九月中教廷驻各国大使云集罗马举行慈悲圣年，教廷国务卿帕罗林枢机和他们见了面。在这机会上及一些闲谈中，经人询问关于中梵谈判的进展，他给了一些颇引起兴趣的讯息。
他承认现时的谈判限于“任命主教”的事项，并不包括建交的问题，谈判的层次不是最高的，教廷是由国务院及传信部两个部门的副秘书长为代表。帕罗林枢机以为这是中共执政以来第一次接纳圣座对于任命主教有份参与，值得欣赏。
事实上，中共执政以来一直要教会隶属于它，脱离罗马，不需教宗批准自选自圣主教，一切由天主教爱国会控制；而教宗本笃十六世曾宣言爱国会的性质不合天主教信理。这样，“官方承认的教会”几乎是在裂教的状态。另一方面有一个所谓“地下教会”，北京政府不承认他们的主教，但这些主教忠于教宗，因而付出相当代价；政府随时可以难为他们，甚或逮捕他们。
今天在中国内地的主教有一百多（教廷手册上并不登他们的名字）其中属地下的有三十位。
官方的主教有些非法祝圣后得到罗马的认可，有些在祝圣前得到罗马和北京两方的批准，共约七十位。其中有八位得到政府支持，但在圣座前是非法的主教，（译者按：其中有三位）更受了绝罚。
上列状况的复杂性突显在最近九月初在温州发生的事。九月初朱维方主教逝世，享年88。（大家一定都听过在温州近来有“热心的”共产党员拆了许多圣堂上的十字架。）
在温州一直有两个天主教团体，一个是官方承认的，约有10万教友，另一个是地下团体有5万教友。神父的数字两边相等共约五十位。朱维方神父曾20年在监狱及劳改营渡过，在2009年被祝圣为主教，在2010年政府也承认了他为主教，但罗马又任命了一位温州助理主教，也就是有权接他位的，却是地下的，政府不承认的邵祝敏主教。（译者按：官方和地下团体的教友人数应为相反，地下比官方团体多一倍。）
朱主教逝世，政府不想让邵主教主持丧礼，把他带走了。也有另外三位神父被他们带走了。朱主教死前政府承认了一位他们同意的神父代表朱主教领导地上神父，他是麻显士神父。当然也表示他是政府愿意任命的新主教。
在这件事情的背境里，今年八月香港主教汤汉枢机写了一篇文章，把他预见将会由中梵对话而产生的“任命主教”的方法介绍给了大家。
〔见汤汉：“中国教会与普世教会的共融合一”〕
这就引起了香港教区荣休老主教陈日君很激动地批评梵蒂冈，说他们作出的让步是不能接受的。（译者按：汤文七月卅一日脱笔而陈文早在七月十八日注销）
〔见陈日君：‘从一个“沉痛的呼吁”讲起’〕
据说“协议”把提命主教候选人的权交给了北京政府，罗马可以否决。形式上提命主教候选人的是“主教团”，但这“主教团”是共产党的产物，完全由它指挥，地下的主教既不在这“主教团”内，这“主教团”的主席又是一位非法主教（译者按：原文误说是一位受绝罚者）。就算新主教该由教宗批准，但这新主教很可能会彻底受共产政府的控制。
八月廿七日帕罗林枢机在纪念十九世纪一位卓越的外交家刚恒毅枢机主教的演说中，谈及“对中梵关系的展望和进展”时，说教廷是以战战竞竞的心态处理这些事的。他说：“我要强调：我们推进和中国改善关系 ── 如果天主愿意，甚或可以建交 ── 并不是以其为目的或是为追求不知什么世俗性的成功。我们深思熟虑 ── 不无战战竞竞的心态，因为这有关天主的教会 ── 我们的目的是中国教友的得益，中国人民的得益，整个社会的和谐，世界的和平。国务卿向大使们保证：判断主教候选人的资格归教宗的权。他再三强调“任命主教”的权属于教宗。
在他的说话中他肯定了是由中国政府，借着“主教团”（的名义），提名主教候选人。（译者请大家注意这一句）
他也说还需要先解决一些关键问题。
首先关于地下主教们，政府应该承认他们并让他们加入“主教团”。
其次是关于八位非法及绝罚的主教，国务卿说他们都已向罗马申请宽免。但为得到宽免，他们还该以行动证明：他们真的许诺无条件地忠于教宗和教会。他们中有两位涉嫌有子女和情人，如属实，当然要受圣教法的处罚。所以，恐怕不容易如教宗方济各所期待，在短时期内一股脑儿给这八位主教“慈悲年的大赦”。更不易知道，如果这八位中有人得不到赦免绝罚或该受圣教法的处罚，政府会怎么反应？
当然中国政府会不会承认地下的主教也无从而知。
总而言之，如果协议要尊重教会的权益（而教会是天主的事，应受尊重），那末看来达成协议这事困难重重，也不会像某些人希望或某些人害怕，很快签成。
中国政府最近公布了管制宗教活动的新规矩草案，并不带来乐观，看似会比以前更严厉压制“非法宗教活动”及“隶属国外的宗教”。对天主教地下团体是沉重的打击。
〔见：北京颁布，更严格的，宗教活动规法草案〕
陈日君枢机批评教廷，在处理中国教会事务时，还采用冷战时卡萨罗尼枢机（Casaroli）为应付东欧共产国家所用的“东方政策”，但那政策是失败的。
正在九月初出版的，一本辑录荣休教宗本笃访问稿的书中，他说：‘纵然卡萨罗尼枢机充满善意推进“东方政策”，但那政策是失败的。教宗若望保禄二世，亲身体验过那些政权，他采取了不同的政策。当然那时无人能以为那政权会这么快倒下来，但显然教会怎么也不该妥协、让步，而该坚持对抗到底，这是若望保禄二世的看法，我完全同意。’
Parolin to the Nuncios: No Concession with China
In the appointment of future bishops, it will be the Chinese episcopal conference that proposes the candidates. But on the condition that they also join the thirty “underground” bishops whom Beijing does not yet recognize, and that the bishops without papal approval be removed
by Sandro Magister
ROME, September 26, 2016 – In mid-September, cardinal secretary of state Pietro Parolin held a meeting with all the apostolic nuncios gathered in Rome to celebrate the jubilee.
And during this meeting, as in other informal conversations, when asked about the status of negotiations with China he gave them some information of great interest.
He confirmed that the negotiation underway concerns only the question of the appointment of bishops, not the reestablishment of diplomatic relations as well, and that the discussion between the two sides is currently taking place between mid-level officials of equal rank: for the Holy See, the undersecretary for relations with states, Antoine Camilleri, and the undersecretary of the congregation for the evangelization of peoples, Tadeusz Wojda.
In Parolin’s judgment, it is noteworthy that for the first time since the advent of communism China is willing to let the Holy See have a role in the appointment of bishops.
Since it has been in power, in fact, the Chinese communist party has wanted to set up a Church submissive to itself and separate from Rome, with bishops appointed by its own exclusive warrant and ordained without the approval of the pope, subjugated to a “Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association” that Benedict XVI called “irreconcilable” with Catholic doctrine.
An “official” Church, therefore, on the brink of schism. Interwoven with an “underground” Church led by bishops not recognized by Beijing and absolutely faithful to the pope, who however pay the full price of clandestinity: oppression, surveillance, arrest, abduction.
Out of a little more than a hundred bishops active in China today - who are not named in the Annuario Pontificio - there are thirty “underground.”
The “official” bishops who were ordained illegitimately but then were more or less reconciled with Rome, or were ordained with the parallel recognition of Rome and Beijing, number around seventy.
And there are eight still beholden to the regime, who for the Holy See are not only illegitimate, but also excommunicated.
One proof of this intricate situation came at the beginning of this September, with the death at age 88 of Vincent Zhu Weifang, bishop of Wenzhou, the city that recently made news for the crosses taken down by zealous communist functionaries.
The diocese of Wenzhou has a history of stark division between the two Catholic communities. It is calculated that there are about 100,000 faithful in the “official” community and 50,000 in the “underground” one. The priests are equally distributed between the two branches, and number about fifty in all.
Ordained bishop in 2009 after twenty years of imprisonment and forced labor, Zhu obtained government recognition in 2010. But Rome placed alongside him, as coadjutor with right of succession, an “underground” bishop, Peter Shao Zhumin.
So then, to prevent him from taking leadership of the diocese, the communist authorities have abducted him together with three of his priests, preventing him from celebrating his predecessor’s funeral. And on top of that they have promoted as head of the “official” priests one of their proteges, Ma Xianshi, as if singling him out as the new bishop the regime would like to have appointed.
It is against this background that Hong Kong bishop Cardinal John Tong previewed this past August the terms of the agreement he saw approaching between Rome and Beijing over the appointment of bishops:
> Card. Tong: Communion of the Church in China with the Universal Church
Unleashing the wrath of his elderly but ever-combative predecessor in Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen Zekiun, against what he judges as an intolerable concession by the Vatican:
> Card. Zen: My concerns over China-Holy See dialogue and repercussions on Chinese Church
The agreement would assign to the Beijing authorities the selection and proposal of every new bishop, while Rome would have the faculty of vetoing the candidates it didn’t want.
Formally, every new candidate would be proposed by the Chinese episcopal conference. Only that this conference is a creature of the communist party, completely at the beck and call of the regime, without any “underground” bishops and with a president who is one of the eight excommunicants.
Even if it is approved by Rome, therefore, the fear is that every new bishop would in any case have to undergo the iron control and impositions of the communist authorities.
“Fear and trembling” for the Church are precisely the words that Parolin himself used on August 27 with regard to the “hopes and expectations for new developments in relations between the Apostolic See and China,” in a conference on a great diplomat of the 20th century on Chinese soil, Cardinal Celso Costantini:
“I consider it important to emphasize this concept forcefully: the hoped-for new and good relations with China - including diplomatic relations, if God should will it so! - are not an end in themselves or a desire to be attained perhaps as “worldly” successes, but are pondered and pursued, not without fear and trembling because here it is a matter of the Church, which belongs to God, only inasmuch as they are ‘functional’ - I repeat - to the good of Chinese Catholics, to the good of the whole Chinese people and to the harmony of the whole society, on behalf of world peace.”
The cardinal secretary of state assured the nuncios gathered in Rome that it will be up to the pope to decide on the suitability of every new candidate for bishop.
He reiterated that the appointment will be up to the pope.
He also implicitly confirmed, therefore, that it will be the Chinese authorities who will propose the candidate, through the episcopal conference.
But precisely in regard to this, he said that a couple of key questions will have to be resolved prior to the agreement.
The first concerns the thirty “underground” bishops, who will have to be recognized by the government and integrated into the episcopal conference.
The second concerns the fate of the eight “official” bishops who were excommunicated. All of whom - he said - have asked Rome for absolution. But in order to deserve it, they will have to make credible professions of unconditional fidelity to the pope and to the Church.
Also hanging over them is the accusation of having children and lovers. If proven, canonical sanctions would follow.
So it is not easy for the eight to arrive quickly at that generalized jubilee “pardon” which Pope Francis is thought to have foreshadowed.
And it is even more difficult to foresee how the Beijing authorities would behave toward any of the eight who might remain excommunicated or be made the object of canonical sanction.
Just as it is not known to what extent China may be willing to extend official recognition to the “underground” bishops.
The agreement, in short, if subordinated “to the good of the Church, which belongs to God,” is plausibly much more complicated and further off than many believe or fear.
And the recent publication of the new draft regulations for religious activities in China does not provide much reason for hope. They appear even more punitive than the previous ones, when it comes to “illegal religious activities” and “functionaries from abroad.” A heavy blow for the “underground” Catholic Church:
> Beijing issues new, harsh draft regulations on religious activities
_____________
One of the criticisms that Cardinal Zen levels against the Vatican authorities is that of responding to China today with the “bankrupt” Ostpolitik pursued by Agostino Casaroli during the years of the Cold War with the communist countries of Eastern Europe.
In regard to this, here is what Joseph Ratzinger said in his book-length interview published at the beginning of September:
“It was clear that Casaroli’s policy, as much as it may have been implemented with the best of intentions, was a failure. The new approach followed by John Paul II was the fruit of his personal experience, of contact with those powers. So naturally it could not be hoped that the regime would collapse right away, but it was evident that, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, one had to oppose it forcefully. This was the basic vision of John Paul II, which I shared.”
__________
English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
__________
For more news and commentary, see the blog that Sandro Magister maintains, available only in Italian:
> SETTIMO CIELO
__________
26.9.2016
|
