革」一詞具有魔力，尤其對年輕人而言，但它也是危險的。歷史上曾經歷的 「改革 」撕裂了教會的一大部分。

我們確實需要改革，因為我們是罪人。但若改革削弱了耶穌所建立教會的根本——至一、至聖、至公、從宗徒傳下來的教會，那便不是真正的改革。在特倫多大公會議中，聖神賜予教會深刻的洞察力與力量，進行積極的「反改革」，重申教會在聖事與階級制度上的結構，特別強化了神職人員的培育。

但隨著現代無神主義的哲學與道德崩潰（性革命）的興起，教會面對前所未有的衝擊。猶幸梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議的及時召開，鞏固了教會，使巨大危機成為偉大改革的契機。

不幸的是，儘管梵二以後的教宗都致力提供正統的指導，但實際上教會並未能透過延續性去詮釋真正大公會議的意義，對它廣泛的了解與接受。

某些人提出所謂的「大公會議精神」騎劫了整個進程，「撒旦的煙霧」，正如教宗保祿六世所言，「從教會的縫隙中進入」，或若教宗本篤十六世所描述：「伯多祿的船正在進水。」

當性侵犯醜聞爆發時，教會陷入深度危機，但教會當局並沒有辨識其源頭實在是當時甚至滲透神學院的「性革命」，反而將責任歸咎於 「神職主義」，加倍羞辱和打擊忠心的神職人員，甚至有人以這場危機為藉口，企圖徹底重塑教會架構。

且不深究教會怎麼能輕率處理如麥卡里克樞機（Cardinal McCarrick）、魯普尼克神父（Rupnik）以及其他被世俗法院判定有罪的個案，我們很難不懷疑這是一場向世界妥協的迎合，而非堅守真理的抗爭。

這樣的控訴雖嚴重，但現實卻似乎正正支持這種說法——尤其當我們檢視最近主教會議，特別是關於「共議同行」的進程時。

主教會議（及大公會議）是歷來聖神保證聖傳延續的工具。

在梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議後期，教宗保祿六世頒佈《宗座關懷》（Apostolica Sollicitudo）手諭，成立「主教會議」，作為大公會議的延續（縮小版），這是一項教宗用以徵詢其他主教的權威性意見，推展全球主教團體共同合作的工具。

這些主教會議所結出的美果是一些宗座勸諭，如《在新世界中傳福音》勸諭（Evangelii nuntiandi）、《論現時代的教理講授》宗座勸諭（Catechesi Tradendae）、《愛德的聖事》宗座勸諭（Sacramentum Caritatis）及《上主的話》宗座勸諭 （Verbum Domini）。

但當然，教宗也意識到任何人為的安排都有改進空間。

也許由於這種認知，教宗方濟各上任初期隨即頒佈了《主教共融》宗座憲令（Episcopalis Communio），其篇幅是教宗保祿六世前文件《宗座關懷》的四倍，更廢除了教宗保祿六世的文件，大幅改變主教會議的性質（如會議的成員、目的與程序）。

而最近一次主教會議甚至超越了《主教共融》的框架。

成員結構：

投票成員

人數
主教

277
非主教

99

超過四分之一的人不是主教：這不再是主教會議。

類別

人數
選任與當然成員

237
教宗親自邀請的成員

139

後一類人數已超過上一類人數的一半，但根據《宗座關懷》規定本不應超過15%

此外：

– 有6位主教、2位神父與1位修女作為主席代表（難道沒有足夠主教可主持主教會議？）

– 任命多位「提倡性倫理的改革者」為秘書長、總發言人、信理部部長和講道者

– 61位「協調員」（仿如帶領幼稚園的老師）

– 其他專家、秘書、助理（無數）

–   研究小組（另加在會議之外的）

 

最顯著的變化：會議目的

依《法典》第342條，主教會議的目的是：

– 保護與強化信仰與道德，並維護教會紀律

但根據《主教共融》宗座憲令，其目的為：

– 强調福傳當今世界，而非保存教會本身（但若不保持正統教會，又如何能福傳？）

 

在教宗方濟各的領導下：

主教會議 = 不斷變革

會議主題 其隱藏目標
家庭 讓離婚再婚者領聖體
青年 呼籲「製造混亂！」（推動共議性）
亞馬遜 按立「已婚德高望重男子」為司鐸，並終止強制司鐸獨身制
共議同行

 

 推動LGBTQ+性倫理、教會權力重組、女性執事

主教團教義自主、「共議同行」的新教會。

 

程序：

《法典》第343條規定：

主教會議為討論當前問題。

全體討論

基於：聖經、聖傳

最後以不同語言分組討論

投票通過簡明建議（不公開）

再交由教宗決定，並由委員會協助下撰寫會後勸諭。

 

在今次主教會議中：

–   小組：祈禱、分享、祈禱、分享、祈禱、再分享；著重心理學

–   很少在大會中討論教理

–   絕對控制權操控於「協調員」手上

「在聖神內對話」是一種由加拿大耶穌會創立的方法，其目的不是為了分辨真理，而是為安撫情緒，準備進行討論。「等待聖神給予我們驚喜」（？）難道聖神現在會告訴你：祂所傳揚了兩千年的真理是個錯誤，今天祂要講論的才是真理？

2021年開始舉行的主教會議雖說已結束，但其實尚未真正完結；雖然有最終文件，但未有對主教會議中提出的問題提供具體解決方案。

何人撰寫最終文件及其修訂過程不清不楚，但教宗方濟各已接受該文件，並將其納入教會訓導之中。

有出指示：每個教區可根據其個別理解而作實驗性地實踐，並於主教對教宗的述職（ad limina）期間由教宗評估其成果。

這種做法簡直會使我們接近聖公會的做法。經過幾年的實踐之後，還能走回頭路嗎？這樣如何能維護天主教會的合一？

結語：

有權投票選舉教宗的樞機兄弟應清楚了解，未來教宗將要肩負一個重大責任去決定：繼續推動這樣的主教會議或果斷終止這「自殺行為」。這決定為耶穌所建立的教會而言，是生死攸關的問題。

Intervention at the General Congregation

Our Dean, in his letter of invitation, reminded us that we elderly cardinals, who are not electors, are not obliged to attend these sessions. I am an old man of 93 years; recovering from a long, non-serious illness that cost me ten kilograms; arrested three years ago on suspicion of violating the national security law, though I was quickly granted bail. I believed it was my duty to come. At the time, I was given a passport to attend Pope Benedict’s funeral—just two days in Rome; this time, I was granted ten days. Thanks be to the Lord.

Before making my remarks, I ask your forgiveness if I cannot speak on certain matters and must maintain the utmost discretion in my conduct. Thank you for your understanding.

I came for the funeral of the Holy Father, who has gone to heaven, and I gladly join the chorus around us singing hosanna to the august, departed shepherd (almost a cry of “Santo subito”). I have many joyful memories I wish to share with you.

Our first meeting was during a post-synodal commission, where I admired his great pastoral zeal. That’s why he was among my five top papabili in that conclave. Once he became Pope, he revealed himself as a loving father: at the start of the Wednesday audiences, he would drive his jeep around St. Peter’s Square, as if inviting everyone to touch him, and after his address, he would go down to spend time with the sick in wheelchairs.

I enjoyed his jovial friendship. Having been a student of the Salesians, one day he challenged me: “What are the three devotions recommended by St. John Bosco?” I promptly answered: “Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, to Our Lady, and to the Pope.” “Exactly—devotion to the Pope! Don’t forget that!”

I had the privilege of concelebrating with him at Casa Santa Marta, together with another Salesian bishop. After Mass, he said, “I felt like Jesus between two thieves” (playfully, of course).

Another time, after a Mass in St. Peter’s Square, he came to greet a group of bishops. It was during the time of the protests in Hong Kong. As he approached me, he made a gesture and said, “Here comes the one who goes into battle with a slingshot.” His tone was teasing, but at heart it was a compliment—he was comparing me to David.

On the occasion of Pope Benedict’s funeral, Pope Francis granted me a warm personal audience, even though it must have been a very busy day for him.

But there are two memories that are especially significant:

  1. On the day he began his pontificate—March 19, the feast of St. Joseph—he said: St. Joseph was above all a guardian, the Guardian of the Holy Family. Likewise, the Pope is to be the Guardian of the Church’s family.
  2. At the Asian Youth Day, concelebrating with the Asian bishops, he spoke on the theme of “dialogue,” offering two rules: fidelity to one’s own identity, and listening to others with the heart.

I also came to take part in the General Congregations because the Church is at a crucial moment of confusion and division, and a grave responsibility now rests on the shoulders of our brother Cardinals at the upcoming conclave—to give us a Pope who, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can lead us back to harmony and peace.

I don’t think my brother Cardinals will be surprised by what I am saying, but many of our faithful—perhaps the majority in our diocese of Hong Kong—are probably rejoicing that we’ve had a great reforming Pope, as the secular media also claims.

The word “reform” is magical, especially for the young, but it is also dangerous. A historic “reform” once tore a large part of the Church away from us.

Reform is always needed because we are sinners. But a reform that undermines the essential elements of the Church founded by Jesus—one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—is not true reform. At the Council of Trent, the Holy Spirit gave the Church the insight and strength for a vigorous Counter-Reformation, reaffirming the Church’s hierarchical and sacramental nature, especially by strengthening sound discipline in the formation of the clergy.

With the rise of atheistic philosophies in the modern age and the resulting moral collapse (the sexual revolution), the Church has faced an unprecedented attack. The Second Vatican Council came in time to strengthen the Church so that this great danger might become the opportunity for a great reform.

Unfortunately, despite the orthodox guidance of the post-conciliar Popes, there was a lack of widespread understanding and reception of the true Council, as interpreted through the hermeneutic of continuity.

A so-called “Spirit of the Council” took over much of the narrative, and “the smoke of Satan,” as Pope Paul VI said, “entered through the cracks of the Church,” or as Pope Benedict XVI described it, “the barque of Peter is taking on water.” When the sexual abuse crisis erupted, the Church entered a profound crisis. But instead of identifying its cause in the sexual revolution that infiltrated even seminaries, the blame was laid on “clericalism,” doubling the humiliation and discouragement of the faithful clergy—and even using the crisis as a pretext for completely reshaping the Church’s constitution.

Without lingering on the scandalous and inexplicably tolerated cases of Cardinal McCarrick, the priest Rupnik, and other ecclesiastics found guilty by secular courts, we cannot help but see a misguided effort to adapt to the spirit of the world rather than firmly opposing it.

This is a grave accusation, but reality seems to support it—especially when examining the recent fate of the Synods of Bishops, particularly the ongoing story of the Synod on Synodality.

Synods (or Councils—the terms are interchangeable) have historically been instruments of the Magisterium through which the Holy Spirit guarantees the continuity of Sacred Tradition.

  • Toward the end of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI established the Synod of Bishops with the motu proprio Apostolica Sollicitudo, as a sort of continuation (in miniature) of the Council—an instrument of collegiality to seek the authoritative counsel of his brother bishops.
  • Some of its most fruitful outcomes were apostolic exhortations like Evangelii Nuntiandi, Catechesi Tradendae, Sacramentum Caritatis, and Verbum Domini.

Naturally, the Pope noted that any human initiative can be improved over time.

Perhaps encouraged by this, Pope Francis—early in his pontificate—issued the Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio, a document four times longer than that of Pope Paul VI, which abrogated the earlier document and considerably changed the nature of the Synod (its members, its purpose, and its procedures).

Yet the most recent Synod went even beyond the scope of Episcopalis Communio.

MEMBERSHIP

VOTING MEMBERS

COUNT
Bishops

277

Non-bishops

99

More than fourth of the assembly are non-bishops: it is no longer the Synod of Bishops.

TYPE

COUNT
Elected and ex officio

237
Personally invited by the Pope

139

The latter group exceeds half of the 237—whereas under Apostolica Sollicitudo, they could not exceed 15%.

Also:

  • 6 bishops, 2 priests, and 1 religious sister as Presiding Delegates (Were no sufficient bishops available to preside over a Synod of Bishops?)
  • General Secretary, Relator, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Preacher—many identified as reformers of sexual ethics
  • 61 Facilitators, other experts, secretaries, and aides
  • Study groups

MOST RADICAL CHANGES: PURPOSES

According to Canon Law (canon 342):

  • To safeguard and strengthen faith and morals, and ecclesiastical discipline

But according to Episcopalis Communio:

  • Evangelization of today’s world
    Rather than preserving itself
    (But how can one be missionary without remaining the authentic Church?)

Under Pope Francis:
Synods = Change, Change, Change

SYNOD HIDDEN OBJECTIVES
Family Communion for divorced and remarried
Youth “Make a mess!” (Synodality)
Amazon Ordain viri probati; end mandatory celibacy
Synodality Sexual morality (LGBTQ+), power structure in Church, women deacons, doctrinal autonomy for bishops’ conferences, synodal Church

 

PROCEDURES

Canon 343:
Discuss problems in assembly

Synod on Synodality:
Small groups: pray, share, pray, share, pray, share.
In general assembly: little discussion (more psychology than doctrine).
Absolute control by facilitators.

Critique:
“Conversation in the Spirit” is a method invented by Canadian Jesuits—not to aid discernment, but to soothe emotions before discussion. Wait for the surprises of the Spirit? Will the Spirit now tell you that He was wrong for twenty centuries and is now going to tell you the truth?

Based on:

  • Sacred Scripture
  • Sacred Tradition
    in linguistic circles
    vote on brief resolutions (not to be published)
    offer them to the Pope
    who will, with the help of a commission,
    freely write the post-synodal Exhortation.

The Synod begun in 2021 has concluded, but not truly. A final document exists, but it contains no solutions to the problems raised during the Synod.

It is unclear who drafted the document or how the amendments were processed. Nevertheless, it was accepted by the Pope and presented as part of his Magisterium.

The directive is to study the complex document and, according to each community’s understanding, begin putting it into experimental practice. The results will be assessed by the Pope during ad limina visits. This approach risks bringing us closer to Anglican practice. Will it be possible to turn back after years of experimentation? How will the unity of the Catholic Church be preserved?

The electors of the next Pope must be aware that he will bear the responsibility of either continuing this synodal process or decisively halting it. This is a matter of life or death for the Church founded by Jesus.

Intervento alla Congregazione Generale

Il nostro decano, nella sua lettera di invito, ha ricordato che noi anziani, non elettori, non siamo obbligati a prendere parte a queste sedute. Io sono un vecchio di 93 anni; convalescente da una lunga malattia non seria, ma che mi aveva allegerito di dieci chili; arrestato tre anni fa, sospettato di avere contravenuto la legge di sicurezza nazionale, ma subito concessa la cauzione; ho creduto mio dovere di venire. A suo tempo mi avevano rilasciato il passaporto per il funerale di Papa Benedetto, 2 giorni a Roma; questa volta 10 giorni. Sia ringraziato il Signore.

Prima di fare il mio intervento prego tutti di scusarmi se non posso parlare di certe cose, e devo tenere il massimo riserbo nel mio comportamento, ringrazio della vostra comprensione.

Sono venuto per il funerale del Santo Padre che ci ha lasciato per il cielo, e mi associo volentieri al coro attorno a noi che canta hosanna all’augusto pastore defunto (quasi un grido di “Santo subito”). Ho molte felici memorie che voglio fare parte a voi.

Il nostro primo incontro è stato in una commissione post-sinodale, dove ho ammirato il suo grande zelo pastorale, per cui egli è stato poi uno dei miei 5 preferiti papabili in quel conclave. Fatto Papa si è manifestato un Padre amoroso: all’inizio degli incontri ogni mercoledi faceva girare la sua “gip” attorno la piazza S. Pietro, quasi per lesciarsi toccare da tutti, e dopo l’allocuzione scendeva per intrattenersi con tutti quegli amalati in carozzele.

Ho goduto della sua gioviale amicizia. È stato allievo dei salesiani, e un giorno mi sfidò: “quali sono le 3 ‘devozioni’ raccomandate da S. Giovanni Bosco?” risposi prontamente: «devozioni al SSmo Sacramento, alla Madonna ed al Papa.» «Ecco, devozione al Papa! Non dimenticardo!»

Ho avuto il privilegio di concelebrare con lui in Casa Santa Marta, insieme ad un altro vescovo salesiano, dopo la messa disse: mi sembrava di essere Gesù in mezzo a due ladroni (simpatico!)

Un’altra volta dopo una messa in Piazza San Pietro, egli veniva a salutare un gruppo di vescovi, erano giorni quando c’erano le sfilate di proteste a Hong Kong, avvicinandosi a me, fece il gesto e disse “ecco colui che va alla battaglia con la fionda”, il tono era canzonatorio, ma in fondo era un complimento, mi paragonava a Davide.

In occasione del funerale di Papa Benedetto, Papa Francesco mi concesse, in quel giorno in cui doveva essere molto occupato, una calda udienza personale.

Ma ci sono due ricordi più importanti:

  1. Il giorno di inizio del suo ufficio pontificale, un giorno di festa di S. Giuseppe, disse: S. Giuseppe è stato anzitutto un Custode, Custode della Famiglia Sacra, così il papa sarà il Custode della Famiglia della Chiesa.
  2. Alla giornata della gioventù asiatica, concelabrando con I Vescovi Assiatici presenti parlò sul tema del “Dialogo”: due regole: fedeltà alla propria identità ed ascolto dell’altro con il cuore.

Sono venuto anche per prendere parte alle congregazioni generali si trova, perchè la Chiesa sitrova in un momento cruciale di confusione e di divisione, ed un dovere gravoso incombe sulle spalle dei nostri fratelli Cardinali nella prossima conclave, di darci un papa che, con l’aiuto dello Spirito Santo, sappia riportarci all’armonia e alla pace.

Penso che i miei fratelli Cardinali non si meravigliano di quel che sto dicendo, ma forse molti nostri fedeli, probalilmente grande parte di quelli nella nostra diocesi di Hong Kong, si stanno congratulando di aver avuto un grande Papa di Riformo, come pure vengono confermati da media secolari.

La parola “riforma” è magica, specialmente per i giovani, ma è anche una parole pericolosa. Una “riforma” storica ha staccato una buona parte della nostra Chiesa da noi.

La riforma è sempre necessaria perchè siamo uomini peccatori, ma una Riforma che intacca gli elementi essenziali della Chiesa fondata da Gesù (una santa, catolica, apostolica) non è vera riforma. Lo Spirito Santo, nel Concilio Tridentino ha infuso alla Chiesa l’intelligenza e la forza di una energica contro-riforma, riaffermando la natura gererchica e sacramentale della Chiesa, specialmente fortificando una sana disciplina nella formazione del clero.

Con il dilagare delle teorie filosofiche atee dell’ età moderna con la conseguente dissoluzione dei costumi (la rivoluzione sessuale), la Chiesa affacia un attacco senza precedente. Il Concilio Vaticano Secondo venne in tempo a fortificare la Chiesa perchè il grande pericolo diventi un’opportunità di una grande riforma.

Putroppo nonostante la guida ortodossa dei Pontefici post vaticano II è mancato una capilare assorbimento del vero Concilio inteso secondo l’ermeneutica di continuità.

Un cosi detto “Spirito del Concilio” si è impadronito della gran parte della narrativa e “il fumo di satana (come disse Papa Paolo VI) s’infiltrò attraverso le fessure dell’edificio della Chiesa, (o come disse Papa Benedetto XVI) la barca di Pietro “fa l’acqua”. Con lo scoppiare degli abusi sessuali la Chiesa è entrata in una fortissima crisi, ma invece di individuare la causa nella rivoluzione sessuale entrata nella Chiesa (perfino nei Seminari) si dà la colpa al “clericalismo” raddoppiando l’umiliazione e scoraggiamento alla parte bunona del Clero e perfino usando il fenomeno per giustificare un totale rifaccimento della constituzione della Chiesa.

Senza fermarci sui casi (incomprensibilmente tollerati) di Card. McCarrick, del prete Rupnik e di certi ecclesiastici provati colpevoli dalla giustizia secolare non riusciamo a non vedere un malconsigliato tentativo di adeguarsi allo spirito del mondo invece di combatterlo energicamente.

Questa accusa è gravissima, ma la realtà sembra risultare evidente esaminando la recente sorte dei Sinodi dei Vescovi, specialmente nella storia non ancora conclusa del Sinodo sulla Sinodalità.

I Sinodi (o I Concili, I due termini sono interscambiabili) sono gli strumenti storici del magistero, con cui lo Spirito Santo garantisce la continuità della Sacra Tradizione.

– Papa Paolo VI, verso la fine del Vat. II, ha istituito il Sinodo dei Vescovi con il motu proprio “Apostolica sollecitudo”, come una certa continuazione (miniatura) del concilio, strumento di esercizio della collegialità (per avere il consiglio autorevole dei suoi fratelli Vescovi).

Tra i frutti più evidenti sono le Apostoliche Esortazioni: Evangelii nuntiandi, Cathechesi tradendae, il Sacramento d’amore, la parola di Dio.

Naturalmente il Papa ha ricordato che ogni iniziativa umana può essere migliorata dall’esperienza.

– Forse incoraggiato da questa osservazione Papa Francesco già all’inizio del suo pontificato ha emanato Apostolica Costituzione “Episcopalis Comunio” un documento 4 volte più lungo di quello di Papa Paolo, con il quale ha abrogato il documento del Papa Paolo, cambiando considerevolmente la natura del sinodo (I membri, lo scopo e le procedure).

Ma il Sinodo più recente è andato oltre la stessa Constituzione Apostolo “Episcopali Comunio”.

MEMBRI

Vescovi : 277

Non Vescovi : 99

più di ¹⁄₃ dei Vescovi

non è più il Sinodo dei Vescovi

 

eletti e ex officio: 237

invitati nominati dal Papa: 139

più dí meta del 237

mentre nell’Apostolica Sollicitudo questi non possono superare il 15% di quelli.

 

INOLTRE 

  • Presidenti delegati: 6 Vescovi, 2 preti, 1 suora (non si trovano sufficienti vescovi per presiedere sinodo dei Vescovi?)
  • Segretario Generale, Relatore, Capo Dicastero della Dottrina, Il Predicatore – Dichiarati rinnovatori dell’Etica sessuale
  • 61 Facilitatori? altri Esperti, Segretari, aiutanti segretari
  • gruppi di studio

 

Ma più importanti radicali cambiamenti degli SCOPI del Sinodo nel codice di Diritto canonico 342:

salvaguardare, consolidare la fede e la morale

e la disciplina ecclesiale

ma nella Cost. Episcopalis Comunio:

evangelizzazione del mondo Odierno

piuttosto che la propria preservazione

[come essere missionari senza rimanere autentica Chiesa?]

 

nei sinodi sotto Papa Francesco: Cambio, Cambio, Cambio.

Sinodi Obiettivi (hidden agenda)
Famiglia  comunione ai divorziati, risposati
Giovani  fare baruffa, (Sinodalità)
Amazon

 

 ordinazione “viri probati”

Celibato non più obbligatorio
Sinodalità

 

 

 

 

 morale sessuale (LGBTQ)

struttura di potere nella chiesa

diaconato alle donne

autonomia dottrinale alle Conferenze episcopali

Chiesa Sinodale

PROCEDURE

Diritto Canonico 343:

discutere problemi in assemblea

 nel sinodo su Sinodalità

In piccoli gruppi: pregare, sharing, pregare, sharing, pregare, sharing.

Nell’ assemblea poca discussione (psicologia, non dottrina.) Assoluto controllo (i facilitatori).

 

Critica: conversazione nello spirito è un metodo inventato da Gesuiti canadesi, non per aiutare discernimento, ma per calmare gli spiriti prima della discussion. Aspettare le sorprese dello Spirito? Lo Spirito verrà a dirvi che ha sbagliato per venti secoli ed ora vi dirà la verità?
basando su

{

 S. Scrittura

S. Tradizione
in Circoli linguistici

votare concise deliberazioni

(non da pubblicare)

offrire al Papa

con aiuto di una commissione

il Papa liberamente scrive

l’Esortazione post sinodale

Il Sinodo iniziato nel 2021 è concluso, ma non è davvero concluso. Esiste un documento finale, ma non contiene soluzioni ai problemi menzionati nel suo corso.

Non è chiaro chi abbia redatto il documento né come siano state esaminate le modifiche. Tuttavia, è stato accettato dal Papa e presentato come parte del suo magistero.

L’indicazione è quella di studiare il complesso documento e, secondo la comprensione di ogni comunità, iniziare a metterlo in pratica in forma sperimentale. I risultati saranno valutati dal Papa durante le visite ad limina. Questo procedimento rischia di avvicinarci alla prassi anglicana. Sarà possibile tornare indietro dopo alcuni anni di sperimentazione? Come si salvaguarderà l’unità della Chiesa cattolica?

Gli elettori del futuro Papa devono essere consapevoli che egli avrà la responsabilità di permettere la continuazione del processo sinodale oppure di troncarlo con decisione. Si tratta della vita o della morte della Chiesa fondata da Gesù.

Comments on Dr. Taylor Marshall’s: “Viganò vs. Barron on Vatican II and Benedict XVI”

Dear everyone,

I am old and still not yet back to my best form from my recent illness. I am trying to be up-to-date about everything happening in the Church, which, you will agree, is in a terrible state of confusion (Cardinals against Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops), I only hope that what I am writing now is not going to add to that confusion.

I happened to find on my i-pad one piece from Dr. Taylor Marshall “Viganò vs. Barron on Vatican II and Benedict XVI”. It’s dated 2020, but the debate is still going on and I want to join it.

******************************************************************************

Declaration of interest

– I almost always enjoyed viewing what is on the programme of Dr. Taylor Marshall, I am decidedly a traditionalist.

– I agree on several points with Archbishop Viganò, but I would not subscribe to everything he affirms.

– I admire Bishop Barron, I would like myself and all the Bishops to be like him, so learned and so balanced in his teaching of the Catholic Doctrine (I am only a little disappointed, that he is not as outspoken as I am – to my misfortune).

– I love Pope Benedict XVI as the father of my soul. The most precious thing I keep is a volume of his “Ultime conversazioni” that he sent to me with a dedication: “In union of prayer and thought”.

******************************************************************************

I want to comment on the quotation which Dr. Taylor Marshall made from Pope Benedict XVI:

“To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council (…). We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow.

And this today of the Church is the Documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them”

First of all, the fundamental thing we must believe is: God’s revelation is to be found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition from the Apostles (“We believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”).

Then, the Tradition is guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, especially through the working of the Ecumenical Councils (“Sacrosancta Synodus”) – meeting of the whole College of Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, under the leadership of Peter. The teaching of the Ecumenical Councils constitutes the most authoritative Magisterium.

So, we must believe that, through the Documents of Vatican II, the Holy Spirit has spoken to us, believers of today.

Pope Benedict believed strongly in the continuity of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit, for him the only hermeneutics of the Council must be that of continuity, not of rupture.

I can’t understand how he can be misunderstood; the hermeneutics of continuity was constantly on his lips. Obviously, when he said: “We must remain faithful to the today of the Church“, he meant faithful to a today which is guaranteed to be faithful to the yesterday. A Council of today is faithful to all the Councils of yesterday, because the actor of today’s Council is properly the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who guided all the past Councils, He cannot deny himself.

I would like to ask a question to Dr. Marshall and Archbishop Viganò: To which ‘yesterday’ do you want to be faithful? To the First Vatican Council ? Or to the Council of Trent? You trust more the Holy Spirit of the previous Councils? Don’t you think that the Holy Spirit may have said something new to all the previous Councils and may have new things to tell us today (obviously, nothing in contradiction to previous Councils)?

We believe that this Council, Vatican II, as all other Councils, is faithful to the continuous Tradition of the Church.

******************************************************************************

May be we must asks other questions to clarify our stands: “Which Council we have in mind in our discussion?”

(A) A vague “spirit of the Council” or the Council Documents?

It is nonsense to talk about the spirit of the Council, if you ignore the Documents of the Council. Were the long sessions of fierce discussion a futile exercise? The careful analysis of sentences? Even the meticulous pondering of a single word? The Documents are the fruit of the cooperation between the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the hard work of the Council Fathers with the help of many outstanding theologians. Only through the attentive reading of the Council Documents you can get to the real spirit of the Council.

(B) “The Council itself or the situation of the Church after the Council?“

Post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc. You cannot blame on the Council all the wrong things that happened after it in the Church.

The liturgical reform, for example, was maturing in the Church long before the Council, many thought that they knew what it had to be, and they simply ignored the Council Document. Then we could see so many abuses, with the consequent loss of the sense of reverence for the sacred Mysteries. When Pope Benedict appealed for the “reform of the reform”, he did not mean to repudiate the Council, but a distorted understanding of the real Council.

Distortions and amputations of Vatican II teaching abound.

The Constitution on the Church emphasizes rightly the common priesthood of the faithful, but many stop there. They forget that there is also a clear affirmation of the hierarchical teaching and governing authority in the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles. Now, with the name of XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, they killed the real Synod of Bishops as established by Pope Paul VI and created a new hybrid body, which looks absolutely like a secular democratic assembly, something that they strongly deny. Emphasizing the etymology of the word “Synod”, they forget the historical reality of the Synods which guarantee the continuation of the Sacred Tradition.

The Decree on Ecumenism, that on Religious Freedom, and the Declaration Nostra aetate were taken as encouragement for a unique, universal “world religion”, dispensing us from the duty of missionary zeal, which is even called “proselytism”, a word with negative connotations. Pope John Paul II preached strongly against such misunderstanding.

Some people complained about what they thought was ambiguous in the Documents of the Council. To make clarity, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal Ratzinger, compiled the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a vast consultation of the world Episcopate, a secure guidance for evangelization and catechesis. Nobody should, light-heartedly, touch it, at least not without an equally vast consultation of the College of Bishops. The rich and clear Magisterium of Pope Wojtiła and Cardinal Ratzinger must have sufficiently dispelled all the clouds and shown to the Christian faithful the splendor of the truth.

The seeming failure of the Council may be explained by the lack of a good plan of its execution.

The Council of Trent succeeded to really reform the Church because of the leadership of bishops like St. Charles Borromeo after the Council through the several diocesan and regional Synods.

Cardinal Wojtiła took eight years of serious catechesis to start a real ‘aggiornamento’ in his diocese.

(C) “Many say there was a ‘Council of the Media’.“

From the times of past Councils to the present one, the means of communication have made enormous progress and have become, also, a terrible force in creating and spreading wrong ideas (in philosophy and in theology). Some media enjoyed the fierce battles during the Council and were happy to have those battles prolonged.

Unfortunately, there was a group of theologians, among them Alberigo, who sustained that the Council should go on, even after its conclusion. They sustained that the Council was an impetus given by the Holy Spirit which should make the Church always in a state of ongoing change.

Cardinal Ratzinger rejected such an idea. The Councils are moment of suspension, when the bishops gather together to discuss and find solutions to the problems of the times. At the end of Vatican II they reached almost unanimous conclusions. Now is time to go back to work. It is time to bring the light of Christ to the world. ‘Aggiornamento’ means this, to open the doors and the windows, to bring the Gospel to the peripheries of the world, as Pope Francis says, not only geographical peripheries, but existential peripheries (by the way, the bishops know better the existential peripheries in their particular geographic peripheries).

‘Aggiornamento’ is to let the light of Christ (Lumen) go out from the Church to reach all the peoples (gentes), and not to allow the spirit of the world to infiltrate the Church (as the organizers of the present Synod are doing when they try to introduce a pastoral method of appeasement).

Conclusion

I wish my friend Dr. Taylor Marshall to persevere in being a traditionalist, but to be also full of trust in the wisdom of Pope Benedict.

分析（教宗）對我們最初呈上的5個疑慮的答覆

2023年7月10日，五位樞機向教宗提出了5項懷疑，翌日7月11日立刻收到了教宗的答覆，因為那些回覆並不直接答覆我們的疑慮，我們在8月21日簡化了那些問題再呈教宗，使他能清晰地答「是」或「否」。現在，既然羅馬教廷已經公開了教宗的答覆，我認為我們應該對他的回覆作出分析，以讓信眾了解我們五人為何認為這些答覆沒有清晰解除問題。由於時間緊迫，我未有徵求其他四位樞機的意見，因此只有我個人對這「分析」負責。

前提

對教宗的回答提出質疑不是太冒昧嗎？不會，原因如下：

1. 任何一個成熟的天主教徒都不會認為，如費爾南德斯（Cardinal Fernández）樞機所說：「任何與教宗提出疑問的人都是異端和分裂份子」，事實上，我們的教宗曾非常謙遜地承認他自己的錯誤和他之前的教會成員所犯的錯（例如，他曾前往加拿大，花了六天時間，為多年前寄宿學校對原住民青年犯下的所謂殘忍行為認罪）。

2. 我放心作出下列分析也是因為我有充份理由懷疑這些回覆並非出自教宗之手筆。這次我更可以引用費爾南德斯大樞機在談到一份經教宗授權簽署的文件時所說的話，來支持我的行動：「我在文件中嗅不到教宗的氣味。」事實上，這次回覆之迅速（7月10日呈上，7月11日回覆）教人難以置信；2016年的那廣為人知的「懷疑」（Dubia）卻被置之不理，強烈的對比，讓人懷疑這些回應是今次主教會議的組織者（可能更是在費爾南德斯大樞機的幫助下）早已擬定的一些答案，以應付擾亂其議程的人。

3. 還有，基本上，我同意教宗大部份的回覆，只是對我們的懷疑卻未有作出準確回應，而且有些回覆某程度上還證實了我們的疑慮。現分析如下。

(1) 教宗方濟各對第一個「疑問」的回應

(a) 答案取決於您對「重新解釋」一詞的意思。如果將其理解為「更好地解釋」，則該說法是對的。從這個意義上說，梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議確認，有必要透過釋經學者的工作（我會加上神學家的工作）「教會的審斷才能更成熟」（梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議，《天主的啟示》教義憲章，12）。

(b) 因此，雖然神聖啟示確實是不可變的且始終具有約束力，但教會必須謙虛，承認她永不會盡淨發揮「啟示」的深不可測的豐富內容，並且需要對其理解有所成長。

(c) 因此，她對自己在訓導中所確認的內容也會有更加成熟的理解。

(d) 文化改變和歷史上的新挑戰不會改變神聖啟示，但可以刺激我們更好地表達出其豐富內容的某些方面，並且總能夠提供更多。

(e) 這會無可避免地導致教廷對過去的一些聲明作出更好的表達，事實上，整個歷史中都有發生。

(f) 在一方面，教會的訓導權確實並不在天主的言語之上，但聖經的文本和聖傳的見證也確實需要解釋，好能將它們的永恆的實質與文化的制約區分開來。例如，在聖經文本（如出谷紀 21：20-21）和一些容忍奴隸制度的訓導言論中（參見教宗尼閣五世，《當不同之時》詔書Bull Dum diversas，1452），這一點是顯而易見的。這不是小事，因為它密切涉及「人不可剝奪的尊嚴」這永恆的真理。這些文本需要解釋。這也適用於新約聖經中關於婦女的某些想法（格林多前書11：3-10；弟茂德前書2：11-14）還有一些聖經文本和聖傳文件，今天無法照字重複。

(g) 必須強調的是，不能改變的是「為使萬民得救」所啟示的一切（梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議，《天主的啟示》教義憲章，7）。因此，教會必須不斷辨別什麼是救恩所必需的，什麼是次要的或與此目標不太直接相關的。在這方面，我想回提一提聖多瑪斯．阿奎那所說的：「愈討論到細節，愈難指出有關的原則」（《神學大全》I/II q.94，第4條）。

(h) 最後，任何一條真理，孤單地，即抽離神聖啟示整體豐富而和諧的背景，就永遠無法充分理解它。「真理的層次」也意味著該將它們每一條與中心的真理和教會的整套教義恰當地聯繫起來。這最終可能導致同一真理能以不同的方式解釋，儘管「有些人只期望一個結構結實的整體，大家堅守，不容半點細微的異見，對他們來說，多思潮的現象就顯得不可取並導致混淆。但福音具有取之不盡的富饒，上述不同思潮其實有助發掘和發展其不同的幅度」（《福音的喜樂》宗座勸諭 Evangelii gaudium，40）。每一種神學思潮都有其風險，但也製造機會。

分析對第一疑問的回覆

我同意(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)段的一些觀點，其中談到了教會訓導的進步：更好的理解、更好的表達、更好的解釋、某些方面更明確、更成熟的判斷……。

所有這些都是對的，但不能因此而否定教會訓導以前所說的話。聖紐曼樞機說過，教會教義的發展總是忠於其本質的。聖神不會否定自己。

(f)(g)(h)段更為複雜。

(f)段

奴隸的制度 —— 奴隸制曾是社會秩序的重要組成部份。即使是最受人尊敬的哲學家，如柏拉圖和亞里士多德，也認為人分為三類：哲學家、士兵和奴隸。初期的基督教團體根本無法想像能夠改變這一切。但聖保祿寫給費肋孟的書信表明，人是天主的兒女這概念，已開始從根本上改變主人與奴隸之間的關係，並最終對奴隸制度本身提出質疑。

女性的處境——當你了解到伯多祿神恩和瑪利亞神恩是多麼珍貴時，你就會發現它們是兩種不同的任務，但這並不存在尊嚴高低的分別（請想一想母親的力量是多麼巨大，因為她在培育年輕生命方面有舉足輕重的地位。即便這些新生命後來成為國王和皇后，他們也會認為孝敬皇太后是絕對應該）。

(g)段

「為了拯救所有人 」這一句並不單單指啟示的一部份，而是整個啟示；而啟示的內容的確構成了一個價值等級，但這卻是一個和諧的整體，不能從中取捨。

(h)段

然而，(h)段中所指的神學及其帶出的「風險」，這「風險」怎麼可以泰然接受？我不禁要問：難道教會的權威沒有責任去保護信眾免受「可能威脅信仰純正」的風險嗎？

(2) 教宗方濟各對第二個「疑問」的回應

(a) 教會對婚姻有非常明確的理解：男人和女人之間專一的、固定的、不可拆散的結合，自然對生育開放。只有這種結合才能稱為「婚姻」。其他某些形式的結合「僅以部分或是以類比的方式」實現它（《愛的喜樂》宗座勸諭Amoris Laetitia，292），因此它們不能嚴格稱為「婚姻」。

(b) 這不只是名稱的問題，我們稱之為婚姻的現實是有獨特的本質構成，需要一個專有的名稱，不適用於其他現實。毫無疑問，這不僅僅是一種「理想」。

(c) 基於這個原因，教會避免任何可能與此信念相矛盾的儀式或聖事，以免暗示非婚姻的事物被承認為婚姻。

(d) 然而，在我們與人的關係中，我們絕不能失去牧靈的仁愛精神，它應該滲透到我們所有的決定和態度中。捍衛客觀真理並不是這種仁愛的唯一表現；它也包括仁慈、耐心、理解、溫柔和鼓勵。因此，我們不能成為一味否定、拒絕、排斥的判官。

(e) 因此，牧靈上的審慎必須適當辨別，是否有人或多人所請求的不同祝福形式並不傳達錯誤的婚姻觀念。因為當有人向我們請求祝福時，這是在表達向天主尋求幫助的懇求，求天主使他們生活得更好，是對天主的信任，信仰祂是我們的父親，祂能夠幫助我們活得更好。

(f) 另一方面，雖然有些情況從客觀角度來看，在道德上是不可接受的，但同樣的牧靈仁愛精神要求我們不要簡單地將其他人視為「罪人」，因為這些人的罪過或責任可能會因各種因素減輕犯罪者主觀的罪責（參見聖若望保祿二世：《論和好與懺悔》勸諭Reconciliatio et Paenitentia，17）。」

(g) 在某些情況下，某些決定可能說是出於牧靈審慎所做的，但不一定該成為一種規範。也就是說，一個教區、一個主教團或任何其他教會架構，不斷地和正式地為各種事務啟用程序或儀式是不合適的，因為並非所有「針對個別情況所作的分辨結果」都應「被提昇到普遍原則的層次」，因為這會『導致不能接受的「個案詭辯」』（《愛的喜樂》，304）。教會法不應也不可能涵蓋一切，主教團也不應以其各種文件和規矩這樣做，因為教會的生活除了規範性管道以外也可通過許多其他管道進行。

分析對第二疑問的回應

(a)(b)(c)段重申了唯一真正的婚姻觀念，相信沒有一個天主教徒會否認這一教理。但是，(a)段其中一句卻讓我們非常擔心，它引用了《愛的喜樂》（Amoris Laetitia）中的一句話：「其他形式的結合只是以部份和類似的方式表達婚姻中的愛」！？

同樣令人難以理解的是(e)(g)段中說在某些情況下教會可以某些形式祝福同性之間的結合。這種結合難道並不包括同性之間的性行為？這顯然是有罪的，正如合法婚姻之外的任何性行為都是有罪的一樣！

關於我們對同性戀者的一般「牧民態度」，第(d)(f)段偏重於將「理解」和「溫柔」與「僅僅」捍衛客觀真理，與「僅僅」否認、拒絕和排斥，與「僅僅」將同性戀者視為罪人對立起來。其實我們深信，我們必須以理解和溫柔的態度向他們說明同性性行為是一種罪，是違背天主愛的計劃的客觀事實。我們還必須鼓勵他們返回教會，相信天主會幫助他們背負沉重的十字架，走向永恆的幸福。

(g)段從牧民的角度完全站不住腳。在如此重要的問題上，教會怎能不給予信徒明確的規則，而輕信個人的辨別能力？讓人人照個別情形去決定不正會引起極度的爭論和混亂，這難道不會危害靈魂的救贖嗎？

(3) 教宗方濟各對第三個「疑問」的回應

(a) 儘管您們承認教會的最高和完全的權柄是由教宗憑藉其職位以及世界主教團與首領羅馬教宗共同行使的（參見梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議，《教會》教義憲章，22），現在你們向我提出這些問題，您們表明了您們有參與、自由表達意見和合作的需要，從而要求在履行我的職責時採取某種形式的「共議精神」。

(b) 教會是「傳教的共融奧秘」，但這種共融不僅是情感上的或是虛無縹緲的；它必然意味著真正的參與。不只是聖統層級，而是全體天主子民都可以用各種方式、在不同層面讓自己的聲音被聽到，並感受到自己是教會旅程的一部分。 從這個意義上說，我們可以說，共議精神作為一種風格和活力，是教會生活的重要維度。關於這一點，聖若望保祿二世在《新千年的開始》宗座牧函（Novo millennio ineunte）中說了一些非常美麗的話語。

(c) 將會議神聖化或強加一種特定的共議方法來吸引某一組別的人，使其成為每個人的規範和必經之路，這是另一回事，因為這只會「凍結」了共議的旅程，忽略了各個特殊教會的不同特徵，以及普世教會的豐富多樣性。

分析對第三疑問的回應

我們最初提出的疑慮是：主教會議並非由整個主教團組成，但本屆會議似乎要解決那些只有與教宗一起召開的大公會議才有權決定的問題。這是錯誤的。

但(a)段的回覆似乎只將synodality簡單地理解成在教會中共議和同行。從這個意義上，這次樞機們向教宗提交5點疑慮，證明他們同意這個主教會議「共議同行」的原則。

(b)段繼續引伸以上的理念，指出「所有天主子民都以不同方式在不同層面參與傳教事務」。在這裡，千萬別忽略「以不同方式及於不同層面」這點。其實，主教會議的文件在某程度上甚至承認了「準備決定」與「正式作出決定」之間的區別（即「參與決定的過程」與「作出決定」本身之間的分別）。可惜，同樣的文件也提出，教會高層不僅要「聽」，更要「聽取」，即服從人民（即平信徒）的聲音，這等於改變了耶穌在宗徒上所建立的教會及其聖統制，猶如把金字塔倒轉過來。

 (4) 教宗方濟各對第四個「疑問」的回應

(a) 「教友們的普通司祭職和公務司祭職人員……有實質的分別」（梵蒂岡第二大公會議，《教會》教義憲章，10）。堅稱某種高低的差異是不恰當的，因為這意味著將信徒的普通司祭職視為「二等」或價值較低（「較低等級」）的東西。這兩種形式的司祭職相互照亮和支持對方。

(b) 當聖若望保祿二世教導我們必須「決定性地」確認不可能授予女性神職品時，他絕不是在貶低女性，並將至高無上的權力賦予男性。聖若望保祿二世也肯定了其他的事情。例如，當我們談到司祭的權柄時，「這裡是『職務』的問題，而不是『地位』和『聖德』的問題」（聖若望保祿二世《基督信友平信徒》勸諭Christifideles laici，51），我們還沒有充分理解這些話。他明確認為，雖然神父獨自主持聖體聖事，但這項任務「並不意味某些人比其他人優越」（聖若望保祿二世《基督信友平信徒》勸諭，註釋190；參閱信理部《婦女與聖秩》宣言Inter insigniores，6）。他還指出，固然司祭的功能是聖統制的，但它不應該被理解為一種統治形式，而這制度「完全為了聖化基督成員的」（聖若望保祿二世〈婦女的尊嚴與聖召〉宗座書函Mulieris dignitatem，27）。 如果不理解這一點，並且不從這些區別中得出實際結果，就很難接受神職人員只為男性保留，我們也將無法承認婦女的權利或承認她們也需要以不同方式參與教會的領導的必要性。

(c) 另一方面，為了嚴格起見，讓我們承認，對於「什麼是一個有決定性和權威的教義」尚未有一套清晰的概念。這不是一個教條式的定義，但所有人都必須遵守。沒有人可以公開違反它，但它可以成為一個研究主題，就像研究聖公會神職品的有效性一樣。

分析對第四疑問的回覆

關於公務司祭職，梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議指出，它與普通司祭職「不僅在程度上不同，而且在本質上也不同」。通過聖事按立，聖職人員「以基督的身份 」於更高的程度上參與基督的司祭職。然而，在這裡我們談論的是職能，而不是個人的地位、聖德或任何其他優越性，正如教宗在引述《基督信友平信徒》勸諭（Christifideles Laici）時所申明的那樣。

在(c)段中，教宗承認男性獨享公務司祭職雖不是信理，而是明確、清晰和具權威性的聲明，所有人都必須尊重；但答案卻留下了一條尾巴：「但它可以是一個研究課題，就如英國聖公會中按立聖職的有效性一樣」。因此，儘管有了確切的聲明，將來仍有可能就這議題「無休止地」進行討論？！除此以外，這裡所用的例子並不恰當，因為聖公會中按立聖職的有效性是一個歷史問題，而我們的這個問題卻屬於神學性質。

(5) 教宗方濟各對第五個「疑問」的回應

(a) 悔改對懺悔聖事的有效性是必要的，並且意味著立志不再犯罪。但這裡不是數學計算，我必須再次提醒您們，修和室不是海關。我們不是聖事的主人，而是謙卑的管家；聖事滋養信徒，因為天主的這些恩賜，不只是需要保存的聖髑，而是聖神對人們生活的幫助。

(b) 表達悔改的方式有很多種。通常，對於自尊心嚴重受創的人來說，承認自己有罪是一種殘酷的折磨，但願意走近修和室的舉動本身，就是悔改和尋求天主幫助的象徵性表達。

(c) 我還想提醒一下，「有時候，我們在牧靈工作上，感到難以體現天主無條件的愛」（《愛的喜樂》，311），但我們必須學會這樣去做。跟隨聖若望保祿二世，我堅持認為，我們不應該向信徒要求對改過有過於精確和肯定的計劃，這最終會變得抽象甚至自戀，而即使預期再次會跌倒，「也不等於沒有定改心」。（聖若望保祿二世，致威廉．鮑姆樞機（ William W. Baum）及聖赦院年度課程參加者的信，1996 年 3 月 22 日，5）。

(d) 最後，必須明確的是，當一個人處於臨死的痛苦，或精神和心理的能力非常有限時，與告解相關的所有條件通常都不適用。

分析對第五疑問的回覆

(a)段

正因為我們是聖事的管理者，而不是聖事的主人，所以我們必須遵守規則，確保懺悔及定改的完整性。為什麼說我們這樣做是會把修和室變成「海關」一樣？

(b)段

聽告解的人不能羞辱告解者，但告解者必要謙卑，他該知道為得罪赦，不再犯罪的志願是必須的（同時也要避免任何犯罪的機會）。當然，當刻真誠的許諾並不完全能免除重蹈惡習的可能。但重要的是要明白，罪會令我們遠離天主，遠離我們的幸福，不只是永恆的福樂，還有此時此地的心靈平安。

我們也深信，我們必須學會真正成為天父無限仁慈的使者，即使我們都是罪人，天主也有能力使我們成為聖人。

ANALYSIS OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN TO THE 5 DUBIA AS ORIGINALLY FORMULATED

The five Cardinals of the 5 Dubia presented to the Pope on July 10, 2023 did not publish the Pope’s responses on July 11, because these were not precise responses and did not resolve the doubts. Now, since the Holy See has published them, it seems appropriate to me that we respond to those answers, so that the faithful understand why the five of us did not find them adequate as answers. Given the time pressure, I did not consult the other four Cardinals and therefore I alone am personally responsible for this initiative.

Premise

Isn’t it presumptuous to question the Pope’s answers? No, for the following reasons:

1. No mature Catholic will believe that “anyone who contradicts the Holy Father is a heretic and schismatic”, as His Eminence Víctor Manuel Fernández stated. In fact, our Holy Father is wonderfully humble in recognizing errors, his own and the errors of those who preceded him in the Church (for example, he travelled to Canada and spent six days saying “mea culpa” for the so-called cruelties committed many years ago against Aboriginal youth in residential schools).

2. In the present case, I have a well-founded doubt that those answers do not come from the pen of the Supreme Pontiff, since this time I can quote in my favour what the Most Eminent Fernandez said about a document signed with the authority of the Pope : “I can’t smell the Pope in it.” In fact, the incredible promptness of the responses (July 11), especially in contrast to the case of the other famous 5 Dubia of 2016 that were simply ignored, makes one suspect that these responses are part of the arsenal of answers that the organizers of the Synod, probably with the help of the ‘Most Eminent’, had already prepared to respond to the disturbers of their agenda.

3. Moreover, in what I will say, I agree with the Pope on much of what he says, only taking exception to the fact that his responses are not precise answers to our Dubia, indeed sometimes his responses confirm our Dubia. Let’s get to the analysis.

Analysis of the Response to the First Dubium

I can agree with paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) where there is talk about progress, better understanding, better expression, better interpretation, some aspects being more explicit, more mature judgment…

All this is fine, but not to the point of denying what was stated before by the Magisterium. Saint John Henry Newman rightly said that the development of the doctrine of the Church is always homogeneous. He wrote an entire book about this.

Paragraphs (f)(g)(h) are more complicated.

Paragraph (f)

The case of the slaves. Slavery was an essential part of the order of society. Even the most respected philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, recognized human beings as divided into three categories: philosophers, soldiers and slaves. The incipient Christian community could not even think of being able to change all this. But Saint Paul’s Letter to Philemon shows how the concept of human beings as children of God was already beginning to radically change the relationship between master and slave and will end up calling into question the very institution of slavery.

The case of the woman. When you understand how precious the Petrine and Marian charisms are, you see that they are two different tasks, but there is no question of different dignity (in this regard, think how great the power of the mother is due to her preponderant weight in the education of young lives. Even when these new lives become kings and queens, they believe it is their duty to honour the queen mother).

Paragraph (g)

The phrase “for the salvation of all” does not refer to a part of the revelation, but to the whole revelation, the contents of which form, yes, a hierarchy of values, but in a harmonious whole and it is not permitted to pit one against the other.

Paragraph (h)

Where, however, in paragraph (h) theology and its “risks” are spoken of as calmly acceptable, I have to ask: does not the authority of the Church have duty to defend the simple faithful from risks that can threaten the purity of faith?

Analysis of the Response to the Second Dubium

Paragraphs (a) (b) (c) reaffirmed the only true conception of marriage which, moreover, no Catholic has ever dared to deny. But we are astonished by the sentence in paragraph (a), which quotes from Amoris laetitia: «Other forms of union do so only in a partial and analogous way»!?

Equally difficult is the sentence in paragraph (a) where it allows certain forms of blessing of homosexual unions. Doesn’t such a union imply sexual activity between people of the same sex, which is clearly sinful, just as any sexual activity outside of legitimate marriage is sinful?

Concerning our general attitude towards homosexuals, paragraphs (e) (f) are biased in opposing understanding and tenderness to the “mere” defence of objective truth, to “only” denying, rejecting and excluding, to treating homosexuals “only” as sinners. In fact, we are convinced that with understanding and tenderness we must also present to them the objective truth that homosexual activity is a sin, that it is contrary to God’s plan of love. We must also encourage them to a metanoia in the Church and trust in the help of God to carry their heavy cross on the path to eternal happiness.

Paragraph (g) is pastorally untenable. How can the Church, in such an important matter, leave the people without a clear rule and trust individual discernment? Isn’t this how a chaos of casuistry very dangerous for souls will break out?

Analysis of the Response to the Third Dubium.

The original Dubium starts from the fact that the present Synod, which is not made up of the entire college of bishops, seems to want to resolve issues that only an ecumenical Council with the Pope has the right to decide. This would be wrong.

Paragraph (a) of the response, instead, seems to start from synodality understood simply as speaking and walking together in the Church. In this sense, the fact that Cardinals have presented Dubia to the Pope confirms that they agree on this principle of synodality. Paragraph (b) continues to develop the above concept and says that “all the people of God participate in the mission in different ways and at different levels”. Here, it is important not to forget “in different ways and at different levels”. In fact, the documents of the Synod at a certain point even recognize the difference between “making decisions” and “taking decisions” (that is, the difference between participating in the process in view of a decision and the act of making the decision itself). But the same documents also suggest that the hierarchy must not only “hear”, but “listen”, i.e. obey the voice of the people, that is, the lay people, overturning the pyramid of the hierarchical constitution of the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles.

Analysis of the Response to the Fourth Dubium

Regarding the ministerial priesthood, the Second Vatican Council says that it is different from the common priesthood “not only in degree, but essentially”, therefore, also in degree. With sacramental ordination, the minister acts “in persona Christi”, participating in the priesthood of Christ in a higher degree. However, here we are talking about the function and not about the dignity or sanctity or any other superiority of people, as the Pope also affirms, quoting from Christifideles laici.

In paragraph (c) he recognizes that the exclusive conferral of the ministerial priesthood on males is not a dogma, but a definitive, clear and authoritative statement, which must be respected by all. But the answer leaves a tail: «yet it can be a subject of study, as in the case of the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Community». So, despite the definitive declaration, it will still be possible to discuss “ad infinitum”?! Among other things, the comparison used here is not adequate, because the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Community is a historical problem, while our case is of a theological nature.

Analysis of the Response to the Fifth Dubium

Paragraph (a)

Precisely because we are administrators and not masters of the Sacraments, we must follow the rules, ensure repentance and resolution. Why, by doing this, should we be turning confession into “a customs office”?!

Paragraph (b)

The confessor must not humiliate the penitent, but the penitent must be humble, he must know that it is necessary to express the intention not to sin again (and also to avoid occasions of sin). Yes, a sincere promise does not exclude the foreseeing of possible relapses. But it is important to make people understand that sin distances us from God and from our happiness, not only eternal happiness, but also happiness here and now.

We, too, are convinced that we must learn to truly become messengers of God’s infinite mercy, which is capable of making saints even of us sinners.

ANALISI DELLE RISPOSTE DATE AI 5 DUBIA COME ORIGINARIAMENTE FORMULATI

I cinque Cardinali dei 5 Dubia non hanno pubblicato le risposte del Papa l’11 luglio ai 5 Dubia presentati il 10 luglio 2023, perché queste non sono precise risposte e non hanno risolto i dubbi. Adesso, dal momento che la Santa Sede le ha pubblicate, mi sembra conveniente che rispondiamo a quelle risposte, cosicché i fedeli capiscano perché noi cinque non le abbiamo trovate adeguate come risposte. Data la strettezza del tempo, non ho consultato gli altri quattro Cardinali e perciò di questa iniziativa sono solo io personalmente responsabile.

Premessa

Non è presunzione mettere in discussione le risposte del Papa? No.

1. Nessun cattolico maturo crederà che «chiunque contraddice il Santo Padre è eretico e scismatico», come ha affermato l’eminentissimo Fernandez. Difatti il nostro Santo Padre è meravigliosamente umile nel riconoscere gli errori, suoi e di coloro che lo hanno preceduto nella Chiesa (come, per esempio, ha fatto il viaggio fino in Canada ed ha impiegato sei giorni a dire il «mea culpa» per le cosiddette crudeltà commesse molti anni fa contro i giovani aborigeni nelle scuole residenziali).

2. Nel caso presente, mi viene il fondato dubbio che quelle risposte non vengano dalla penna del Sommo Pontefice, dal momento che posso questa volta citare in mio favore quello che l’Eminentissimo Fernandez ha detto di un documento firmato con l’autorità del Papa: «io non ci fiuto l’odore del Papa». Difatti, l’incredibile prontezza delle risposte (11 luglio), specialmente in contrasto al caso degli altri famosi 5 Dubia del 2016 semplicemente ignorati, fa sospettare che queste risposte fanno parte dell’arsenale che gli organizzatori del Sinodo, probabilmente con l’aiuto dell’Eminentissimo, avevano già preparato per rispondere ai disturbatori della loro agenda.

3. Del resto, in quello che dirò, mi dico consenziente col Papa su gran parte di quello che dice, solo che le sue risposte non sono state precise risposte ai nostri Dubia, anzi qualche volta li confermano. Veniamo all’analisi.

Analisi della risposta al primo Dubium.

Posso essere d’accordo con i paragrafi (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) dove si parla di progresso, di migliore comprensione, di migliore espressione, di migliore interpretazione, di più espliciti alcuni aspetti, di più maturo giudizio…

Tutto questo va bene, ma non al punto di negare ciò che è stato affermato prima dal Magistero. Il Santo John Henry Newman ha giustamente detto che lo sviluppo della dottrina della Chiesa è sempre omogeneo. Su questo ha scritto tutto un libro.

I paragrafi (f) (g) (h) sono più complicati.

Paragrafo (f)

Il caso degli schiavi. La schiavitù faceva parte essenziale dell’ordine della società, perfino i più rispettati filosofi, come Platone e Aristotele, riconoscevano che gli uomini sono divisi in tre categorie: filosofi, soldati e schiavi. L’incipiente comunità cristiana non poteva neanche pensare di poter cambiare tutto questo. Ma la Lettera di San Paolo a Filemone fa vedere come la concezione dell’uomo figlio di Dio cominciava già a cambiare radicalmente la relazione tra il padrone e lo schiavo e finirà per mettere in discussione l’istituzione stessa della schiavitù.

Il caso della donna. Quando si capisce come siano preziosi il carisma petrino e quello mariano, che sono due compiti diversi, ma non c’è questione di diversa dignità (a questo proposito, pensate come sia grande il potere della mamma per il suo preponderante peso nella educazione delle giovani vite. Anche quando queste diventano re e regine, credono loro dovere di onorare la regina madre).

Paragrafo (g)

La frase «per la salvezza di tutti» non si riferisce a una parte della rivelazione, ma a tutta la rivelazione, i cui contenuti formano, sì, una gerarchia di valori, ma in un insieme armonioso e non è permesso opporre gli uni contro gli altri.

Paragrafo (h)

Dove, invece, nel paragrafo (h) si parla della teologia e dei suoi «rischi» come tranquillamente accettabili, mi viene da domandare: l’autorità della Chiesa non ha il dovere di difendere i fedeli semplici dai rischi che possono minacciare la purezza della fede?

Analisi della risposta al secondo Dubium.

I paragrafi (a) (b) (c) hanno riaffermato l’unica concezione vera del matrimonio che, del resto, nessun cattolico mai ha osato negare. Ma ci lascia sbalorditi la frase del paragrafo (a), che cita da «Amoris laetitia»: «Altre forme di unione lo fanno solo in modo parziale e analogo» !?

Ugualmente ci fa difficoltà la frase del paragrafo (a) dove permette certe forme di benedizione delle unioni omosessuali. Tale unione non implica attività sessuali tra persone dello stesso sesso, che sono chiaramente peccaminose, come peccaminosa è qualunque attività sessuale fuori del matrimonio legittimo?

Riguardo la nostra attitudine generale verso gli omosessuali, i paragrafi (e) (f) sono tendenziosi nell’opporre la comprensione e tenerezza alla sola difesa della verità oggettiva, al solo negare, respingere ed escludere, al trattare gli omosessuali solo come peccatori. Difatti noi siamo convinti che con la comprensione e tenerezza dobbiamo pure presentare a loro la verità oggettiva che l’attività omosessuale è peccato, è contraria al piano d’amore di Dio. Dobbiamo pure incoraggiarli ad una metanoia nella Chiesa e fidare nell’aiuto di Dio per portare la loro pesante croce sulla via verso la felicità eterna.

Il paragrafo (g)

Questo paragrafo (g) è pastoralmente insostenibile. Come può la Chiesa, in una materia così importante, lasciare il popolo senza una norma chiara e fidarsi del discernimento individuale? Non è così che scoppierà un caos di casistica pericolosissima per le anime?

Analisi della risposta al terzo Dubium.

L’originale Dubium parte dal fatto che il presente Sinodo, che non è costituito da tutto il collegio dei vescovi, sembra voglia dirimere questioni che solo un Concilio ecumenico col Papa ha diritto di decidere. Questo sarebbe sbagliato.

Il paragrafo (a) della risposta sembra invece partire dalla sinodalità intesa semplicemente come un parlare e camminare insieme nella Chiesa. In questo senso, il fatto che dei Cardinali abbiano presentato dei Dubia al Papa conferma che essi sono d’accordo su questo principio della sinodalità. Il paragrafo (b) continua a sviluppare il concetto suesposto e dice che «tutto il popolo di Dio partecipa alla missione in modi e a livelli diversi». Ecco, è importante non dimenticare «in modi e a livelli diversi». Difatti, i documenti del Sinodo ad un certo punto riconoscono pure la differenza tra «making decisions» e «taking decisions» (cioè, la differenza tra partecipare nel processo in vista di una decisione e l’atto stesso della decisione). Ma i medesimi documenti suggeriscono anche che la gerarchia debba, non solo «sentire», ma «ascoltare», obbedire alla voce del popolo, cioè ai laici, capovolgendo la piramide della costituzione gerarchica della Chiesa fondata da Gesù sugli apostoli.

Analisi della risposta al quarto Dubium.

Riguardo al sacerdozio ministeriale il Concilio Vaticano II dice che è differente dal sacerdozio comune «non solo di grado, ma essenzialmente», dunque, anche di grado. Con l’ordinazione sacramentale il ministro agisce in persona Christi, partecipa al sacerdozio di Cristo in un grado superiore. Con ciò però si parla della funzione e non della dignità o santità o qualunque altra superiorità delle persone, come pure il Papa è d’accordo, citando dalla Christifideles laici.

Nel paragrafo (c) riconosce che l’esclusivo conferimento del sacerdozio ministeriale ai maschi non è un dogma, ma una dichiarazione definitiva, chiara e autorevole, che deve essere rispettata da tutti. Ma la risposta lascia una coda: «eppure può essere soggetto di studio, come nel caso della validità delle ordinazioni nella Comunità Anglicana». Dunque, nonostante la dichiarazione definitiva, si potrà ancora discutere ad infinitum?! Tra l’altro, il paragone qui usato non è adeguato, perché la validità delle ordinazioni nella Comunità Anglicana è un problema storico, mentre il nostro caso è di natura teologica.

Analisi della risposta al quinto Dubium.

Paragrafo (a)

Proprio perché noi siamo amministratori e non padroni dei Sacramenti, dobbiamo seguire le regole, assicurarci del pentimento e della risoluzione. Perché facendo questo facciamo diventare la confessione «una dogana»?!

Paragrafo (b)

Il confessore non deve umiliare il penitente, ma il penitente deve essere umile, deve sapere che è necessario esprimere il proposito di non peccare più (anche di evitare le occasioni prossime di peccato. Ma una sincera promessa non esclude previsione di possibili ricadute, l’importante è far capire che il peccato ci allontana da Dio e dalla nostra felicità, non solo quella eterna, ma anche quella di oggi.

Siamo pure convinti che dobbiamo imparare a diventare veramente i messaggeri della misericordia infinita di Dio, la quale è capace di fare anche di noi peccatori dei santi.

致主內的信眾的信，關於呈交給教宗方濟各的「疑問」（dubia）

主內的弟兄姊妹：

我們五位樞機，深知「所有信徒有本份，將其有關教會利益的見解表達給教會的牧人」（《天主教法典》212§3），也記得樞機們更「有責任個別協助教宗……管理普世教會的日常事務」（《法典》349）。鑑於一些高級領導對是次世界主教會議的各種聲明，公然相反教會一貫的教義和紀律，已經並且繼續在信徒和其他善意人士之中造成極大的混亂和誤會，我們將對此的深切關注訴諸教宗閣下。

我們2023 年7 月10 日的信函，採用了向長上提交「疑問」（dubia，[問題]）行之有效的做法，為長上提供機會，透過他的「回應」明確澄清教會的教理和紀律。我們已向教宗方濟各提交了五個「疑問」（見附上副本）。教宗方濟各在 2023 年 7 月 11 日的信中，回應了我們的函件。

在研究了他的回信後，我們發現他的信沒有遵循「對疑問的答覆」（responsa ad dubia）的做法，故我們重新編撰了「疑問」，以祈教宗關於教會恆久以來的教義和紀律作出明確的答覆。藉著2023年8月21日的信函，我們向教宗提交了重新編撰的「疑問」（見附上副本）。截至目前為止，我們尚未收到對重新編撰的「疑問」的回應。

鑑於有關「疑問」的嚴重性，特別是考慮到主教會議即將召開，我們認為我們有責任告知您們各位信眾（《法典》 212 § 3），以免您們可能陷入混亂、錯誤和灰心，而能為普世教會，特別是為教宗祈禱，使教會得以更清楚地教導福音、且更忠實地遵循它而生活。

 

沃爾特．布蘭德米勒樞機（Cardinal Walter Brandmüller）

雷蒙德．良．伯克樞機（Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke）

若望．桑多瓦爾．伊尼格斯樞機（Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez）

羅伯特．莎拉樞機（Cardinal Robert Sarah）

陳日君樞機（Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-Kiun, SDB）

謹啟

羅馬，2023 年 10 月 2 日

***********

敬愛的聖父：

我們很感謝您給予我們的答案。我們首先想澄清的是，我們若問了您這些問題，並不是非因為害怕與我們這個時代的人對話，也不是因為害怕他們可能問我們有關基督的福音的問題。事實上，我們和教宗閣下一樣，堅信福音為人類生命帶來圓滿，並回答我們的每一個問題。令我們憂慮的是另一個問題：我們關注到有些牧者懷疑福音改變人心的能力，最終向人們提出不再是純正的教義，而是「按照自己的喜好來教導」（參見弟後4：3）。我們還關心的是，人們應該明白天主的憐憫並不在於掩蓋我們的罪，而是更偉大，在於使我們能夠通過遵守祂的誡命來回應祂的愛，即皈依並信從福音（參見谷 1：15）。

您以誠意回答了我們，我們出於同樣的誠意必須補充一點，您的回答並沒有使我們釋疑，反而加深了我們的疑慮。因此，我們覺得有必要向教宗閣下，作為受主委託在信仰上堅定您的弟兄們的伯多祿繼承人，重新提出、重新編撰這些問題。鑑於主教會議舉行在即，這事變得更加緊迫，許多人想利用這次會議來否定正正是與我們「疑問」關注之事所相關的天主教教義。因此，我們向您重新提出我們的問題，好使您可以用簡單的「是」或「否」來回答。

1. 教宗閣下堅持教會可以加深她對信仰寶庫的理解。這確實是《天主的啟示》教義憲章8 所教導的，屬於天主教教義。然而，您的回覆並沒有抓住我們的關注點。今天，包括牧者和神學家在內的許多基督徒認為，我們這個時代的文化和人類學變化應該推動教會教導相反於其一直教導的內容。這牽涉到我們得救的基本而非次要的問題，例如信仰的宣認、獲得聖事的主觀條件、遵守道德律。因此，我們想重新表達我們的「疑問」：今天的教會是否能在信仰和道德問題上，教導相反於她以前所教導的教義，無論是教宗以正式的宗座權威發言（ex cathedra），還是根據某一大公會議的定義，或是散居世界各地的主教的普通普世訓導權（參見《教會》教義憲章25）？

2.教宗閣下堅持認為，婚姻與其他形式的性結合兩者不能混淆，因此，對同性伴侶的任何儀式或聖事祝福，都會引起這種混淆，應該避免。

然而，我們的憂慮是不同的：我們關注同性伴侶的祝福，在各種情況下都可能會造成混亂，不僅因為這可能使它們看起來類似於婚姻，還因為這樣做事實上等於肯定同性的性行為是善的，或至少是天主要求人們在走向祂的旅途中的一種可能的善。因此，讓我們重新表達我們的「疑問」：在某些情況下，牧者是否可以祝福同性戀者之間的結合，從而表明同性性行為本身不違反天主的律法和相反於人走向天主的旅途？與這個「疑問」相關而需要提出另一個問題是：普通普世訓導權所維護的教義，即婚姻外的性行為，特別是同性性行為，無論其發生的環境及意圖，都構成客觀上違反天主律法的重罪，這是否繼續有效？

3.您堅持教會有一個共議幅度，即所有人，包括平信徒，都被召叫參與並發出自己的聲音。然而，我們的難題是另一個：今天，「共議同行」的主教會議，似乎祇要有教宗的參與，它已代表了教會的最高權威。然而，主教會議是教宗的諮詢機構；它不是世界主教團，不能解決世界主教團所處理的問題，也不能發布法令，除非在某些情況下，教宗（其職責是批准世界主教會議的決定）已整個明確授予它審議權力（參見《法典》343 C.I.C.）。這是關鍵的一點，因為如果不讓世界主教團參與這屆主教會議打算提出涉及教會憲法的問題，將完全違背共議同行的根本，而教會卻聲稱想要推動的。因此，讓我們重新表達我們的「疑問」：在羅馬舉行的主教會議，只包括選定的牧者和信徒代表，在教義或牧靈事務上被召叫表達自己的意見，這會議是否將行使教會的最高權力，那專屬於教宗及「與其元首在一起」（una cum capite suo）的世界主教團的權力（參見《法典》336 C.I.C.）？

4. 教宗閣下在您的答覆中明確表示，聖若望保祿二世在〈司鐸聖秩〉宗座牧函（Ordinatio Sacerdotalis）中的決定將明確保持不變，並正確地補充說，有必要從服務而非權力的角度來理解神職人員，以正確地理解我們的天主僅向男性保留神品的決定。但另一方面，您在回覆的最後一點中補充說，這個問題仍然可以進一步探討。我們憂慮有些人可能會將這項聲明，解讀為此事尚未有最終定論。事實上，聖若望保祿二世在〈司鐸聖秩〉中申明，此一教義是由普通訓導和普世訓導當局無誤地教導的，因此它屬於信仰的寶庫。這是信理部對有關宗座牧函提出的「疑問」的回應，這一回應得到了若望保祿二世本人的同意。

因此，我們必須重新闡述我們的「疑問」：司鐸神品這一聖事僅由受洗男性領受，屬於聖秩聖事的實則根本，教會是不能改變的。那麼未來的教會是否有特權向女性授予司鐸神品，並因此而與前一句的說法互相矛盾？

5. 最後，教宗閣下確認了特倫多大公會議的教義，根據該教義，聖事赦免的有效性需要罪人的悔改，其中包括不再犯罪的決心。您請我們不要懷疑天主無限的憐憫。我們想重申，我們的問題並非源於懷疑天主的憐憫的偉大，相反，正是因為我們意識到天主的憐憫是如此之偉大，以至於我們能夠皈依祂，承認我們的罪孽，並按祂教導的方式生活。反過來，有些人可能會將您的答案解讀為，僅僅認罪就足以獲得罪赦，因為它可能隱含地包括了對罪過的告明和悔改。因此，我們想重新表達我們的「疑問」：一個懺悔者承認犯了罪的同時，卻拒絕以任何方式表示不再犯同樣罪過的意圖，他可以有效地接受聖事的赦免嗎？

 梵蒂岡城，2023年8月21日

沃爾特．布蘭德米勒樞機（Cardinal Walter Brandmüller）

雷蒙德．良．伯克樞機（Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke）

若望．桑多瓦爾．伊尼格斯樞機（Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez）

羅伯特．莎拉樞機（Cardinal Robert Sarah）

陳日君樞機（Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-Kiun, SDB）

My Pope Benedict

(Corrected edition of the working translation by Bree A. Dail by Cardinal Zen himself)

 1. The Pope Benedict I remember

I don’t remember when I first met Pope Benedict, but I do remember that when I got to know him personally, I felt that he was the opposite of what some people called him: “God’s rottweiler”. I felt that he was the most gentle and kind man I have ever known.

Of course, he had been in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for many years and had certainly had to question theologians with questionable  theological views, but I know that he always treated them with respect, courtesy and gentleness.

Cardinal Ratzinger was very gracious to the laity in general. He was serving in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is situated to the right of the Basilica of St. Peter, and his living quarters were to the left of the Basilica of St. Peter, so he would pass through St. Peter’s Square every day, and all who greeted him he would stop to greet them in return, to speak to them, and give them a blessing.

Later I had more contact with Cardinal Ratzinger at those meetings organized by Cardinal Tomko of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to discuss the Church in China. He spoke in a wise and humble manner. He had an amazing memory, remembering very well what anyone had said.

2. My beloved Pope Benedict

I thank God for the excellent formation in the faith with the Salesians. The training I received in the novitiate and the philosophical school was rather conservative. The training I received when I went to Italy to study philosophy and theology was also traditional and serious, which helped me to respect the traditions of the Church. Of course, there was a pre-Vatican II atmosphere: we young students certainly had great hopes for the renewal of the Church, but it was not an attitude of abandoning the past and embracing the future. Pope John XXIII’s homily at the opening of Vatican II spoke to our expectations.

If one were to describe us as purely conservative or progressive, we could be described as progressive. And the young Professor Joseph Ratzinger, the expert brought to Vatican II by Cardinal Joseph Frings of the German diocese of Cologne, also belonged to the progressive school. But such a dichotomy is problematic, and the progress of life depends on a balance between the conservative and the progressive forces. The Council is the supreme authority of Pope and bishops in the exercise of their faithful leadership, and Ratzinger, once called progressive, has since been labeled conservative. Many will appreciate the Pope’s deep theology, and my training in the Salesian Community made it particularly easy for me to identify with his teachings.

The chaos in the Church after the Council was due to the insistence of some on extreme left or extreme right positions. Pope John Paul II (the “double name” is taken from Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, who led the Council of the Church), with the help of Cardinal Ratzinger, steadily led the Church since Vatican II.

3. Pope Benedict, who (I thought) loved me most

The meetings organized by Cardinal Tomko were mentioned earlier – when the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and the Secretariat of State worked together on the affairs of the Church in China, with Ratzinger attending as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

When he succeeded Pope John Paul II and took the name Benedict XVI, he showed special concern for our Church in China. The Pope’s choice of cardinals was absolutely personal, and he added me, the retiring Bishop of Hong Kong, to the list of the first cardinals he chose, clearly hoping that I could contribute to the affairs of the Church in China.

I had the opportunity to meet the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, a good friend of Pope Benedict. I asked him, “What do you think of our Holy Father?” Without hesitation, he said, “He is very shy.”

Benedict was reluctant to act with authority. At that time, the Prefect of “Propaganda Fide” was a very prominent Cardinal Dias. Monsignor Parolin was an official of the Secretariat of State in charge of the Sino-Vatican negotiations. The two did not quite agree with Pope Benedict’s strategy. Cardinal Bertone, the Secretary of State, was on the side of the Pope and a Salesian confrere of mine, yet he accepted to follow the two.

I complained to the Pope about this and asked him to let me speak face to face with the heads of the two departments in his presence. Wouldn’t it have been embarrassing for the Pope to hear complaints about his two top officials face to face with them? But the Pope accepted my request. Unfortunately, the meeting was not productive.

A letter that Pope Benedict wrote to the Catholics in China in 2007 was partially wasted (see my book “For the sake of Sion, I will not be silent”). A huge Commission that he had set up did not work very well, and then, when the new president Cardinal Parolin took office, made it quietly disappear without a trace.

I had the opportunity to visit in the Vatican Pope Benedict after his retirement, but of course I was not in a position to discuss any further issues with him at that time. When he published his book “Ultime Conversazioni”, he immediately sent me a copy with a personally written statement: “In prayer we are one” (“in unione di preghiera”). Shortly afterwards, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-fai, probably unaware that the Pope had already sent me a copy, bought one and brought it to the Pope, asking him to sign it and then send it to me. This time the Pope wrote: “We are united in prayer and thought” (“in unione di preghiera e pensiero”). I thought, “I am a special favorite of the Pope”, isn’t that too much?

Pope John Paul often entertained his guests at table, but Pope Benedict rarely did. I remember the year I accompanied a pilgrimage of Hong Kong’s deacons to Italy to pray the “Angelus” with the Pope on Sunday. Benedict was on summer vacation in Belluno, northeast Italy. He obtained to have Italian Police to bring me in helicopter from Venice to Belluno. After the “Angelus” they said to me, “The Pope invites you to lunch.” I will never forget the warmth of that meal.