奧萊特樞機就最近對教廷的指控發表公開信

2018年10月7日,聖座新聞室公布了教廷主教部部長奧萊特樞機(Marc Ouellet)寫給維加諾總主教(Carlo Maria Viganò)的一封公開信,指出後者最近對教廷的指控絕非來自天主的神,而是一種缺乏實際根據的政治渲染,危害教會的共融。奧萊特樞機籲請維加諾總主教踏上坦途,痛悔自己的違叛,恢復與伯多祿繼承人的共融。

維加諾總主教最近透過媒體發表訊息,指控教宗方濟各和羅馬聖座,稱一種地方性的腐敗侵蝕了教會的聖統,甚至侵佔了她的最高層。這項指控與華盛頓教區前總主教麥卡里克(Theodore McCarrick)的性侵案有關,成為引起輿論喧嘩和維加諾總主教要求教宗辭職的題材。

對以上指控,奧萊特樞機以自己的親身接觸和聖座主教部的檔案文件予以駁回。維加諾在指控中談及他於2013年6月23日蒙教宗方濟各接見時,就已告知教宗關於麥卡里克的案件。

奧萊特樞機對此表示,教宗那次首次會晤維加諾總主教,而且教宗要在那個機會上收集大量的關於許多人和許多情況的口頭和書面訊息。因此,麥卡里克引起的注意程度並非如同維加諾總主教所願意相信的那樣。再説,麥卡里克那時已是個82歲且7年沒有職務的退休總主教。

奧萊特樞機接著談到,他從2010年6月30日接任主教部部長一職起,從未將麥卡里克案帶給教宗本篤十六世或教宗方濟各,只是在麥卡里克喪失了樞機的身份後,他的案件在最近這段時日才被提到。這位前樞機於2006年5月退休,一直被強令不得旅行和在公開場合露面,以免引起其它的流言蜚語。

此外,說教宗本篤十六世曾對麥卡里克採取措施,頒布了「制裁處分」,而後又被教宗方濟各取消,這是不真實的。奧萊特樞機表明,在重新審核檔案後,證實既沒有這兩位教宗簽署的有關文件,也沒有前主教部部長雷樞機(Giovanni-Battista Re)審案的記錄,以教會法典嚴厲的刑罰命令退休總主教麥卡里克度靜默和非公開的生活。

奧萊特樞機提到,與今天不同的是,這樣做的原因是當時還沒有假設麥卡里克有罪的足夠證據。「主教部出於謹慎的立場,以及我和我的前任的信件,透過宗座大使薩姆比(Pietro Sambi)還有你,都強調這規勸,即為了他自己和教會的益處度一種祈禱和懺悔的生活。」

至於麥卡里克為何能多次升遷,擔任總主教,甚至被擢升為樞機?奧萊特樞機指出,我們必須理解,教宗在作決定時所根據的是在那個確切時刻所掌握的訊息,這些訊息並非不會出錯。再説,我們談及的那位總主教也懂得以極大的才幹來維護自己,應付所受到的質疑。但麥卡里克的升遷與教宗方濟各毫不相干。在指控麥卡里克侵犯未成年人的案件顯然成立的情況下,教宗方濟各免除了他的樞機身份。

奧萊特樞機懇切地闡明,維加諾總主教的指控是一種缺乏實際根據的政治渲染。這指控深深地傷害到教會的共融。他對維加諾總主教說:「無論如何,我覺得你利用在美國性侵犯的轟動性醜聞,為使你的長上,教宗的道德權威蒙受聞所未聞和不應有的打擊。你自以為能更好地服務,卻在天主子民當中加重分裂和混亂!」

英語全文

Dear brother Carlo Maria Viganò,

In your last message to the press, in which you make accusations against Pope Francis and against the Roman Curia, you invite me to tell the truth about certain facts that you interpret as signs of an endemic corruption that has infiltrated the hierarchy of the Church up to its highest levels. With pontifical permission, and in my capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, I offer my testimony about matters concerning the Archbishop emeritus of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, and his presumed links to Pope Francis, matters that are at the center of your public accusations and your demand that the Holy Father resign. I write my testimony based on my personal contacts and on documents in the archives of the Congregation, currently the object of study to clarify this sad case.

Out of consideration for the good, collaborative relation we had when you were Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, allow me to say, in all honesty, that I find your current attitude incomprehensible and extremely troubling, not only because of the confusion it sows among the People of God, but because your public accusations gravely harm the reputation of the bishops, successors of the Apostles. I recall a time when I enjoyed your esteem and your trust, but now I see that I have been stripped in your eyes of the respect that was accorded to me, for the only reason I have remained faithful to the Holy Father’s guidance in exercising the service he has entrusted to me in the Church. Is not communion with the Successor of Peter an expression of our obedience to Christ who chose him and sustains him with his grace? My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you criticize, is grounded in this fidelity to the living tradition, which Francis has given us another example of by recently modifying the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty.

Let us address the facts. You said that on June 23, 2013, you provided Pope Francis with information about McCarrick in an audience he granted to you, as he also did for many pontifical representatives with whom he met for the first time that day. I can only imagine the amount of verbal and written information that was provided to the Holy Father on that occasion about so many persons and situations. I strongly doubt that the Pope had such interest in McCarrick, as you would like us to believe, given the fact that by then he was an 82-year-old Archbishop emeritus who had been without a role for seven years. Moreover, the written instructions given to you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your mission in 2001 did not say anything about McCarrick, except for what I mentioned to you verbally about his situation as Bishop emeritus and certain conditions and restrictions that he had to follow on account of some rumors about his past conduct.

From 30th June 2010, when I became Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, I never presented in audience the McCarrick case to Pope Benedict XVI or to Pope Francis – not until recently, after his dismissal from the College of Cardinals. The former Cardinal, retired in May of 2006, had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him. It is false, therefore, to present those measures as “sanctions” formally imposed by Pope Benedict XVI and then invalidated by Pope Francis. After a review of the archives, I find that there are no documents signed by either Pope in this regard, and there are no audience notes from my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, imposing on the retired Archbishop the obligation to lead a quiet and private life with the weight normally reserved to canonical penalties. The reason is that back then, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged culpability. Thus, the Congregation’s decision was inspired by prudence, and the letters from my predecessor and my own letters urged him, first through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then through you, to lead a life of prayer and penance, for his own good and for the good of the Church. His case would have deserved new disciplinary measures if the Nunciature in Washington, or any other source, had provided us recent and definitive information about his behavior. I am of the opinion that, out of respect for the victims and given the need for justice, the inquiry currently underway in the United States and in the Roman Curia should provide a comprehensive and critical study of the procedures and the circumstances of this painful case in order to prevent something like it from ever happening in the future.

How is it possible that this man of the Church, whose incoherence has now been revealed, was promoted many times, and was nominated to such a high position as Archbishop of Washington and Cardinal? I am personally very surprised, and I recognize that there were failures in the selection procedures implemented in his case. However, and without entering here into details, it must be understood that the decisions taken by the Supreme Pontiff are based on the information available to him at the time and that they are the object of a prudential judgment which is not infallible. I think it is unjust to reach the conclusion that there is corruption on the part of the persons entrusted with this previous discernment process, even though in the particular case some of the concerns that were raised by testimonies should have been examined more closely. The Archbishop also knew how to cleverly defend himself from those concerns raised about him. Furthermore, the fact that there could be in the Vatican persons who practice or support sexual behavior that is contrary to the values of the Gospel, does not authorize us to make generalizations or to declare unworthy and complicit this or that individual, including the Holy Father himself. Should not ministers of the truth avoid above all calumny and defamation?

Dear pontifical representative emeritus, I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered-up knowingly the case of an alleged sexual predator and, therefore, of being an accomplice to the corruption that afflicts the Church, to the point that he could no longer continue to carry out his reform as the first shepherd of the Church, appears to me from all viewpoints unbelievable and without any foundation. I cannot understand how could you have allowed yourself to be convinced of this monstrous and unsubstantiated accusation. Francis had nothing to do with McCarrick’s promotions to New York, Metuchen, Newark and Washington. He stripped him of his Cardinal’s dignity as soon as there was a credible accusation of abuse of a minor. For a Pope who does not hide the trust that he places in certain prelates, I never heard him refer to this so called great advisor for the pontificate for episcopal appointments in the United States. I can only surmise that some of those prelates are not of your preference or the preference of your friends who support your interpretation of matters. I think it is abhorrent, however, for you to use the clamorous sexual abuse scandal in the United States to inflict an unmerited and unheard of a blow to the moral authority of your superior, the Supreme Pontiff.

I have the privilege of having long meetings with Pope Francis every week to discuss the appointment of bishops and the problems that affect their governance. I know very well how he treats persons and problems: with great charity, mercy, attentiveness and seriousness, as you too have experienced. I think it is too sarcastic, even blasphemous, how you end your last message, purportedly appealing to spirituality while mocking the Holy Father and casting doubt about his faith. That cannot come from the Spirit of God.

Dear brother, how much I wish that I could help you return to communion with him who is the visible guarantor of communion in the Catholic Church. I understand that deceptions and sufferings have marked your path in the service to the Holy See, but you should not finish your priestly life involved in an open and scandalous rebellion that inflicts a very painful wound to the Bride of Christ, whom you pretend to serve better, while causing further division and confusion among the People of God. How could I answer your call except by saying: stop living clandestinely, repent of your rebelliousness, and come back to better feelings towards the Holy Father, instead of fostering hostility against him. How can you celebrate Mass and mention his name in the Eucharistic Prayer? How can you pray the Holy Rosary, or pray to Saint Michael the Archangel, or to the Mother of God, while condemning the one Our Lady protects and accompanies every day in his burdensome and courageous mission?

If the Pope was not a man of prayer; if he was attached to money; if he favored riches to the detriment of the poor; if he did not demonstrate a tireless energy to welcome all miseries and to address them through the generous comfort of his words and actions; if he did not seek to implement all possible means to announce and to communicate the joy of the Gospel to all in the Church and beyond her visible horizons; if he did not lend a hand to the families, to the abandoned elderly, to the sick in body and soul and, above all, to the youth in their search for happiness; one could prefer someone else, according to you, with a different political or diplomatic approach. But I cannot call into question his personal integrity, his consecration to the mission and, above all, the charisma and peace he enjoys through the grace of God and the strength of the Risen One.

Dear Viganò, in response to your unjust and unjustified attack, I can only conclude that the accusation is a political plot that lacks any real basis that could incriminate the Pope and that profoundly harms the communion of the Church. May God allow a prompt reparation of this flagrant injustice so that Pope Francis can continue to be recognized for who he is: a true shepherd, a resolute and compassionate father, a prophetic grace for the Church and for the world. May the Holy Father carry on, full of confidence and joy, the missionary reform he has begun, comforted by the prayers of the people of God and the renewed solidarity of the whole Church, together with Mary, Queen of the Holy Rosary!

Marc Cardinal Ouellet Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops,

Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, October 7th 2018.

來源:梵蒂岡新聞網

圖片:Catholic News Service

中國蘭州教區韓志海主教致教區公開信

中國西北甘肅省蘭州教區韓志海主教於2003年秘密晉牧,一直沒得到政府的公開認可。韓志海主教於11月10日接受公開就職, 他以社交媒體通報教區神父表示:「羅馬樂意看到這樣的結果」。

致全教區的公開信(一)

親愛的教區內的全體司鐸、修士、修女及教友們:

首先,我希望藉這封公開信向你們表達誠摯的問候與祝福:願我們的主耶穌基督的恩寵及平安與你們同在!同時,我也希望能就教區內近期的一些問題和現象向大家予以解釋和說明,以免因不必要的誤會和紛爭而給教區的牧靈和福傳工作造成損失。

正如你們都知道的,我自2003年被聖座任命並祝聖為教區主教以來,雖然因能力和經驗方面的短缺而在工作和生活方面多有不足之處,但在大家的包容、接納和幫助下,在天主恩寵的助佑下,我還是盡己所能,在老前輩們的用生命和心血打下的基礎上,繼續和你們一道摸索前行,只希望能為教區的各項事業有所助益。

鑑於歷史原因,過去14年來,因我的牧職一直處於所謂的「地下」狀態,使得許多教區的工作計劃無法正常開展,由此而造成的困難和問題也變得越來越複雜。另外,雖然我本人早已感到有必要通過溝通和對話,獲得政府的認可,但考慮到我們教區的特殊情況,一直沒有進行公開的「就職儀式」。然而,自2007年教宗本篤16世《致中華人民共和國內天主教主教、司鐸、度奉獻生活者、教友的信函》發表後,我再次明確地意識到這並非我個人的私意,而是教會最高牧者也希望看到的結果:中國教會自身首先應該尋求的是寬恕和好、合一共融、體制建設、聖召培育、福音傳播,而與政府當局應該在相互尊重的前提下開展建設性對話,以克服多年來在政教關係方面形成的誤會和困難。在談及「中國主教的品位」時,教宗甚至點明說:

「雖然有些主教被迫秘密地接受了祝聖,但秘密狀態並非屬於教會生活的常規……為此,教廷期望政府也能給予這些合法主教所必要的法理方面的承認,是所有信友都能在自己的社會環境中自由地實踐信仰生活。」(見第8條)

正是基於上述原因,就更堅定了我按照教宗的《牧函》精神來尋求教會生活「正常化」的信心。

誠然,迄今為止,海內外仍有一些人將爭論的焦點集中在了某些由國家建立,與教會的架構無關的機構,企圖凌駕於主教之上,以領導教會團體的生活,並不符合天主教的教義。」這句話上,認為從「地下」轉為「公開」就是背叛教會信仰原則、就是裂教。但他們卻有意無意地忽略了教宗的如下教導:

「聖座在重申了基本原則後,認為該讓每一位主教來決定,因為他在聽取了其司鐸們的意見後,能更好地了解當地的情況,權衡具體的選擇,評估給教區團體內部可能帶來的後果,最終的決定,也可能無法得到全體司鐸和教友的同意。總之,我希望大家都能接受,即便很痛苦的,也要接受,從而維護教區團體與其牧者的合一。」(見第7條)

更有甚者,那些到處宣稱說不可以同公開了的主教和司鐸們共祭的人們,也無疑是全然置教宗在《牧函》中的這一指示於不顧而混淆視聽的做法:

「在不少場合,你們遇到共祭的問題。有關此事,我要提醒你們它的先決條件:就是該宣認同一的信仰,並與教宗及普世教會保持聖統制的共融。因此,與教宗共融的主教及司鐸共祭是合法的,即使他們是政府認可或是與國家建立的、與教會體制無關的機構保持關係的。」(見第10條)

除此之外,在教宗方濟各當選之後,隨著中梵關係的不斷改善,我也欣慰地看到,儘管海外有人時不時地將教宗和教廷與中國政府相向而行的對話和外交政策醜化為「天真」、「有可能背叛耶穌基督」、「執行邪惡計劃」等,雙方因歷史原因而形成的敵視和鬥爭關係卻正在被互信與合作所取代。一個最好的例子就是過去一年來,來自雙方官方和民間的各項交流與互動,如:環保研討會、反器官販賣峰會、文藝表演、雙向同步藝術展覽等。作為中國地方教會的一員,我認為中梵關係的改善不能僅僅是雙方高層的事情,也應該是我們身在其中的每個人的責任。因此,儘管教區內仍然有一些司鐸和教友們無法理解和接受我在11月10日的公開就職活動,但我覺得能夠以這一方式從基層為我們期待已久的「解決方案」盡綿薄之力,乃最好的選擇。

正如我前面所說,儘管本人的出發點和目的是向好的方向邁步,但在具體的言行方面,卻不見得能如願以償地做到盡善盡美。很多人因我在就職儀式後所接受的一次媒體採訪的內容而可能受到了傷害,或者因為這次就職儀式而感到困惑,那麼我誠懇地向大家道歉。那次採訪是通過電話所做的,在溝通和表達方面都欠妥,之後也沒有多加修改就發表了。這是我的失誤,責任在我!與此同時,我也想藉此機會,向過去這些年來,因我有意無意在言語和行為方面給大家造成的誤會和傷害道歉,不但懇請你們理解和諒解,更請求你們繼續幫助我在天主恩寵助佑下履行好肩負的職責。雖然我深知自己卑微弱小,不堪肩負此重任,但基督對保祿宗徒說過的這句話,也正是我信心和力量的源泉:「有我的恩寵為你夠了,因為我的德能在軟弱中才全顯出來。」(格後12:9)

面對當前紛繁複雜的世界情形和教會現狀,我也想在此提醒並呼籲每一位弟兄姐妹,教會的合一共融和發展需要我們每個人的堅守和努力。包括我在內的每個人,都必須謙卑地呼求天主聖三的寬恕、治愈、聖化、引領和恩佑。惟有如此,我們才能既不會因所面對的困難和挑戰而失去勇氣和信心,更不會因教會內外的一些雜音而失去方寸。本人深知上述就職儀式的嚴肅性,也意識到自己的軟弱和無知,所以我並不敢冒然行動,而是先前徵得了普世教會牧人的認可。如果大家仍然有什麼疑問,可以通過合適渠道向普世教會牧人尋求幫助和闡釋。至於如上所述那樣有目的地醜化教宗和教廷的雜音,其目的無非是製造混亂和對抗情緒,我們必須提高警惕、擦亮眼目,絕不受其誤導和乾擾!雖然我是有罪的主教,再加上才疏學淺,不對之處敬請大家批評指正,但網上和私下對我不負責任的人身攻擊和造謠污衊是不能接受的。也希望大家不要相信這些謠言並散佈這些謠言,不要做教宗方濟各所常常警告我們的靠舌頭來分裂和毀壞教會團體的「恐怖分子」!

願無染原罪的天上母后為我們轉求,使我們能像她在世旅途中那樣,只以聆聽天主的話並照著去做為己任!

卑僕

+若瑟韓志海

2017年12月8日於蘭州

致全教區的公開信(二)

親愛的弟兄姐妹們:

主內平安!

首先感謝大家對我於12月8日給你們的公開信的回應,幫助我更好地改進牧靈、福傳方面的工作。然而,鑑於近期在一些堂區內流傳著一些混淆視聽的錯誤觀念,極大地擾亂了信友們的心情和想法,我決定再次致信給你們,就如下兩個嚴重誤導大家的觀念予以澄清和說明:

1)自從我去年11月10日舉行公開就職典禮後,已經失去了對教區的領導權,不再是教區合法主教;

2)凡是參加過我就職典禮的司鐸所舉行的聖事都是無效的,而且領受他們所舉行的聖事的教友們會犯大罪,冒下地獄的危險。

稍有常識的人都知道,不論是從神學還是從教會法典講,上述兩個觀念都是毫無根據的謬論,但因為有許多教友反映說是來自幾位司鐸弟兄之口,我於是委派楊正軍神父和王虎元神父到各地走訪相關司鐸弟兄。他們都明確表示說自己從未在任何地方講過這樣既錯誤又不負責任的話。因此,為了各位司鐸弟兄的清白,也為了糾正所流傳的謬誤,我在此重申:凡是有意傳播上述謬論、嫁禍於人、散步恐怖氣氛者,你自己要對所導致的一切後果負責!

正如我此前所說,謠言止於智者。倘若任何人對我本人有看法和意見,真誠歡迎批評指正,但絕不容許以個人恩怨綁架教會團體來散佈謠言、恐嚇教友們的罪惡言行。望各位司鐸、修士、修女及廣大信友們明察督促!

卑僕 蘭州教區主教

+若瑟韓志海

2018年1月10日