平安抵岸全靠祂

已四個月我沒有在這裡出現了，是我「隱修生活」的「初學期」嗎？

前天（中華聖母瞻禮又是耶穌升天瞻禮前夕）晚上我們在黃大仙彌撒中心做了一個祈禱會，為紀念半年前回到耶穌和聖母身邊的蔚和平神父。

正義和平委員會為我們預備了一個很豐富的分享時刻，使我們對蔚神父更認識、更敬佩，也更感到他這麼年輕又在不明不白的情形下離世，真是可惜！

那天晚上（除了正委的那些政治不正確的「儍瓜」）參與的人不算太少，也不能說太多。半年了，他離世的新聞已不是新聞了吧！為他出來講話的人好像不太多。我在中聯辦門前曾說過，不出來講話不是做了幫兇嗎？

今早在彌撒中福音的話給了我無限的安慰。耶穌說：「……人……留下我獨自一個，其實我並不是獨自一個，因為有父與我同在。……在世界上你們要受苦難；然而你們放心，我已戰勝了世界」。（若十六32-33）

關於國內的教會我已很久沒有在我的博客上發表意見了，當然不是因為太忙（多麼忙也不能不關心「我們的」教會），也不是因為害怕我的意見不受歡迎（按我的年紀，我應該不擔心任何得失了），倒是覺得：「如果能報喜，不是更好嗎？」可惜，我的命運比較像耶肋米亞先知的；等了這麼久，還是沒有喜訊可報，聖誕期及新年來臨，普天同慶的時刻，我的歎息不免有些不合時宜，但我不能做一隻不吠的狗呀！

(A) 記得去年年初文匯報曾興高采烈地報告說「中梵關係不久就會有進展」，跟著教廷國務卿也說「前途充滿希望，兩邊都有意對話」。那時我對這股突如其來的樂觀熱風不免有所懷疑。我真見不到有什麼根據讓我們可以樂觀。千多間聖堂的十字架被拆（有的地方連聖堂也被拆了），這事發展到今日，我們已不能一廂情願地以為這是個別地方官員的過份熱心。幾間修院已不運作，北京全國修院的修生被逼書面許諾接納獨立自辦教會的原則，接納和非法的主教共祭（否則讀完課程也得不到文憑）。政府不斷鞏固一個客觀上已和普世教會分裂的教會，利誘威逼神職人員作出種種違反教義與教規的事，也就是負賣自己的良心，自己的尊嚴。

(B) 這半年來，有些事情發生了，看來是好事，但也有令人不太興奮的一面。周至教區吳欽敬主教祝聖後十年終於就職了，但看來他也付出了一些代價：被逼妥協。（見我7月14日的博客）

不久後，安陽張銀林助理主教被祝聖了，連慣常很謹慎的天主教媒體也非常鼓舞，說這祝聖事項很「順利」，更強調這是三年來中梵接觸後的第一次，又是方濟各任職教宗以來的第一次。說這是一個「好的開始」，這才使我害怕。這次祝聖的模式包括「民主」選舉，禮儀中公讀所謂主教團的任命狀，有襄禮主教的身份不清不楚，如果這就是即將達成的協議，那末一切都還停留在三年前的「不正狀態」，值得我們高興嗎？（見我9月7日的博客）

(C) 十月底有大新聞說：梵方代表團到北京和中方又見過面了。教廷什麼細節都不透露。倒是韓德力神父大寫文章（他什麼都知道）。他說：「他們沒有討論一些敏感的問題，如在監獄裡的保定蘇主教，被他們免職的上海馬主教。（這些問題不是該優先解決的嗎？這些問題也不解決，怎能證實中方的誠意？）。他們集中討論了任命主教的問題（是什麼方案？是安陽模式嗎？）梵方代表會面後還去拜訪了李山主教及在全國修院的馬英林「主教」（韓神父還以這是中方的善意表示，我怕是中方施了壓力逼梵方「叩頭」）。」

稍後教廷國務卿終於也承認十月中有過「見面」，並說「談得很好，希望最後會達成協議」。在記者們追問「是否真有進展」下，他卻回答說：「有對話也就是好事了」。看來還未達成協議。

(D) 究竟目下談論的是怎麼樣的方案，我這個處在邊緣的老樞機無從知道，看來我沒有資格過目，沒有資格過問。

亞洲新聞社主編最近寫的一篇文章「北京，宗教迎來嚴冬」（12月11日）說「據從中國獲悉的消息：中方在會談中似乎要求教廷讓中國政府所承認的主教團（全權）負責任命按照民主方式選出的（也就是按照愛國會建議的）主教候選人。聖座要批准此任命，祇有在「嚴重」案例的情況下可以提出否定意見，還要說明理由，一旦聖座的理由「不充份」，中國主教團可以無視聖座的否決，繼續執行自己的任命。如果這項消息準確的話，中方這樣的要求能被梵方接受嗎？這樣的方案還尊重教宗對主教們的任命權嗎？教宗能簽這樣的協議嗎？（教宗本篤曾說：「教宗任命主教的權是教會創辦人耶穌交給教會的，不是教宗私人的權利，他也不能讓這個權給任何人！」）

教廷的高官們知道在中國選舉是怎樣的事嗎？他們知道地上主教團不祇不合法，而且根本不存在嗎？愛國會和主教團（一會一團）根本是一體，而主持會議的是政府官員（有相為證，政府已不覺得需要掩飾，他們赤裸裸地在「辦教」）！簽署這樣的協議就是把真實的委任權完全交給一個無神政府了。

比較起來這模式比那所謂「越南模式」還不如，因為越南模式假設是由越南教會，真正的越南教會，採取第一步行動，不是像在中國由政府以愛國會名義領導教會。在共產權下的東歐，至少在波蘭和捷克斯拉夫，也是由教會採取第一步，而讓政府可以提出否決。保證了教會採取第一步，那末就算政府否決一百次，提名者和最後任命者還是教會。政府堅持否決也祇能拖延僵局，教會還能堅持提出合適的候選人。一個無神的政府怎麼知道誰真適合做教會的牧者？

當然，如果教會不堅持自己的立場，而配合政府堅持的要求，也可能負賣教宗的任命權。這可能發生嗎？András Fejerdy 在一篇文章裡說：『因為教廷認為「有被祝聖了的主教才能保證信友們領聖事的機會」。在1964的匈梵協議中接納了一個解決辦法，這辦法雖然不正式違反教宗任命主教的權，但實際上讓政府在選主教的事上有決定性的影響。』天亞社由四川成都最近傳出的消息是：教廷在梵方代表團在北京和中方對話後不久批准了中方在2014年五月選出的主教候選人。這不是「雖然不正式違反教宗任命主教的權，但實際上讓政府在選主教的事上有了決定性的影響嗎？

(E) 對話集中討論任命主教的問題，但待解決的問題多得不得了，教廷幾時才處理這些問題，怎樣解決？

亞洲新聞社主編的那篇文章裡說「據從中國獲悉的消息，似乎北京仍然堅持聖座承認全體官方教會主教（包括非法的和被絕罰的）」。我不免要問：由政府出面要求，不必有關人士表示懺悔？被絕罰的不祇被赦免，也被追認為合法主教？也不必懺悔？天主的慈悲到這個地步嗎？信友們從此要服從這樣的主教嗎？

其實要清理的東西多得很。非法的甚至絕罰的主教擅自使用聖事權（包括祝聖執事和司鐸）和行政權（調動神父），教廷似乎沒有出聲指責。合法的主教一次、兩次，甚至三次、四次參與非法祝聖主教（沒有公開申明他們已向聖座認罪或得教宗寬赦）又參與全國天主教代表大會。梵方代表團離北京後不久，中方就組織了一個全國大規模的所謂教會領導的朝聖行動，實際上逼合法、非法和絕罰的主教一起共祭。這些客觀上都是裂教的行為。政府已成功牽著地上多數的主教鼻子行，使他們已失了尊嚴，難以翻身。教廷如果和政府簽協議而不清理這些事，為信徒們的良知將是一個嚴重的打擊。

(F) 為政府，我們教會的地下團體當然形同不存在。梵方也遷就對方，在談判中不提不問嗎？為「顧全大體」割棄了那些我們的兄弟姊妹嗎？他們是教會健康的肢體呀！當然地下也有他們的問題，而且在許多教區教廷不給他們主教，沒有主教，遲早會亂。教廷怕觸怒北京壓制地下的聲音，這不是自殺嗎？

在最近談判中不提十多年來坐牢的蘇主教，不提三年多被軟禁的馬主教，因為屬於敏感的問題？！有曾長期坐監的教友及家屬來羅馬朝聖，紀念六十年前大教難的爆發，教廷要他們低調，「過去的過去了，向前看吧！」？！

在外交上，地下的教會是教廷手中的牌，自我閹割了還有什麼東西可以使對方讓步？地上的，他們全面控制了，地下的，由教廷為他們控制，他們還需要什麼？他們祇需要教宗簽個字，祝福這個「中國教會」（他們根本不是想談判的！）簽協議後是不是要地下的都到地上來，服從那些曾長期是非法 － 曾被絕罰的 － 現在一下子不必他們認罪 － 靠政府的壓力 － 被認為合法的主教們？

(G) 使我不能放心的是教廷國務卿還沉醉在「東方政策」的「奇蹟」中。他在去年一次演講中讚美當時的Casaroli樞機成功為東歐共產國家任命了主教。他說在物色主教人選時教會是找一些人做牧者，不是找那些「逢政府必反」「像鬥獸場的鬥士好鬥」「喜歡在政治舞台出風頭的」，我怕他在影射當時捍衛教會權利的教會英雄如波蘭的維辛斯基樞機，匈牙利的閔真蒂樞機，捷克斯拉夫的Beran樞機。那是多麼可怕的想法！希望我懂錯了他。

如果那協議簽成了，天下可以太平了吧！但我不會參加慶祝這新的教會的成立，我會消失，我會去隱修、祈禱、做補贖。願教宗本篤原諒我沒有成功做他希望我成功做的事。願教宗方濟原諒我這個在邊緣的中國樞機給他寫了這麼多的信，給他添了這麼多麻煩。

諸聖嬰孩被殺害了。天使叫若瑟帶瑪利亞及嬰孩逃走避難。今天我們的外交家恐怕會勸若瑟去和黑落德談判吧！

補充（譯自意文稿）

請不要以為我把地上地下分成黑白。地上大多數神職和教友們都是忠於教宗的。有些為了地上教會不正常的狀態感到痛苦；很多神父、教友對某些牧者的懦弱或不義感到心痛，有時是他們努力阻止了那些牧者跌得更深，有時一個團結的司鐸團和忠信的教友也能保護他們的牧者免受更甚的欺侮。

———————————————————————————————————-

What will 2016 bring the Church in China 

by Card. Joseph Zen Ze-kiun

I have not spoken about the Church in China on my blog for some time now. Certainly not because I am too busy to do so (busy as I may be, I will never lose interest of our Church in China), not because I fear criticism of my ideas (at my age I have nothing to gain or lose).

No, the problem is that I’d like to give some good news, but, as you will note, my fate is that of the prophet Jeremiah. I have searched at length for some good news, but have found none. I realise that during this season of Christmas and the New Year, my complaints are somewhat “extra chorum”, but I cannot be a dog without a bark.

A.

I remember that at the beginning of last year the newspaper Wen Wei Po announced jubilantly that “relations between China and the Vatican will soon have a good development.” Soon after, the Vatican Secretary of State said that “the prospects are promising, there is a desire for dialogue on both sides.” I had my doubts about this unexpected wave of optimism, I saw no basis for this optimism. More than a thousand crosses were removed from the top of the churches (in some cases the churches themselves have been destroyed). After so long, we can no longer delude ourselves that this was anything beyond an episode of some local official’s exaggerated zeal. Several seminaries have been closed. Students of the National Seminary in Beijing were forced to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Independent Church, promising also to concelebrate with illegitimate bishops (otherwise they would not receive a diploma at the end of their studies). The Government is continuously strengthening a church that now objectively is already separated from the universal Catholic Church; with enticements and threats they induce the clergy to perform acts contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church, denying their conscience and their dignity.

B.

In the latter half of 2015, there were some promising events which however failed to live up to expectations. Bishop Wu Qin-jing of Zhouzhi, ten years after his episcopal ordination, was finally installed as bishop, but has yet to pay the price of a compromise (see my blog of 14 July 2015).

Shortly after, Bishop Zhang Yinlin of Anyang was ordained. Even some usually cautious Catholic media rejoiced saying that everything had gone well. They pointed out that this ordination is the first after the last three years of contacts between Rome and Beijing, and also the first in Pope Francis’ pontificate, presenting the event as a good start.

It is this last statement that scares me, because the process included a “democratic election”, the reading of a “decree of appointment by the (so-called) Episcopal Conference of China” and the canonically un-clear position of a co-consecrating bishop. A similarly abnormal process took place three years ago, does it deserve our rejoicing? (See my blog of 7 September 2015).

C.

In October comes the big news: A Vatican delegation was in Beijing, there was a meeting. The Holy See gave no news of it. Father Heyndrickx Jeroom broke the news (of course he knows everything). He says: “They did not discuss sensitive issues like Bishop Su Zhimin of Baoding still in detention, or such as Bishop Ma Daqin of Shanghai to house arrest for more than three years (but these problems should not be resolved before any negotiations? Otherwise obviously there is no goodwill on the part of Beijing). They focused on the issue of appointing bishops (of which model? Like with Anyang?). After the meeting, the delegation paid a visit to Bishop Li Shan of Beijing and the National Seminary where they met with Ma Ying Lin (Father Heyndrickx said that these are signs of goodwill on the part of Beijing, I think instead that they were acts of homage imposed by Beijing)“.

Later the Vatican Secretary of State also confirmed that there was a meeting and that it was “very positive” and this “would be part of a process that will hopefully end with an agreement.” Pressed by some journalists as to whether there was real progress, Cardinal Parolin responded: “The fact that we speak is already positive.” It seems that there is no agreement in sight as of yet.

D.

So what is the formula now under discussion for the appointment of bishops? As an old Cardinal out on the peripheries, I have no way of knowing, let alone guessing.

A recent article “A winter of darkness for religions in China” by Bernardo Cervellera on AsiaNews, says: “From information that has arrived from China it would seem that Beijing’s proposal is : Vatican approval of the government recognized Council of Bishops and approval of the competency of this Council (and not the Pope) in the appointment of new candidates to the episcopacy who will be “democratically” elected (in short according to the suggestions of the Patriotic Association). The Holy See must approve the Council’s appointment and has a weak veto only in “severe” cases, which must be justified if used. If the Holy See’s justifications are considered “insufficient”, the Council of Bishops may decide to proceed anyway”.

If this information is accurate, can the Holy See accept the claims of the Chinese counterpart? Does this approach still respect the true authority of the Pope to appoint bishops? Can the Pope sign such an agreement? (Pope Benedict said: “The authority of the Pope to appoint bishops is given to the church by its founder Jesus Christ, it is not the property of the Pope, neither can the Pope give it to others”).

Do our officials in Rome know what an election is in China? Do they know that the so-called Episcopal Conference is not only illegitimate, but simply does not exist? What exists is an organism that is called “One Association and One Conference”, namely the Patriotic Association and the Bishops’ Conference always work together as one body, which is always chaired by government officials (there are pictures to prove it, the Government does not even try more to keep up appearances, it starkly flaunts the fact that they now manage religion!). Signing such an agreement means delivering the authority to appoint bishops into the hands of an atheist government.

This scheme is often compared to a (poorly defined) Vietnamese Model, but it is much worse. The Vietnamese model is based on an initiative that began with the Church in Vietnam, the true Catholic Church in Vietnam. In China on the other hand, the so-called Association and Conference hide the reality that it is the Government calling the shots.

Even in Eastern Europe of the past, such as in Poland and Czechoslovakia, it was the Church that took the initiative and then gave the Government veto power. In doing so, even if the government vetos a proposal for the hundredth time, it is still the Church that presents a candidate and makes the appointment. If the Government insists on a veto, it will only prolong the impasse, and it will still allow the Church time to look for a suitable candidate. But it is unthinkable to leave the initial proposal in the hands of an atheist Government who cannot possibly judge the suitability of a candidate to be a bishop. Obviously, if the Church gives in to pressure from the government, the only result – despite proclamations to the contrary – is that it will have sold out the pontifical right to appoint bishops. Can this happen? According to an article written by a certain András Fejerdy: “For pastoral reasons – that is, because the full administration of the sacraments requires completely consecrated bishops – the Holy See believed that the completion of the Hungarian Bishops’ Conference was so urgent that it accepted a solution that formally did not upset the canonical principle of free appointment, but that in practice gave the regime a decisive influence in choosing the candidates”.

UCAN News reports recent news from Chengdu (Sichuan): “Shortly after the visit of the Vatican delegation to Beijing, the Holy See approved the episcopal candidate elected in May 2014”. Is this not exactly a case of “not upsetting the canonical principle of free appointment, but …in practice giving the regime a decisive influence in choosing the candidates “?

E.

It is said that dialogue focused on the issue of the appointment of bishops, but there are many other pending problems, when and how will they be resolved?

The aforementioned AsiaNews article stated, again based on information received from China: “Beijing (demands) the Holy See’s recognition of all the official bishops, even the illegitimate and excommunicated ones.” I wonder: is it only the government that makes these demands, without repentance of those concerned? Will the excommunicated only be released from excommunication or even recognized as bishops? Even without any act of repentance? Has the mercy of God come to this? Will the faithful be forced to obey these bishops?

So much remains to be resolved.

Illegitimate, even excommunicated bishops have abused the sacramental power (including ordination of deacons and priests) and judicial (assigning offices) and the Holy See seems to be without rebuke for them.

Legitimate bishops who participated in illegitimate episcopal ordinations, one, two, even three, four times, without ever having asked for forgiveness, or having received forgiveness from the Holy Father. Also those who took part in the so-called Assembly of Representatives of Chinese Catholics (the clearest symbol of a schismatic church).

Shortly after the Vatican delegation left Beijing, the government organized a large gathering of Church leaders, forcing on that occasion a celebration of all the bishops, legitimate, illegitimate and excommunicated. These are all objectively schismatic acts. The government now can string along a large number of bishops, resulting in an irrecoverable loss of dignity. If the Holy See signed some agreement with the Government without clarifying all these things, it will cause a severe wound to the conscience of the faithful.

F.

Obviously our underground communities are non-existent for the Government. But now is even the Vatican ignoring them in negotiations, to appease their Chinese counterparts? To “save the day” will we abandon our brothers and sisters? But they are the healthy limbs of the Church! (Of course, they too have their problems, especially when dioceses remain without bishops, which can only lead to disorder). Is silencing the underground community to please the government not a form of suicide?

In the recent negotiations there has been no mention of the case of Msgr. James Su Zhimin in prison for 20 years, Nor of Msgr. Thaddeus Ma Daqin of Shanghai under house arrest for more than three years, because these issues have been deemed “too sensitive” !?

In early September, some of the Shanghai faithful who were in prison for a long time, along with their relatives, went on a pilgrimage to Rome to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the outbreak of the great persecution on September 8, 1955. They were told: “Do not make any noise, the past is past, we have to look forward”!?

On a diplomatic level, the underground communities are the ace in the Holy See’s deck; if we amputate these limbs, what have we left in diplomatic standings to induce the other party to agree to our terms? By now, the government controls nearly all the official communities, while the underground communities are kept at bay by the Holy See. What do they still need to come to terms? They only need the signature of the Holy Father, a blessing, for this “Chinese Church.” Beijing has no intention of negotiating, only making demands. After such a signature they will force the faithful of the underground community to come out and surrender to those who were illegitimate bishops for a long time, maybe even excommunicated, but now, with a clean slate, without even showing any repentance, leaning only on the Government for their legitimacy, have become bishops in their own right.

G.

What makes me restless is the sight of our Eminent Secretary of State still intoxicated by the miracles of Ostpolitik. In a speech last year, at a Memorial for Card. Casaroli, he praised the success of its predecessor in having secured the existence of the Church hierarchy in the communist countries of Eastern Europe. He says: “In choosing candidates for the episcopate, we choose shepherds and not people who systematically oppose the regime, people who behave like gladiators, people who love to grandstand on the political stage.” I wonder: Who had he in mind while making this description? I fear that he was thinking of a Cardinal Wyszynski, a Cardinal Mindszenty, a Cardinal Beran. But these are the heroes who bravely defended the faith of their people! It terrifies me to realize such mindset, and I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

On the day that an agreement is signed with China there will be peace and joy, but do not expect me to participate in the celebrations of the beginning of this new Church. I disappear, I will start a monastic life to pray and do penance. I will ask the forgiveness of Pope Benedict for not being able to do what he was hoping that I could do. I will ask Pope Francis to forgive this old Cardinal from the peripheries for disturbing him with so many inappropriate letters.

The innocent children were killed, the angel told Joseph to take Mary and the Child and flee to safety. But today would our diplomats advise Joseph to go and humbly beg for dialogue with Herod !?

P.S.

Please let it not be said that I believe the only line of distinction is that of “official and underground”. The vast majority of the clergy and lay people who belong to the official community are faithful to the authority of the Holy Father. Many are suffering enormously because of the abnormal situation of their Church, they are saddened by the weakness or lack of rectitude of their pastors, sometimes they even try to prevent them from falling further. In many cases a united clergy and a faithful people can defend their pastor from further bullying from the Authorities.

本文2015年12月31日登出，2016年1月3日修整。

(A)

教會禮儀在聖誕節翌日安排了首位殉道聖斯德望瞻禮，隔了一日又紀念被黑落德殺害的諸聖嬰孩，在小耶穌的馬糟前已流了不少鮮血。在這普天同慶的日子裡紀念亡者絕沒有什麼不適宜。

天主聖子降生成人，取了我們罪人的肉軀，為能參與我們的死亡，使我們能參與祂的復活、永生。我們為喪失朋友蔚神父而悲傷，但在信德中我們是充滿希望的。

彌撒是感恩祭，我們今晚為蔚神父豐盛的一生感謝天主，領洗的恩寵，聖召的恩寵，多姿多采為天主子民服務的恩寵。他的年齡祇是我的一半，但我多麼羡慕他：教育青年，傳教，栽培聖召，服務在社會邊緣、在貧困中生活的人們。恩寵越多責任越大。蔚神父一定感到自己欠天主很多，我們為他祈求慈悲的天主，彌補他的一切缺失。

—————————————————————————

(B)

回歸後，我們和大陸的教會雖屬一個家庭，但看來像是兩個世界，我們享受信仰自由，他們還在水深火熱的教難中。我們那些兄弟姊妹為保持信仰要有極大的勇氣，付出極大的犧牲。

我們當然要盡力打破這兩個世界之間的隔膜，我們能獻出棉力幫助他們是我們的福份；他們的榜樣使我們慚愧，勉勵我們珍惜我們的信仰自由。但有人對我們兄弟之間的交流不太放心。這一年來公安多次叫蔚神父不要接觸陳樞機。其實我從來沒有主動接觸他，他也很少來港和我見過面。緊緊把我們連繫在一起的是我們對慈母教會的敬愛。

蔚神父離世已過了七七。國家公安到處裝了眼睛監視人民的行動，竟還未能為他的死因定案（一早就說他自殺了，後來改口說他們從沒有肯定他自殺），這叫我們怎能放心？既未定案我們不便猜測。但定了案我們能安心相信嗎？我們已學到在大陸除了有自殺也有「被自殺」的。無論如何這粒麥子已落在地裡，願它早日結出百倍的果實。

—————————————————————————

(C)

有人傳給我蔚神父的一篇文章（不知有否刊出過），這篇文章充滿智慧。今晚如其聽我講道不如讓蔚神父講道。讓我把他的這粒智慧的種子種在你們心中。這文章的題目是「時間屬於祂」。在復活夜聖燭禮儀中主禮高聲宣講這真理「時間屬於祂」。既然「時間屬於祂」我們就不要心急。

在目下的情形中，中梵交談能有結果嗎？政府已穩固控制地上教會的「主教團」，他有理由把宗教自由還給教會嗎？就算達成協議，如果中國政制不徹底改變，有可能執行協議嗎？別的宗教有愛國會，天主教可沒有嗎？人民沒有言論自由，天主教徒可以有言論自由嗎？那麼怎麼辦？我們不能為了達成協議而放棄真正的宗教自由（教宗本篤在2007年給在中國教會的信中，第四章第七節，說過：「與合法的政權持續衝突並不能解決現存的問題，但同時，當政權不恰當地干涉教會的信仰和教律時，我們亦不能就此屈從」。教宗方濟各在韓國對亞洲主教們也說過：「在對話時，我們不能否定我們的本質放棄我們的原則，負賣我們的信仰」）。

現在得不到宗教自由，不要緊，我們能等，初期教會不是等了三百年嗎？但在等待中我們還是能默默耕耘，誰也阻不了我們傳耶穌的福音，做光做鹽。（這正是教宗本篤在九年前的斯德望瞻禮日，向我國教友說的：「我特別記得教難中的兄弟姊妹，求主幫助他們恆心到底，就算面對眼前全面的失敗也不要灰心」。教宗方濟各曾在問候新祝聖的主教們時也說過：「我們記得那些不能來參加這聚會的兄弟們，我們大家鼓勵他們：他們的苦難一定會帶來偌大的收獲。」）

蔚神父也有充滿智慧的話送給我們教廷的高官。我希望有機會傳給他們。他說：「在這等待的期間，不要為了討好中共政府放棄自己該做的事，要鞏固忠於教宗的主教、神父、教友，給他們精神力量的支持。」（有人會說：這是「搞對立」。這使我記起出名的希臘寓言。一隻在上流飲水的狐狸，見到在下流飲水的羔羊，竟對他說：「你污濁了我飲的水，我要懲罰你。」我們希望牧羊者及時來救這隻羔羊。）

—————————————————————————

總結：

各位教友，我們為蔚神父豐盛的一生感謝了天主。蔚神父的死因至今未有定案使我們不安。我們要用祈禱來支持大陸的兄弟姊妹。

蔚神父提醒我們「時間屬於天主」，讓我們感恩接受他富有智慧的反省：不為了眼前的成功負賣良心，在耐心等待美好的將來時，勇敢地、謙虛地做我們信徒該做的事。

* 註：C段三個括號中是作者的註解。

有信徒成功申請「社區參與廣播服務試驗計劃」，10月12日起逢週一晚9:00-10:00在香港電台數碼31台播放聖經故事廣播劇，並邀請我解說，引領聽眾思考生命。

共十三集的《陳樞機講聖經故事》依據聖經改編，講述諾厄、亞巴郎、若瑟、梅瑟、達味、耶穌等的故事。節目尾段設五分鐘訪問，由宗教學者解說該集聖經故事內容，以及當中的道理如何套用於現實生活中。

讀者可透過港台網站（http://dab31.rthk.hk）收聽節目及重溫。

－ 相關資訊見FB「陳樞機講聖經故事」，相片取自該FB http://on.fb.me/1NplNMu

九月廿八日過去了。香港人都會記得一年前發生的事。但每人的經歷不同，這一天的心情也會不同。

我昨天很高興有適當的機會重回政總，一是黃傘街頭基督徒基層團體組織的，由甘仔神父主持的彌撒，一是正義和平委員會組織的祈禱會。

彌撒的讀經使我重溫，信望愛三德為今天的我們有多麼切實的意義。撒上描寫達味怎樣用投石器戰勝了巨人哥肋雅，因為他信了「勝負只屬於上主」。瑪竇福音記錄的是耶穌宣佈的「真福」道理。貧窮、痛苦、迫害，從我們狹窄的眼光看來，是不幸；但如果我們堅持以溫良、和平的心追求公義，那末這一切都會帶來幸福。

格前的片段是「愛的歌」，讚揚愛德。愛德不求己益，不動怒，與真理同樂，凡事忍耐，凡事盼望，因為在天主的計劃中，愛將永存不朽。在真理中、在無私中，愛所有的人！

那末綜合的信息是：祇要我們堅持真理，保存愛心，追求正義和平，我們就站在天主的一邊，祂一定勝利，我們也就一定勝利。

祈禱會的主題是「毋忘初衷，與主同行」。

「毋忘初衷」。我們追求的是維護那天主給我們，那與生俱來的，天主子女的尊嚴。基本法許諾我們該有民主，中央拒絕，我們默聲忍受豈不甘做奴隸？根本是假普選，卻迫我們接受，我們接受了豈不連尊嚴也沒有？

我們回想去年發生的事，使我感覺到我們該對很多人感恩。

我感謝「佔中三子」。在多年爭取真普選而目標越來越遠時，他們設計了一連串又理性的，又強烈的行動。這些行動也因上主的祝福得到奇蹟性的成功：六月尾的「公投」，七月一號人數空前的遊行。可惜那不顧港人願望，一味奉承中央的香港政府竟當沒有事發生，作了一個不信不實的「報告」，誤導了中央。831的決定使三子已再沒有對話的希望，祇好宣告十月一日「大家去飲」。後來發生的事使他們的計劃沒有機會實施。

我感謝學生們。他們全情勇敢投入這追求民主的神聖抗爭，九月廿七日有創意地佔領了「人民廣場」。其實這行動富象徵意義，但沒有破壞任何東西，也沒有威脅任何人。霸道而愚蠢的政府把小事化成大事，把學生領袖拘留逾四十小時，這樣引起了全民對學生的關懷，對政府的憤怒。

九月廿八日，政總旁邊人民自設的「保護區」內沒有幾許人。警察又祇准入，不准出，明明準備拘捕裡面的人，他們竟沒有預料，在星期日下午，許多市民會來聲援學生及佔中（鐘）人士。在圍困「保護區」的幾千警察背後漸漸擁來了幾萬人。到了傍晚警察害怕了竟發射了87枚催淚彈。決定這行動的人應該行出來向港人道歉，因為有經驗的人會知道：單放催淚彈是趕不走人的，卻增加了市民的憤怒，增加了對前線警察的威脅。我們在「保護區」內的都害怕會發生悲劇，一點挑釁會擦槍走火，若非「佔中三子」一年來的灌輸反暴力的理念，那晚上在金鐘恐怕會血流成河了。我搶大聲公對外面我看不盡的人群說：「回家吧，我們已勝利了，政府已害怕，失控了，它已不會和我們理論了」。當然，催淚彈趕不走的勇士們太興奮了，怎麼肯回家！黎明時，警察在人民的掌聲中撤退了。開始那漫長的79天。

在那些日子裡，學生們站在前面，但那已是全民的運動了，三子和泛民議員默默在支持著。糾察、物資是誰供給的？還有送湯的太太們，那些執垃圾的義工，那位洗廁所的大漢，我們向香港人致敬！

現在是重新上路的時候了，我們已勝利，但全面的勝利還遙遙無望，瑪竇福音說我們要行的是十字的苦路，但我們「與主同行」，不要怕，聖詠說：「天主是我們的救助和力量，……與我們同在的是萬軍的天主，雅各伯的天主是我們的保護！」

那時有許多教友成了回教人的俘虜，聖母關懷他們，啟示了幾位聖人在1218年創立了一個修會，他們到處募捐贖金，有時急於救出俘虜甚至也會獻身替代別人做俘虜。史家統計被贖的俘虜計有二百多萬！

可惜，今天世界上還有很多人被人俘虜喪失自由。我們犯罪時更成了罪惡的俘虜。讓我們求聖母拯救我們，使我們擺脫罪惡、惡習和自私心理的束縛。

教宗方濟各在「主！願你受讚頌」通諭中指出環保的問題非常嚴重，人類不可忽視這個危機。但他更指出這問題的根源。科技的進步越來越快，給人類帶來許多方便，這當然是好事。但人崇拜科技，以為科技能做到的人就可以做，這就錯了。那些擁有科技的富翁及權貴隨從自私的心，追求利潤、享受，不惜破壞宇宙的生態，也不關心身邊人及後代人的需要，甚至剝削人、奴役人。

他們設立了一個全球性的、邪惡的、生產和金融的制度，鼓勵消費文化，引誘貪心投機，無知的老百姓就踏入陷阱，在定期性的災禍中成了犧牲品。

教宗鼓勵我們發起一個「文化大革命」，擁抱大自然我們的家、節儉樸素、關懷貧困、追求精神的價值：真、善、美。

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

最近我參加的一些活動和這些大道理也可以扯上關係。

－ 九月八日，是上海大教難爆發的六十週年（教難早已開始，我慈幼會有兩位兄弟在1951年已被捕，死在監獄裡），30幾位上海籍教友（其中八位曾為信仰在監獄中渡過了廿多年）聚集在羅馬謝恩求恩，感謝天主給他們為信仰受苦的福份，求天主保祐還在獄中的主教、教友，早日賜祖國信仰自由，再沒有人無辜被俘虜。

－九月十九日，十三位朋友陪我再上了一次獅子山頂，感謝上主給我們在香港這塊福地上生活，求祂支持我們努力奮鬥，維護這城市固有的價值，發揮獅子山下的精神。寧願辛苦上山，也不願在山腳遊花園。

－中秋節就到，香港監獄裡的囚友，在接受天主教朋友送上的雙黃蓮蓉月餅時，會感到他們沒有被社會遺忘。為善最樂，感謝天主。

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

還有兩件好事，有人想參與嗎？

－向奧巴馬（Obama）提議邀請教宗方濟各和習近平主席共赴早餐。

－在各碼頭及地鐵站口募捐助學金，送張曉明同志去讀書。

祝中秋快樂！

三十多位上海教友從台灣、美國及其他地方來羅馬朝聖，紀念六十年前中國教難的大爆發，他們親身或他們的親人，在這教難中為信仰作了見證，其中八位在監獄裡渡過了二十年、三十年。

有人希望大家「向前看」，低調紀念這日子。他們（祇是那八位）能親到了教宗的手已很滿足了。我也學了他們的謙遜，有幾位記者要訪問我，我也婉拒了。

這個九月八日為我們是祈禱的一天。早上我們在聖伯多祿大殿地下一個小堂獻了彌撒。

想起六十年前大爆發的教難（註）今天還是無情地繼續，我還是用聖詠43首，向天主說：「主啊，醒來吧！你還忍心讓這麼多兄弟姊妹受磨難嗎？」可是看了我眼前謙遜、平安的活殉道，我要承認還是他們有道理。

真如教宗本篤在致中國教友的信中說的，祇有被宰殺的羔羊能夠揭開歷史的奧秘。在聖瞻禮七祇有聖母充滿信心地等待着復活的黎明。其實聖母的誕生也就是整個救恩的黎明，進教之佑，為我等祈！

彌撒後，我們在大殿的正祭台前唸了信經。

早餐後，我們去了聖母大殿，唸了玫瑰經。

然後去聖地窖（Callistus），從地窖出來我們坐下，分享了我們的感受。

午飯後，我們去了鬥獸場拜苦路（用了2008年教宗本篤吩咐我撰寫的默想）。

那天晚上韓總主教請我們進用中式晚餐，在和他親切談笑中結束了這有意義的一天。

星期三伯多祿廣場滿是各處來的教友。我們坐在比較近教宗的位置，八位兄弟姊妹親了教宗的手。

主啊！哪年哪月我們國內的兄弟姊妹才能成群來到這裡，慶祝教難的結束，宗教自由的來臨？佘山聖母，為我等祈。

（註）六十年前是教難的「大爆發」。在上海，九月八日聖母聖誕瞻禮晚上，差不多一千信徒被捕：龔品梅主教、神父、修女、教友（尤其聖母軍的青年）。

其實教難早已開始。我慈幼會兩位兄弟已在1951年被捕，死在監獄裡。

周至教區吳欽敬主教公開就職後，我在網上寫了幾句話，也是為回應一位教友張懷陽兄弟。我同意他說的，我們不應該批評吳主教，他堅持了十年了。如果我在他的處境，恐怕五年也堅持不到。更重要的是看來羅馬也同意他稍為妥協。不過不少人還是覺得這樣做法有些可惜。希望吳主教能堅持「到底」。

我的文章一登出，國內馬上有三篇文章攻擊我，但我見到在網上了解我的人還是多數，包括張懷陽兄弟，所以我也沒有再講話了。

後來安陽張銀林助理主教被祝聖了。一些慣常很謹慎的媒體都對此很樂觀，使我不敢說出我的一些質疑了。但後來見到Gianni Valente的文章，在他的結論裡還引用甘保祿神父的話說『面對自稱是中國天主教教義堅定性的「監護人」的某些人，地下教會內已經出現了明顯的不耐煩。』天呀！我沒有出聲，他們還這樣追擊我！我真忍不住了，我又出聲了。不過我不是肯定什麼，卻是提出一些問題，希望他們能給些使我們滿意的答案。

許多人很高興因為這次祝聖很「順利」。我卻有很多不明白的地方。

（一）他們說被祝聖者是教宗早已批准的。亞洲新聞說是2009年已批准。梵蒂岡電台卻說是今年4月28日批准和任命的。但中國政府說他是4月29日民主選舉出來的。誰說的算？

（二）他們說祝聖者都是合法的主教，但徐州的主教是非法祝聖的。幾時合法化了？他曾公開交代嗎？教廷有公開聲明嗎？

（三）禮儀中宣讀的是中國主教團的任命狀，但主教團根本不存在，實際上是政府的任命狀！大家都知道有教宗任命狀，但祇許在更衣所內宣讀。

這是多年來，直至三年前，國內通用的方法。Gianni Valente說這是曾「得到雙方同意的」，我從沒有聽過。他又說這是「雙方默認的」，我以為應該說是「中方單面強行的，而教廷勉強默認的」。

但這一切做法不就是類似那時人們勸那老人家厄肋阿匝爾（Eleazarus）所做的嗎（加下6:21ff）？真理的光輝在哪裡？

（四）最使我擔心的是他們都指出這是三年來中梵接觸後的第一次，又是教宗方濟各上任後的第一次，他們都說這是一個好的開始。難道這就是即將達成的協議嗎？那真太可怕了。這樣做法教宗對主教的任命權不就被出賣得乾乾淨淨了嗎？

Gianni Valente引用教宗本篤2007年那封信的第四節：「……解決現存的問題不能通過與合法民事當局的持續衝突進行」，但教宗接著也說：「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。」

我說Gianni Valente「斷章取義」，寃枉了他嗎？

Vedendo che del recente articolo di Gianni Valente sul sito del Vatican Insider (articolo 42718) c’è solo il testo italiano, faccio anch’io una stranezza, scrivendo un articolo in italiano sul mio blog che è per i lettori cinesi. (v. nota 1)

C’è stata una ordinazione episcopale il 4 agosto in Cina, ed io non mi sono pronunciato al riguardo. Ho visto la relazione dell’UCAN piuttosto positiva. Con mia meraviglia, l’Asia News, che normalmente è severa con il governo di Pechino, questa volta si mostra felice dell’evento (forse ha giocato sul cuore di Padre Bernardo Cervellera il fatto che la diocesi di An Yang era affidata al PIME e i PIME conoscono l’ordinato come un prete buono e degno di essere fatto pastore della diocesi). Perfino il mio amico, il sempre equilibratissimo reporter Gerard O’Connell, si mostra entusiasta, anzi, vede l’avvenimento come un buon augurio per cose che verranno.

Davanti a queste voci positive ho creduto bene di non esprimere pubblicamente le mie perplessità. Ma ora che mi capita di vedere l’articolo di Gianni Valente, le mie perplessità sono diventate vere preoccupazioni.

Alla fine del suo articolo, Gianni Valente ha messo il cacio sui maccheroni. Ha citato il solito Paolo Kan, il quale dice: “Anche nella comunità clandestina si manifesta una evidente malsopportazione di quei signori che dal di fuori si atteggiano come giudici della nostra fedeltà alla Chiesa”, una freccia diretta al sottoscritto.

Ma perché questo attacco completamente gratuito? Forse sono sicuri di avermi già messo a tacere per sempre? Ovviamente hanno sbagliato. Io sono debole. Come faccio a resistere quando mi stuzzicano in tale maniera? Apro la bocca di nuovo, però farò non delle affermazioni, ma delle domande, alle quali spero di ricevere risposta.

È stata veramente tutta a posto questa ordinazione?

1. Il candidato è stato approvato dal Papa? Come lo si può sapere? Asia News dice che è stato approvato già nel 2009, ma la Radio Vaticana dice che è stato nominato ed approvato il 28 aprile 2015. Ad ogni modo, il governo cinese dice che è stato eletto il 29 aprile (non ammetteranno mai che hanno fatto eleggere il candidato perché già approvato dal Papa).

2. Tutti i consacranti sono legittimi? Il vescovo di Xuzhou era stato ordinato illegittimamente. Quando è stato legittimato? Ha fatto qualche dichiarazione in pubblico? Ha il Vaticano fatto qualche pronunciamento?

3. Il rito dell’ordinazione è quello deciso dal governo, inclusa la nomina da parte della cosiddetta Conferenza Episcopale, la quale lede gravemente il diritto del Romano Pontefice. Come può essere motivo di tanta esultanza da parte dei nostri?

Del resto Gianni Valente è molto confuso:

• Dice che la cerimonia era “non è inedito” “molto non ordinaria”; (v. nota 2)
  
• Dice poi che quella era stata “concordata dalle due parti”;
• Dice poi che è quella “usata, in simili circostanze, fin dal 2004”;
• Dice infine che in quegli anni le due parti “tacitamente riconoscevano questa formula come una soluzione provvisoria”.

Allora, se già usata fin dal 2004, non è “non è inedito” “molto non ordinaria”; (v. nota 2).

È stata (espressamente) “concordata tra le due parti” oppure è stata “tacitamente accettata”? Non sembra si tratti del primo caso. Non si è risaputo niente di simile. Nel secondo caso, siccome è il governo che decide per il rito, sarebbe più esatto dire che il rito è stato tacitamente accettato dalla Santa Sede, anzi, ancor più esattamente, tollerato a malincuore. Allora, che motivo c’è di rallegrarci?

4. Quando poi si connette tutto questo con i “contatti avuti in questi tre anni” e coll’avvento di Papa Francesco e si presenta questa ordinazione come l’inizio di un nuovo corso, questo mi fa semplicemente paura. Vorrebbe dire che si andrà avanti con le “elezioni democratiche” e colla lettura del decreto di nomina della Conferenza Episcopale? Non si vende così agli atei il vero diritto del Papa di nominare i vescovi?

Ma si dirà: “Si sa che l’unico candidato per essere votato è stato già approvato dal Papa e la bulla di nomina si legge in sacrestia”. Ma questo non è ciò che si suggeriva al vecchio Eleazaro e che lui ha rifiutato di fare a costo della sua vita? (2 Maccabei 6:21ss) Il popolo non avrà diritto di scandalizzarsi davanti a tale ambiguità?

*******

due correzioni (14 sett.)

nota 1       io avevo trovato l’articolo solo in cinese, ma poi qualcuno mi ha dato il testo italiano.

nota 2      Confrontando i due testi ho trovato un errore di traduzione. L’orginale “non è inedito” è stato tradotto in “很不尋常” (molto non ordinario). [in senso quasi opposto].

Questo errore mi ha indotto a trovare una contraddizione che non c’era nell’originale.

il lettore tralasci quel che è ora sottolineato nel testo.

得悉在雨傘運動中為香港市民出聲的學生領袖已被落案起訴，周三提堂。本人慚愧，到現在還未接受「預約拘捕」（讀林鄭月娥女士的「補充報告」更懷疑我是否成了政府的統戰目標）。年輕的人被落案，我這已自首的成年人卻仍「逍遙法外」，在法律前不是人人平等的嗎？

其實，我在為被控訴的學生們的前途擔憂之餘，也很嫉妬他們。他們終於能在庭上向全港人民、向全世界支持正義的人，解釋我們所做了的是什麼，我們所爭取的是什麼。我伸長了頸等待那精彩的一刻。

我今天要說的話，絕無意給學生領袖們或他們的律師們什麼「貼士」，我是想給些「貼士」給律政司強國　袁國強先生，希望他提醒法官們做好功課，否則，繼「胸襲警察」後，又會搞出另一個天大笑話。我想說的是：這場官司絕不是一件平常的刑事案。在香港發生的事，祇有在香港最近的歷史背景內才能公道地被審判。這案件是關於一個「公民抗命」的行動，希望法官們知道什麼是「公民抗命」，恐怕律政司也要做好功課，不妨又「重金」去徵求外國法學專家的意見，或請他們來培訓香港的法官……

那末「香港最近的歷史背景」又是什麼？是一個政府一手包辦的不公義的暴力處境 (unjust situation of violence created by the Government)。面對這暴力處境有些市民已忍無可忍，走了出來，作了一些非法的，但基本上是和平的抗爭行動 (unlawful but fundamentally peaceful action of protest of the people)。

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

什麼是香港「不公義的暴力處境」？

基本法規定香港在2007、2008本已可以考慮全民直選，但從2004開始一連串的釋法和行政指令，直至去年的八三一的人大常委決定，非法地推翻了基本法的許諾。香港政府不但沒有向人大或大大提出上訴，還以十足奴才的心態，配合了那些破壞性的行動，甚至陷司法和執法於不義，損害了司法權的尊嚴，傷害了執法部門很久以來辛苦建立了的聲譽。

怎麼說學生們作出的是一些非法，但基本上和平的抗爭行動？

我不知道控訴的詳細內容，但

（甲）如果政府要把那整個「佔鐘」行動的責任推在學生們身上，那是極不公義的，因為那行動是政府挑撥成功的，也是沒有人領導、沒有人指揮的大眾行動（按傳媒的調查，「佔鐘」人士祇有兩成是學生），不是佔中三子所策劃的「佔中」行動。

（乙）如果政府要把佔領人民廣場定罪為「佔鐘」的導火綫，那也無理；那行動祇富有象徵意義，既沒有毀壞任何物，又沒有傷害任何人。相反，是政府把小事做大了：一方面虐待犯事的學生們（廿七日中午人民廣場裡的學生已被困了好幾個小時，我路過中環，得知他們沒有水，又不准去廁所，我就呼籲那些前綫警察的良心，不要聽從上司違反人權的指令，我說：「你們眼前的是你們的兄弟姊妹，不是奴隸！」跟著有記者遞水給他們，警察當沒有看見。聽說後來也准他們去廁所，但就不准回到人民廣場裡），一方面又愚蠢地把幾個學生領袖拘留了四十多小時，這樣才挑起了群眾的忿怒，造成了九月廿八日下午的緊張局面，數萬人和幾千警員對峙。那晚上的催淚彈更把緊張的局面提升到非常危險，要不是佔中三子一年來栽培了反暴力的信念，九二八在香港歷史上一定留下難以洗淨的血跡。

所以，政府當局當做的是：追究拘留學生逾四十小時的責任，責問施令發催淚彈的警方高層指揮，而不是控告學生代表。

（丙）其實，學生佔領人民廣場根本是一個在無奈的情形下非常溫和的行動，八三一的決定粉碎了「真普選」的希望！我們沒有渠道去責問人大常委，但我們可以肯定的是：香港政府的所謂「報告」不信不實，誤導了人大常委；一個空前成功的「公投」，一個破紀錄的遊行，都不被當是什麼！？如其控告任何人，政府自己先該向香港人民及中央道歉。

我給了律政司這麼多貼士，我怕今年國慶節政府會給我一個「荷蘭水蓋」，那怎麼辦！