為了真理，我決不沉默 陳日君樞機 20201010

【縛雞之引】

原諒過去所受委屈是要的！但也要忘掉歷史？

真正的同情必須是讓奴隸擺脫奴役，而不是鼓勵他們好好地做奴隸。

對東方政策說「不」的本篤，跟對東方政策說「好」的方濟各，兩人之間是沒有連續性。帕羅林辦東方政策是連續的：以前，他沒有跟隨本篤的方針；現在，方濟各跟隨他行事。

極權政權可以信任嗎？你忘了與拿破崙達成的契約嗎？你忘了與納粹政府達成的協定嗎？

他們將不再有自己的教堂，不能再在私人住宅中為教友開彌撒，教廷也不會再給他們任命主教了。他們只能在地下墓穴中活出信仰，等待美好日子的來臨。

「中國化」並不是我們所指的「本地化」。它是共產黨的宗教：首要的神是國家、黨、黨的領導人。

為了維護協議，教廷似乎對共產黨對中國人民造成的所有不公義視而不見。 

為了真理，我決不沉默    陳日君樞機 20201010

我讀了教廷國務卿帕羅林樞機（Cardinal Parolin）10月3日在米蘭發表的講話。真令人噁心！他當然不愚蠢也不無知，他就是睜著眼睛講了一大堆謊言。

最令人反感的是他對受人尊敬的榮休教宗本篤十六世的侮辱，說他曾同意那個教廷在兩年前和中共簽署的協議，因為他知道我們最寬容、最溫柔的本篤肯定不會出來否認。而「無辜」的雷若翰樞機（Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re）再次被利用來支持尊貴的國務卿的虛假言論，也是十分荒謬和對他不恭。

帕羅林知道自己在撒謊，他知道我知道他是個騙子，他知道我會告訴所有人他是個騙子。他除了厚顏無恥，還膽大妄為。其實現在他還有甚麼事不敢做呢？我想他甚至不會害怕面對自己的良心。

我更恐怕他甚至沒有信仰。我有此印象是源於帕羅林，那時已是國務卿，在紀念卡薩羅尼樞機（Cardinal Casaroli）的演講中，讚揚他成功地在歐洲共產國家建立教會聖統制時說：「當我們尋找主教人選時，我們是在尋找牧者，不是像羅馬鬥獸場的角鬥士，不是那些逢政府必反對的人，不是那些喜歡在政治舞台上出風頭的人。」

我寫信給他，問他是否有意這樣形容維辛斯基樞機（Cardinal Wyszynski）、敏真諦樞機（Cardinal Mindszenty）、貝蘭樞機（Cardinal Beran）？他的回答沒有否認，只是說：如果我說的話讓任何人不高興，那麼對不起。一個鄙視信仰英雄的人是沒有信仰的！

歷史

讓我們看看帕羅林如何總結歷史。

一開始便循例地提到利瑪竇（Matteo Ricci），利氏似乎成了中國教會傳教史上最非凡的人物，我卻不敢苟同，許多在人民中間傳福音的傳教士，都同樣令人欽佩（我當然並不否認對自己在上海接受耶穌會士傳授的信仰而感到自豪）。

帕羅林將嘗試對話的大功追溯到教宗比約十二世。幸好，他指出比約十二世終於放棄了這一嘗試，卻又補充說：『這造成的「互不信任」，標誌著後來的歷史。』

這似乎是說「不信任」導致了隨後三十年的整段歷史！歷史可以這樣一筆帶過嗎？是不是忘記了全部傳教士被公審，被譴責為帝國主義者、中國人民的壓迫者，甚至殺人犯之後，被驅逐？宗座代表也被驅逐，許多主教在獄中多年後被逐離！

他們驅逐了「帝國主義壓迫者」就來對付被壓迫者、基督徒和中國神職人員，他們的罪狀就是不肯背棄從那些「壓迫者」學到的宗教！

教會的一半人立即被關進了監獄和勞改營。想想那些年輕的聖母軍成員，他們十幾歲便進了監獄，（除了在牢獄中去世者）獲釋時都四十來歲了。

教會的另一半人終於也被關進了監獄，但他們是在文化大革命被紅衛兵折磨後才下獄的。然後是沉默的十年。

你說我們不懂得忘記過去的苦難嗎？我個人沒有遭受任何苦難（我自1948年起便一直在香港），但我的家人和修會兄弟都吃過苦。

教會不是說該淨化記憶？當然原諒過去所受委屈是要的！但也要忘掉歷史？歷史不是「人生的老師」嗎？

帕羅林提到埃切加雷樞機（Cardinal Echegaray）開始了「起起落落中」的一段新道路。對於認識他的人來說，埃切加雷是一位極度樂觀主義者。他非常熱愛中國，但很少人知道共產黨如何對待了這位老朋友。他在一個不幸的時刻拜訪他們（逢到那場反對宣聖中華殉道者的運動），他接受了一個小時的辱罵和羞辱（宗座外方傳教會一位神父見證了這件事實，他還健在）。

這條「起起落落」的道路其實是一條直線，從未改變！在帕羅林之前擔任談判代表的克勞迪奧．切利蒙席（Monsignor Claudio Celli）抱怨說，中方代表不是來進行談判，他們祇是像錄音機一樣重覆：「簽協議啦！」

今天，切利總主教對在中國的獨立教會的神職只有一個經常用的詞：同情。然而，真正的同情必須是讓奴隸擺脫奴役，而不是鼓勵他們好好地做奴隸。

教廷的東方政策

沒錯，與共產黨的對話從很久以前已經開始。教宗若望二十三世主持的梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議已有來自共產國家的主教代表出席。教宗保祿六世隨後派卡薩羅尼蒙席到那些國家，在那裡重建聖統制。

（正如卡薩羅尼說）那是在黑暗中摸索的工作，因為對實際情況一無所知。聖統制？傀儡主教像政府官員多於羊群的牧者。但是，在那些基督宗教歷史悠久的國家，他們不會表現得太差（我兩年前到了布達佩斯、布拉迪斯拉發和布拉格去了解他們的一些歷史）。

對話在教宗若望保祿二世和教宗本篤任內繼續進行，但這個通常被稱為「東方政策」（Ostpolitik）的策略產生了甚麼結果？

且看摘自《本篤十六世──最後的談話》（Benedetto XVI – Ultime Conversazioni，第161-162頁）

〔伯多祿．塞瓦爾德（Peter Seewald）〕問道：「你有否贊同及支持過教宗（若望保祿二世）的『東方政策？』」

本篤回答說：「我們有談論過。很明顯，卡薩羅尼樞機所執行的政策，雖然目的良好，但事實上是失敗的。教宗若望保祿二世的新方針是來自他親身和那些政權交手所得的經驗。

當然，那時誰也想不到（歐洲的）共產黨會這麼快倒台，但很明顯的（教會面對那些政權）不應該妥協和讓步，但要強力對抗到底。這是若望保祿二世基本的看法，我也同意。」

東方政策在中國的應用

教宗本篤在2007年的牧函中明確指出了每個對話必須持守的原則，那就是不能不惜一切代價來達至成果，因為好的成果取決於雙方的意願。

「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。」（第一部份，第四章的末段）

教宗方濟各在指導對話的必須原則上也很明確。在韓國舉行的亞洲青年節之時，他告訴聚集在當地的亞洲主教們：「對話有兩個條件，首先要忠於自己的本質（不能放棄我們的教會學和基本紀律），其次是有必要敞開心扉來傾聽。」

連續性？

可惜，實際上，本篤和方濟各之間並沒有連續性，連續的是一個人──帕羅林。

在我的書《為了熙雍，我決不沉默》中，我講述了梵蒂岡內的一個權力集團在與北京政府解決問題時，如何偏離教宗本篤的主張。

有人會問：一位以堅韌聞名的教宗（他們甚至給他起綽號為「天主的洛威拿」）會容忍這種事？是的，教宗本篤是世界上最溫和、最害羞的人，很不情願施用他的職權。

有一天，我這個大罪人噘著嘴對他說：『你叫我協助你關心中國教會的事務，「那些人」都不聽你的話，你又不干涉，那要我做甚麼？貝爾托內（Bertone）也不幫我，為甚麼？』他回答說：「有時候你不想得罪任何人嘛。」他指的是時任萬民福音傳播部部長迪亞斯樞機（Cardinal Dias），以及與北京談判的教廷代表帕羅林蒙席，兩人都熱衷於東方政策。

有人或會說，我把私下的談話透露出來，會令相關人士感到尷尬。是的。不過我認為，讓無辜的教宗承擔批准一個壞協議的責任更是嚴重。

令人奇怪的是，在唐高樞機（Cardinal Tomko）擔任萬民福音傳播部部長期間，（非正式）談判的代表會向定期的秘密會議的成員報告談判的進展情況。當教宗本篤成立了一個頗有規模的中國教會事務委員會後，委員們反而被蒙在鼓裡。

在2010年間，有傳言說協議已經準備就緒。但到了某個時候，忽然一切都靜下來。帕羅林被派往委內瑞拉，由巴列斯特雷羅（Ballestrero）取代其位。韓大輝甚至在迪亞斯樞機退休之前，便加入了萬民福音傳播部。從這一切可以推測，教宗本篤在最後一刻否決了協議，並改變了談判方針。

當教宗方濟各從委內瑞拉召回帕羅林並任命他為國務卿，帕羅林所做的第一件事就是使中國教會事務委員會無聲無色地消失，而對中國的東方政策很快便大門洞開了。與敵人對話，有的；但在我們之間卻沒有！教宗方濟各顯然將中國教會的事務完全交給了他的國務卿。

對東方政策說「不」的本篤，跟對東方政策說「好」的方濟各，兩人之間是沒有連續性。帕羅林辦東方政策是連續的：以前，他沒有跟隨本篤的方針；現在，方濟各跟隨他行事。

有人會問我：你說帕羅林操縱教宗？是的，我不知道為何教宗允許自己被操縱，但有證據令我相信這一點，使我批評教廷時沒有那麼猶疑和痛苦。

在讓七個被絕罰「主教」合法及地下團體兩位合法主教被要求辭職的過程中，韓大輝總主教獲教宗接見。教宗說了三句話：「這樣做不好」，「為什麼他們沒有與我一起討論？」，「我會關注這事」。

後來，在教宗方濟各接見我的時候，我問他是否有機會關注這個問題？他立即回答：「有，我告訴了他們（教廷的高官）不要製造另一個敏真諦事件！」（不幸的是，事情的發展正如敏真諦樞機的情況一樣。兩位主教被迫把自己的權柄交給兩個不堪當的人。）

從梵蒂岡出來的決定都是來自帕羅林（顯然得到了教宗的同意）！

協議的效果

你為何會說協議不好？沒有看過協議文本，尤其是中文版的文本，我根本無法做出任何判斷。不過，尊貴的帕羅林本人和他的黨羽經常說，一個壞協議總比沒有協議好。我身為倫理科的老師，我無法理解。我一直教導他人，即使有良好意願也不能做邪惡之事。

– 他們說：協議是好的，中國共產黨終於承認教宗是天主教的最高領袖。如果我沒有看到文本，我不會相信。

– 教宗將擁有否決權！如果我沒有看到文本，我不會相信。即使假設他有此權力，他可以毫不尷尬地行使多少次呢？

– 有了協議就不會再有非法主教！極權政權可以信任嗎？你忘了與拿破崙達成的契約嗎？你忘了與納粹政府達成的協定嗎？

– 如果梵蒂岡如過去一樣，時時讓步，那麼合法的主教不一定是堪當的主教。在中國的獨立教會現在到處都是「投機主義的」主教，這些人把自己出賣給政府以謀求權力和財富。

– 如果這七個被絕罰而現在合法了的是將來的主教樣板，那末要天主救救我們了。他們的行為改變了嗎？他們有任何悔改的跡象嗎？有感謝教宗給予的寬恕？有公開承諾尊重教會的教義和紀律？你看到的，是他們四處高唱凱歌：我們靠向政府是明智的選擇！

特別令人憤慨的是兩位被迫讓位給被絕罰者的合法主教所遭受的待遇。汕頭教區現在合法的黃炳章得到「勝利」後，來到被免職者（莊建堅主教）的教堂舉行大型慶祝活動。他的神職人員和許多信徒乘坐一輛一輛的旅遊車前來，莊主教的神父和信眾卻不准參加（公安維持秩序）。他們要莊主教共祭，從而羞辱他。不過，這位老主教有清晰的頭腦，他說：「你結婚，你會慶祝，但我是被迫與我的教區離婚，有甚麼好慶祝的？」，之後便離開了。

閩東教區郭希錦主教帶領的非官方團體內神父和教友比他的競爭者多得很多。他服從梵蒂岡的指示，讓位給被絕罰者，並成為他的輔理。可是，大家都看到了他們如何使他的生活難以為繼，所以他能做的就是辭職（這幾天的新聞）。

教會終於合一了嗎？兩個教會團體修好了嗎？僅僅因為教宗祝福了這可悲的情況，敵人的勝利，教會的生活就算正常化了嗎？

所有主教都合法了，卻在一個客觀上是分裂的教會中，這樣算好嗎？進步了嗎？這是開始了一個甚麼樣的旅程？

尊貴的樞機大人似乎很謙虛地說，協議的成果並不特別令人興奮，這顯然是「輕描淡寫」，而我會說這簡直是災難。

最後一幕：每個人都要參與裂教！

這場悲劇的最後一幕是更加災難性和更加殘酷：去年6月底的一個文件。由「教廷」發布的〈聖座關於中國神職人員民事登記的牧靈指導〉，沒有標明部門，也沒有人簽名（眾所周知，這是帕羅林的傑作）。每個人都被邀請加入愛國會，即獨立的教會。真正的教會壽終正寢！

一些「地下」團體，由主教和神父帶領，很高興終於能夠安心地去除作為「非法」的負擔。但當他們進入鳥籠時，鳥籠內的老住客當然嘲笑他們：「我們一直都說……」。但許多人一生抵制政權，堅守真正信仰（他們的家庭中有許多殉道者），現在竟獲那「聖」座的邀請去投降！？困惑、失望和甚至感到被出賣而忿怒。（有人敢說他們的不對嗎？）

該文件確實也說了，如果他們不想這樣做，教廷「尊重」他們的良心。不過，實際的效果是一樣的：他們將不再有自己的教堂，不能再在私人住宅中為教友開彌撒，教廷也不會再給他們任命主教了。他們只能在地下墓穴中活出信仰，等待美好日子的來臨。

總體情況

在此期間發生了許多事情，我不說是「因了那協議」而發生，但肯定是「儘管達成了協議」沒有使那些事不發生：顯著加劇的迫害、持續逼非官方團體消失、嚴格執行曾一度放寬的規定，如禁止18歲以下的未成年人進入教堂和參加宗教活動。「中國化」並不是我們所指的「本地化」。它是共產黨的宗教：首要的神是國家、黨、黨的領導人。

尊貴的樞機大人怎麼能說這一切都與協議無關？生命可以割成碎片嗎？

實際上，樞機大人也將該協議與國際和平及解決緊張局勢聯繫在一起。然而，為了維護協議，教廷似乎對共產黨對中國人民造成的所有不公義視而不見。

至於香港？

隨著國家安全法的實施，香港也已變成了極權政權之下的一個城市。在警察殘酷暴力的威脅下公民喪失了所有權利，包括表達自由和言論自由的權利。

他們既沒有明確否認香港的自治地位，該協議本不該涉及香港。可是我們聽說，要成為香港主教，必須有北京的祝福！

天主，拯救我們脫離強大的敵人的掌握！

願玫瑰聖母保護我們免受任何危害！

 

註：今天（10月7日）是常年期第27周的星期三，彌撒的讀經一（迦拉達書2：1-2，7-14）鼓勵我把這篇文章放在我的博客上。

 

For Love of Truth I Will Not Remain Silent        Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, S.D.B. 20201009

I read the speech given by Cardinal Parolin, Secretary of State of His Holiness, in Milan on October 3. It was sickening! He is in no way stupid or ignorant, he told a series of lies with open eyes.

The most repugnant thing was the insult to the emeritus Pope Benedict XVI by saying that he approved then the agreement signed by the Holy See two years ago, knowing that our sweetest, most gentle Benedict certainly will not come out to deny it. It was also very ridiculous and humiliating for the innocent Cardinal Re being “used” once more to support the falsehoods of the Most Eminent Secretary.

Parolin knows he himself is lying. He knows that I know he is a liar. He knows that I will tell everyone that he is a liar. He is not just shameless but also daring. What will he not dare to do now? I think he is not even afraid of his conscience.

I am afraid he does not even have faith. I had this impression when Parolin, the Secretary of State, in a commemorative speech in honor of Cardinal Casaroli praised his success in establishing the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Communist countries of Europe, saying that “when you look for bishops, you don’t look for ‘gladiators,’ who systematically oppose the government and who like to show themselves off on the political stage.”

I wrote to him, asking if he intended to describe Cardinal Wyszynski, Cardinal Mindszenty and Cardinal Beran. He replied without denying. He only said that if I was displeased with his speech, he apologized. But one who despises the heroes of faith has no faith!

The History

Let’s see how Parolin summarized the history.

The ritual mentioning of Matteo Ricci as the insuperable model in the mission history of the Church in China begins to make me uneasy. Many missionaries who evangelized among the people were no less admirable (there is no denying that I am proud of owing my first education in the faith to the Jesuits in Shanghai).

Parolin traced the attempts of dialogue back to Pope Pius XII. Luckily he also stated that Pius XII abandoned the attempt, adding that: “this created the mutual distrust that marked subsequent history.”

He seems to say that it was the “distrust” that caused the whole history of the following 30 years! Can the history be simplified like this? What about the expulsion of the missionaries, all of them, after being subjected to popular judgment court, condemned as imperialists, oppressors of the Chinese people and even murderers? The pontifical representative was expelled as well, and many bishops were expelled after years in prison!

Having expelled the “imperialist oppressors” they came to punish the oppressed, the Christians and the Chinese clergy, guilty of not wanting to renounce the religion learned from those oppressors!

Half of the Church ended up in prison and forced labor camps. Think of the young members of the Legion of Mary, who entered the prison as teenagers and were almost 40 years old when they were released (except those who died there).

The other half of the Church also ended up in prison, but after torture under the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution. After that there was 10 years of silence.

Some say: Are you not able to forget the sufferings of the past? I have not suffered anything personally (I have been in Hong Kong since 1948), my family and fellow confreres did.

Purification of memory? To forgive, yes! But to forget the history? History is teacher of life!

Parolin mentioned Cardinal Echegaray as the one who began a new path “amid ups and downs.” For those who knew him, Cardinal Echegaray was an unrepentant optimist. He loved China immensely. Few know how the Communists treated this old friend, when he visited them in an unfortunate moment: during the campaign against the canonization of the Chinese martyrs, he was served with an hour of insults and humiliations (a living PIME priest witnessed that)!

The path “amid ups and downs” is on a straight direction, never changed! Monsignor Claudio Celli who was the negotiator before Parolin complained that the Chinese counterpart did not negotiate, they simply repeated like a gramophone: “Sign the agreement!”

Today Archbishop Celli has only one word for the independent Church in China: compassion. But true compassion must be to free the slaves from slavery, not to encourage them to be good slaves.

The Ostpolitik of the Holy See

Yes, the dialogue with the Communists began long ago. There were already bishop representatives from the Communist countries in the Second Vatican Council summoned by Pope John XXIII. Then Pope Paul VI sent Monsignor Casaroli on various missions, to re-establish the hierarchies in those countries.

It was a working in the dark (as said by Casaroli), he had no way to know the real situation. The established hierarchies? Puppet bishops, more government officials than shepherds of the flock. But in those countries with a long Christian history, they could not behave too badly (two years ago I went to visit Budapest, Bratislava and Prague to learn some of their histories).

The dialogue continued through Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, but what was the result of this policy that is usually called the Ostpolitik?

In the book “Benedict XVI – Last Testament: In His Own Words” (p. 170):

To the question (by Peter Seewald): Did you share and support actively the “Ostpolitik” of the Pope (John Paul II)?

Benedict: “We talked about it. It was clear that the politics of Casaroli…although it was implemented with the best of intentions, had failed. The new direction pursued by John Paul II was the fruit of his personal experience, of his contacts with those powers.

Naturally, then, one could not hope that that regime would soon collapse, but it was evident that, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, it was necessary to oppose it with force. This was the basic vision of John Paul II, which I shared.”

Application of the Ostpolitik in China

In the 2007 letter, Pope Benedict made clear the principle that must guide every dialogue: one could not want to reach a result at any cost, a good result depends on the will of the two parties.

“The solution of existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.”

Pope Francis, too, is clear on the principle that must guide the dialogue. In Korea, on the occasion of the Asian Youth Day, he told the Asian bishops gathered there: there are two principles for dialogue, first of all fidelity to one’s own identity (one cannot renounce one’s ecclesiology and fundamental disciplines), then it is necessary to open the heart and listen.

Continuity?

In practice there was no continuity between Benedict and Francis but only the continuity of the person, Parolin.

In my book For Love of My People I Will Not Remain Silent, I told the story how a power group in the Vatican did not follow Pope Benedict’s line in solving the problems with the Beijing government.

The question arises: Would a pope so well known for his toughness (they even gave him the nickname “God’s Rottweiler”) tolerate this? Yes, Pope Benedict, who is the mildest and most shy man in the world, has great reluctance in exercising his authority.

One day I, a great sinner, pouted at him and said: “You tell me to help you with the Church in China. These other people don’t follow your line and you don’t intervene. What am I going to do? Bertone doesn’t help me either, why?” He replied: “Sometimes you don’t want to offend someone.” He meant Cardinal Dias, the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, together with the Holy See negotiator with Beijing, Monsignor Parolin, they were both enthusiastic about the Ostpolitik policy.

One might say that I am revealing things said in private conversation and I may cause embarrassment to the person concerned. Yes, but I think this is much better than letting him take responsibility for approving a bad deal.

A strange thing was that while at the time of Cardinal Tomko as Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the negotiator informed the members of those periodic secret meetings on the progress of the (unofficial) negotiations. When Pope Benedict established a respectable Commission for the Church in China, it was instead left in the dark.

During the year 2010 there were rumors that an agreement was ready. But at some point everything fell silent. Parolin was sent to Venezuela and Ballestrero entered, Savio Hon came to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples even before Dias retired. From all this it can be construed that Pope Benedict has, in extremis, rejected the draft agreement and given a completely new turn to things.

When Pope Francis called Parolin from Venezuela and made him his Secretary of State, one of the first things Parolin did was to make the Commission for the Church in China disappear silently and soon the Ostpolitik towards China had the way open. Dialogue with the enemy yes, but not between us! Pope Francis obviously has put China completely in the hands of his Secretary of State.

There is no continuity between Benedict who said “No” to Ostpolitik and Francis who said “yes” to Ostpolitik. There is the continuity of Parolin’s Ostpolitik: before he did not follow Benedict and now Francis follows him.

I will be asked: Do you say that Parolin manipulates the Holy Father? Yes, I don’t know why the Pope allows himself to be manipulated but I have evidence to believe so and this makes it even less painful and repugnant for me to criticize the Holy See.

When in the process of legitimizing the seven excommunicated “bishops” and two legitimate bishops of the clandestine community being asked to resign, in an audience granted to Archbishop Savio Hon, the Pope said three things: “this is not good” “why they did not discuss with me?” “I’ll look into the matter.”

Later, in an audience granted to me, I asked Pope Francis: Did you have the opportunity to take an interest in that problem? He promptly replied “Yes, I told them not to create another Mindszenty case.” It couldn’t be clearer and more precise. (Unfortunately, things went exactly as what happened to Cardinal Mindszenty. The two bishops were forced to give their office to two unworthy men.)

Things that came out of the Vatican came from Parolin (obviously with the Pope’s consent)!

The effect of the agreement

But how would you say that the agreement is bad? Not having read the text, especially the one in Chinese, I could not give any judgment. But the Most Eminent Parolin himself and his henchmen often stated that a bad agreement is better than no agreement. I cannot understand this despite being a teacher of morality. I always teach that evil cannot be done even with good intention.

– People say: the agreement is good, the Chinese Communists have finally recognized the Pope as the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. If I don’t see the text I don’t believe it.

– The Pope will have the right to veto! If I don’t see the text I don’t believe it. Even assuming he has it, how many times can he use it without embarrassment?

– With the agreement there will be no more illegitimate bishops! Can the word of a totalitarian regime be trusted? Don’t you remember the pact with Napoleon, the concordat with the Nazi government?

– If the Vatican is as compliant as it is, the legitimate bishops will not necessarily be worthy bishops. The independent Church in China is now full of “opportunistic” bishops, people who sell themselves to the government to make a career of power and wealth.

– If, by the way, the seven legitimated excommunicants are the sample of what is to come, may the Lord free us. Did they change their conduct? Have they shown any sign of repentance? Gratitude for the forgiveness granted by the Pope? Public promise to respect Church doctrine and discipline? Instead, what you see is that they go around singing triumph: we made the smart choice by staying with the government!

Particularly disgusting was the treatment of the two legitimate bishops who were forced to give way to the excommunicated. Huang Bingzhang, the now legitimated bishop of Shantou, after his “victory” organized a large celebration with the deposed bishop Zhuang Jianjian in Zhuang’s church. His clergy and many faithful came numerous by coaches, but the clergy and faithful of the deposed were not admitted (the police kept order). They wanted the deposed to come to concelebrate and thus humiliate him. But the elderly bishop still has a clear mind, he said: “When you get married, you celebrate. But I was forced to divorce my diocese, what is there to celebrate?” and withdrew.

Bishop Guo Xijin of Mindong, who leads the non-official community with many more members than that of his contender, obeyed the Vatican by giving up his position to the excommunicated one and becoming his auxiliary. But everyone has seen how they made his life impossible, so all he could do is to resign (news in these days).

Is the Church in China finally united? Rapprochement between the two Church communities? The normalization of the Church life, just because the Pope gives his blessing to this miserable situation, to this victory of the enemy?

Is that good to have all bishops legitimate but in a Church that is objectively schismatic? Is it progress? What kind of journey is it beginning?

His Eminence Parolin seems very humble to say that the result of the agreement was not particularly exciting, but this is obviously an understatement, I would say it was simply disastrous.

The last act: Everyone in a schismatic Church!

More disastrous and more cruel was the last act of this tragedy: the document at the end of June, last year. The “Pastoral Guidelines of the Holy See Concerning the Civil Registration of the Clergy in China” was issued by “the Holy See,” without specification of the department and without signatures (but it is known that it is Parolin’s creation). Everyone is invited to join the Patriotic Association, that is, the independent Church. It is the coup de grace!

Some of the “clandestine” communities, headed by bishops and priests, are happy to be able finally, tuta conscientia, to remove the burden of being “illegal.” But as they enter the birds cage, they are mocked by the old tenants: “We have always said…” But many who have resisted the regime all through their lives and persevered in the true faith (with many martyrs in their families) now invited by the same “Holy” See to surrender!? Bewilderment, disappointment and (no one should be scandalized) even resentment for being betrayed.

It is true that the document says that the Holy See “respects” their conscience if they do not feel like doing that act. But the practical effect will be the same: they will no longer have their churches, they will no longer be able to say Masses for the faithful in private homes, they will no longer be given bishops to them. It remains for them to live the faith only in the catacombs, waiting for better days.

The general situation

Many things have happened in this period, I do not say “because of the agreement” but certainly “in spite of the agreement”: notable hardening of the persecution, persistence in making the unofficial communities to disappear, strict execution of once relaxed rules, such as the prohibition of minors under 18 from entering the Church and participating in any religious activities. “Sinicization” is not what we mean by inculturation. It is the religion of the Communist Party: the first divinity is the country, the party, the party leader.

How can the Most Eminent say that all this has nothing to do with the agreement? Can life be cut into pieces?

In fact, his Eminence also connects the agreement with international peace and with resolving tensions. But it seems that in order to save the agreement the Holy See is closing both eyes on all the injustices that the Communist Party inflicts on the Chinese people.

and Hong Kong?

Hong Kong too, with the introduction of the national security law, has become a city under a totalitarian regime. Citizens have lost all rights, including that of expression, of speech and threatened by incredible police brutality.

If they do not explicitly deny the autonomous status of Hong Kong, the agreement would not concern Hong Kong. But we hear that to be the Bishop of Hong Kong, one must have the blessing of Beijing!?

Lord save us from our mighty enemies!

May Our Lady of the Holy Rosary protect us from every danger!

———

P.S. The first reading of today’s Mass, 27th week per annum, Wednesday, (Galatians 2:1-2, 7-14) encourages me to put this article on my blog.