關於 leaving the church but not the faith ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

雖說您將離開台灣，但台灣永遠不會離開您！祝福酈英傑處長鵬程萬里！
---------------
轉載 @美國在台協會 AIT 貼文

📝酈英傑處長給台灣人民的道別信
「隨著我擔任美國在台協會處長的日子即將畫下句點，我也即將離開台灣，我想藉這個機會和大家分享，這一番歷練對我來說的意義是什麼。當我說擔任AIT處長其實是我這輩子的榮幸，也讓我得以實現長期職業生涯中的抱負與理想，這麼說一點也不為過。
我19歲時第一次離開家鄉，就是來台灣。對年輕的我來說，從那時起，台灣就成了交流與理解、探索與冒險的同義詞。台灣不僅有著讓人眼花撩亂的異鄉風情，也代表著意想不到的嶄新機會。我在這裡嘗試新奇的食物，像是水餃和臭豆腐，並且學習如何在擠滿單車和機車的大街小巷穿梭自如。一方面，我努力用我粗淺的中文，讓別人聽懂我說的話；但同時我也發現，無論走到哪裡，迎接我的都是滿滿的親切友善與熱情好客。
因此，在成為美國外交官後，能夠以台灣作為我派駐海外的第一站，真是再適合不過了。畢竟，是台灣首先點燃了我對亞洲、尤其是台灣的畢生興趣，也激發了我對跨文化理解和共享目標——也就是外交工作——的終身熱忱。此後，我也曾派駐其他地點，多數是在大中華區域，但我的台灣經歷與回憶始終常存我心。最終我能以美國駐台最高層級外交官的身分回來這裡，可說是我多年職涯的高峰。顯然，我這一生注定與台灣有著深刻的連結，或者也叫作「緣分」吧，才會讓我一次又一次不斷地回到台灣。
常有人問我，為什麼我這麼喜歡台灣。我總覺得：「答案不是很明顯嗎？」不過如果一定要我從個人與專業的角度，解釋我對台灣的喜愛與敬佩之情，我通常會提到以下幾個領域：
首先，台灣兼具活力與穩定、進步與延承、還有創新與傳統。每次回到這裡，我都對台灣社會在各個方面日新月異的進步感到驚艷不已。台灣的民主更臻成熟，經濟益加蓬勃，環境保護更受關注，藝術文化發展也生生不息。
台灣在許多最先進的科技產業上持續為全球創新樹立標竿，但與此同時，台灣的社會穩定和文化傳承依舊令人欽羨佩服。儘管生活充裕且形象良好，台灣人民卻依然謙虛樸實、平易近人。在台灣，最古老的傳統薪火相傳、歷久彌新。文化和歷史古蹟受到妥善的修復與保護；年輕人也可以學習代代相傳的書法技巧，接著再把作品秀在Instagram上。
再者，對美國來說，台灣正是共享利益與共享價值交集的典範。美台夥伴關係的重點在於確保科技發展能夠嘉惠、而非傷害我們雙方的經濟，科技突破則應被用於鞏固、而不是破壞我們的原則。美台之間自由、多元、平等及透明等共享價值，時時激勵我們努力在世界各地打造民主社會的韌性。而我們也持續尋求新的方式，為解決全球問題做出貢獻，這麼做不僅是因為能夠造福我們自己的人民，也是因為我們相信，身為21世紀敦親睦鄰的好夥伴，就是該這麼做。
最後，每當我想到台灣、以及整體美台關係，我總會想到希望、光明和成長。美台的情誼在過去40年來不斷拓展與茁壯。我相信每任處長都會同意，他們離開台灣時的美台夥伴關係，比起他們剛上任時都更上一層樓。同樣的，當我向AIT告別的那一天，我的心中將充滿肯定與成就感，因為我知道，美台夥伴關係比以往都更加深刻和強健，我也對自己能為美台關係今天亮眼的進展小有貢獻，而深感驕傲。
但是，比起這些事情，我想我更難忘的是台灣在我生命中所留下的深刻印記。我永遠會記得我在台灣度過的第一個聖誕節，還有第一個農曆新年。我永遠會記得台灣朋友的真摯與溫暖、教會同伴堅定的信仰、炎炎夏日來一碗芒果冰的沁涼、資源回收車沿街播放《給愛麗絲》的回音，還有巷弄中撲鼻而來的茉莉花香，這些都會是我畢生珍藏的美好回憶之一。我也會記得好友間的餐聚、充滿歡笑和故事的夜晚、以及一路以來我受到過的無數的善意與關懷。我更會永遠記得，是各位台灣朋友們，你們以各種不同的方式，讓我和我家人的生命更加地豐盛美好。對此，我要衷心地謝謝大家。
雖然我將離開台灣，但台灣不會離開我。」
— 美國在台協會處長 酈英傑
✅信件全文亦可至AIT官網查看：https://bit.ly/2TSkLDF
📝A Farewell Letter from AIT Director W. Brent Christensen
"As my time as AIT Director draws to a close and I prepare to leave Taiwan, I want to take this opportunity to tell you what this experience has meant to me. It is not an exaggeration to say that this has been the honor of my life and the fulfillment of a career-long aspiration.
The first time I left my hometown at age 19, it was to come to Taiwan. From that early age, Taiwan became synonymous for me with the ideas of exchange and understanding, exploration and adventure. Taiwan represented both disorienting foreignness and unexpected opportunity, as I tried new food – like shuijiaos and qiu doufu – and learned to navigate my way through streets crowded with bicycles and scooters. And struggled to make myself understood with my rudimentary Mandarin. But all the while discovering the kindness and generosity that welcomed me wherever I went.
It felt appropriate for me to serve my first tour as a U.S. diplomat in the place that first sparked in me a lifelong interest in Asia – and in Taiwan in particular – and in cross-cultural understanding and shared purpose, or in other words, diplomacy. After that, my career took me to other places, but mostly still in the China region. But the memories of my experiences in Taiwan stayed with me. And finally having the opportunity to serve as the top U.S. diplomat to Taiwan was the culmination of all the years that came before. It is clear that I have a lifelong connection to Taiwan, or “yuanfen,” that has led me to return again and again.
People often ask me why I have such a fondness for Taiwan. “Isn’t it obvious?!” I always think. But when forced to explain my affection for and professional fascination with Taiwan, I usually come back to a few themes.
First, dynamism and constancy; progress and preservation; innovation and tradition. Every time I return to Taiwan, I am immediately struck by the many ways Taiwan has advanced as a society. Taiwan’s democracy grows more mature, its economy more prosperous, its environment more cared-for, and its arts and culture more vibrant.
Taiwan’s industry continues to set the benchmark for global innovation in some of the most sophisticated technologies, but at the same time, Taiwan society is remarkable for its stability and cultural continuity. Taiwan’s people, despite their relative wealth and stature, continue to be modest and unassuming. Taiwan’s most ancient traditions are alive and well. Cultural and historic sites are restored and preserved. Young people may learn calligraphy techniques handed down for generations, but then share their work on Instagram.
Second, for the United States, Taiwan exemplifies the intersection of shared interests and shared values. Our partnership is about making sure our economies are beneficiaries rather than casualties of technological development and ensuring that technological development advances rather than undermines our principles. Our shared values of freedom, diversity, equality, and transparency inspire our efforts to build the resilience of democracies around the world. And we continue to find new ways to contribute to global problem solving, both because it benefits our own peoples and because we share the belief that this is what it means to be a good neighbor in the 21st century.
Finally, I associate Taiwan – and the broader U.S.-Taiwan relationship – with hope, promise, and growth. This friendship has expanded and flourished over the past 40 years; I believe every person who has done this job walked away knowing they left this partnership better than they found it. I will similarly leave AIT with a sense of accomplishment and success, knowing that the U.S.-Taiwan partnership is deeper and stronger than ever, and feeling immensely proud of my small role in getting us there.
But more than any of these things, I will remember the ways that Taiwan has touched me personally. I will always remember my first Christmas in Taiwan – and my first Chinese New Year. I will remember the warmth of Taiwan friendship, the faith of my fellow church members, the taste of a mango bing on a hot summer day, the echo of “Fur Elise” from the recycling truck, the fragrance of jasmine blossoms in village alleyways – these are just some of the memories I will treasure. I will remember the long dinners with dear friends, full of laughter and stories. And I will remember their many kindnesses. I will remember all the ways big and small that you, the people of Taiwan, touched my life and the lives of my family. And for that, I thank you.
I may be leaving Taiwan, but Taiwan will never leave me. "
-- AIT Director William Brent Christensen
✅Read the letter: https://bit.ly/3hUrsgw

📝酈英傑處長給台灣人民的道別信

「隨著我擔任美國在台協會處長的日子即將畫下句點，我也即將離開台灣，我想藉這個機會和大家分享，這一番歷練對我來說的意義是什麼。當我說擔任AIT處長其實是我這輩子的榮幸，也讓我得以實現長期職業生涯中的抱負與理想，這麼說一點也不為過。

我19歲時第一次離開家鄉，就是來台灣。對年輕的我來說，從那時起，台灣就成了交流與理解、探索與冒險的同義詞。台灣不僅有著讓人眼花撩亂的異鄉風情，也代表著意想不到的嶄新機會。我在這裡嘗試新奇的食物，像是水餃和臭豆腐，並且學習如何在擠滿單車和機車的大街小巷穿梭自如。一方面，我努力用我粗淺的中文，讓別人聽懂我說的話；但同時我也發現，無論走到哪裡，迎接我的都是滿滿的親切友善與熱情好客。

因此，在成為美國外交官後，能夠以台灣作為我派駐海外的第一站，真是再適合不過了。畢竟，是台灣首先點燃了我對亞洲、尤其是台灣的畢生興趣，也激發了我對跨文化理解和共享目標——也就是外交工作——的終身熱忱。此後，我也曾派駐其他地點，多數是在大中華區域，但我的台灣經歷與回憶始終常存我心。最終我能以美國駐台最高層級外交官的身分回來這裡，可說是我多年職涯的高峰。顯然，我這一生注定與台灣有著深刻的連結，或者也叫作「緣分」吧，才會讓我一次又一次不斷地回到台灣。

常有人問我，為什麼我這麼喜歡台灣。我總覺得：「答案不是很明顯嗎？」不過如果一定要我從個人與專業的角度，解釋我對台灣的喜愛與敬佩之情，我通常會提到以下幾個領域：

首先，台灣兼具活力與穩定、進步與延承、還有創新與傳統。每次回到這裡，我都對台灣社會在各個方面日新月異的進步感到驚艷不已。台灣的民主更臻成熟，經濟益加蓬勃，環境保護更受關注，藝術文化發展也生生不息。

台灣在許多最先進的科技產業上持續為全球創新樹立標竿，但與此同時，台灣的社會穩定和文化傳承依舊令人欽羨佩服。儘管生活充裕且形象良好，台灣人民卻依然謙虛樸實、平易近人。在台灣，最古老的傳統薪火相傳、歷久彌新。文化和歷史古蹟受到妥善的修復與保護；年輕人也可以學習代代相傳的書法技巧，接著再把作品秀在Instagram上。

再者，對美國來說，台灣正是共享利益與共享價值交集的典範。美台夥伴關係的重點在於確保科技發展能夠嘉惠、而非傷害我們雙方的經濟，科技突破則應被用於鞏固、而不是破壞我們的原則。美台之間自由、多元、平等及透明等共享價值，時時激勵我們努力在世界各地打造民主社會的韌性。而我們也持續尋求新的方式，為解決全球問題做出貢獻，這麼做不僅是因為能夠造福我們自己的人民，也是因為我們相信，身為21世紀敦親睦鄰的好夥伴，就是該這麼做。

最後，每當我想到台灣、以及整體美台關係，我總會想到希望、光明和成長。美台的情誼在過去40年來不斷拓展與茁壯。我相信每任處長都會同意，他們離開台灣時的美台夥伴關係，比起他們剛上任時都更上一層樓。同樣的，當我向AIT告別的那一天，我的心中將充滿肯定與成就感，因為我知道，美台夥伴關係比以往都更加深刻和強健，我也對自己能為美台關係今天亮眼的進展小有貢獻，而深感驕傲。

但是，比起這些事情，我想我更難忘的是台灣在我生命中所留下的深刻印記。我永遠會記得我在台灣度過的第一個聖誕節，還有第一個農曆新年。我永遠會記得台灣朋友的真摯與溫暖、教會同伴堅定的信仰、炎炎夏日來一碗芒果冰的沁涼、資源回收車沿街播放《給愛麗絲》的回音，還有巷弄中撲鼻而來的茉莉花香，這些都會是我畢生珍藏的美好回憶之一。我也會記得好友間的餐聚、充滿歡笑和故事的夜晚、以及一路以來我受到過的無數的善意與關懷。我更會永遠記得，是各位台灣朋友們，你們以各種不同的方式，讓我和我家人的生命更加地豐盛美好。對此，我要衷心地謝謝大家。

雖然我將離開台灣，但台灣不會離開我。」

— 美國在台協會處長 酈英傑

✅信件全文亦可至AIT官網查看：https://bit.ly/2TSkLDF

📝A Farewell Letter from AIT Director W. Brent Christensen

"As my time as AIT Director draws to a close and I prepare to leave Taiwan, I want to take this opportunity to tell you what this experience has meant to me. It is not an exaggeration to say that this has been the honor of my life and the fulfillment of a career-long aspiration.

The first time I left my hometown at age 19, it was to come to Taiwan. From that early age, Taiwan became synonymous for me with the ideas of exchange and understanding, exploration and adventure. Taiwan represented both disorienting foreignness and unexpected opportunity, as I tried new food – like shuijiaos and qiu doufu – and learned to navigate my way through streets crowded with bicycles and scooters. And struggled to make myself understood with my rudimentary Mandarin. But all the while discovering the kindness and generosity that welcomed me wherever I went.

It felt appropriate for me to serve my first tour as a U.S. diplomat in the place that first sparked in me a lifelong interest in Asia – and in Taiwan in particular – and in cross-cultural understanding and shared purpose, or in other words, diplomacy. After that, my career took me to other places, but mostly still in the China region. But the memories of my experiences in Taiwan stayed with me. And finally having the opportunity to serve as the top U.S. diplomat to Taiwan was the culmination of all the years that came before. It is clear that I have a lifelong connection to Taiwan, or “yuanfen,” that has led me to return again and again.

People often ask me why I have such a fondness for Taiwan. “Isn’t it obvious?!” I always think. But when forced to explain my affection for and professional fascination with Taiwan, I usually come back to a few themes.

First, dynamism and constancy; progress and preservation; innovation and tradition. Every time I return to Taiwan, I am immediately struck by the many ways Taiwan has advanced as a society. Taiwan’s democracy grows more mature, its economy more prosperous, its environment more cared-for, and its arts and culture more vibrant.

Taiwan’s industry continues to set the benchmark for global innovation in some of the most sophisticated technologies, but at the same time, Taiwan society is remarkable for its stability and cultural continuity. Taiwan’s people, despite their relative wealth and stature, continue to be modest and unassuming. Taiwan’s most ancient traditions are alive and well. Cultural and historic sites are restored and preserved. Young people may learn calligraphy techniques handed down for generations, but then share their work on Instagram.

Second, for the United States, Taiwan exemplifies the intersection of shared interests and shared values. Our partnership is about making sure our economies are beneficiaries rather than casualties of technological development and ensuring that technological development advances rather than undermines our principles. Our shared values of freedom, diversity, equality, and transparency inspire our efforts to build the resilience of democracies around the world. And we continue to find new ways to contribute to global problem solving, both because it benefits our own peoples and because we share the belief that this is what it means to be a good neighbor in the 21st century.

Finally, I associate Taiwan – and the broader U.S.-Taiwan relationship – with hope, promise, and growth. This friendship has expanded and flourished over the past 40 years; I believe every person who has done this job walked away knowing they left this partnership better than they found it. I will similarly leave AIT with a sense of accomplishment and success, knowing that the U.S.-Taiwan partnership is deeper and stronger than ever, and feeling immensely proud of my small role in getting us there.

But more than any of these things, I will remember the ways that Taiwan has touched me personally. I will always remember my first Christmas in Taiwan – and my first Chinese New Year. I will remember the warmth of Taiwan friendship, the faith of my fellow church members, the taste of a mango bing on a hot summer day, the echo of “Fur Elise” from the recycling truck, the fragrance of jasmine blossoms in village alleyways – these are just some of the memories I will treasure. I will remember the long dinners with dear friends, full of laughter and stories. And I will remember their many kindnesses. I will remember all the ways big and small that you, the people of Taiwan, touched my life and the lives of my family. And for that, I thank you.

I may be leaving Taiwan, but Taiwan will never leave me. "

-- AIT Director William Brent Christensen

✅Read the letter: https://bit.ly/3hUrsgw

I still don’t understand why they are in dialogue with China

A response to “Why we are in dialogue with China”, the interview that His Eminence Cardinal Parolin gave to Gianni Valente (that is, an interview cooked up between the two).

I read the interview several times, now I read it again (even if the reading repels me) in order to honestly make my comments.

I am grateful to His Eminence for recognizing that “it is legitimate to have different opinions”.

(1)
First of all, we note the insistence with which His Eminence affirms that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are of a pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and acting is only in a political key.

What we see instead is that he venerates the Ostpolitik diplomacy of his master Casaroli and despises the genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles from any interference by secular power.

I will never forget my amazement at reading a report in the Osservatore Romano a few years ago on a speech that he had given where he describes the heroes of the faith in the central European countries under the communist regime (Card. Wyszynsky, Card. Mindszenty and Card. Beran, without mentioning them) as “gladiators”, “people systematically opposed to the government and eager to appear on the political stage”.

(2)
We also note the repeated mention of his compassion for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in China. Crocodile tears! What suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of life. But he has absolutely no respect for all of this at all (they are “gladiators”!)

He also speaks of wounds that are still open and his intention to treat them by applying “the balm of mercy”. But what wounds is he talking about?

Towards the end of the interview, at one point he says: “To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation”.

So he knows very well that in the Church in China it is not (if not infrequently) a case of personal offenses or resentments, but persecution by an atheistic totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? It is not a question of personal offenses to be forgiven. It is a slavery from which to free oneself.

Mercy for the persecutors? For their accomplices? Rewarding traitors? Castigating the faithful? Forcing a legitimate bishop to give way to an excommunicated one? It this not more like rubbing salt on these still open wounds?

Let us return to the “objective situation”. The painful state was not created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this enslavement, there are those who suffer, unfortunately there are those who embrace it.

Faced with this reality is it possible not to speak of “power, resistance, conflict, compromise, giving in, surrender, betrayal”?

Parolin wants us to talk about communion and collaboration. But are the conditions right? Where is this unity? How can we collaborate? Thus, we must analyse the two fundamental points that need clarification.

(3)
What is the unity you want to achieve?

a) His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and states that “there are not two Catholic Churches in China”. If I’m not mistaken, I was the first to affirm this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, because, in both communities, the faithful in their hearts are loyal to the Pope (today with the increasing number of opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply this affirmation to the entire Church in China).

But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment, there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter on which Jesus established his Church, the other structure is imposed by an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church subject to its power.

b) Eliminating this division and achieving unity must be the desire of every Catholic, but not with one wave of a magic wand, let alone by manipulating the Letter of Pope Benedict.

In the Letter by Pope Emeritus there is this paragraph (8.10): “Some (bishops), not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church's life. “Father Jeroom Heyndrickx citing out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life,” has made it his mission to spread the word throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “there should be no more underground communities, everyone must come to the open and become part of the community subject to the Government”.

In the Commission for the Church in China we pointed out this grave error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples ignored this warning, obviously supporting ​​Father Heyndrickx’ theory.

It was only two years later, when this mistake had already done immense damage, that we managed to include some notes in the “Compendium” booklet to try to distinguish the reconciliation of hearts from unity in structures.

c) Parolin says that one should not maintain “a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures”. But obviously this does not depend on us alone, because one of the two structures is under Government power, which certainly exercises control over it and shows no sign of giving it up.
Pope Benedict says that the journey of unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).

But our diplomats want a miracle and they want it now, and not only. They also accuse others of clinging “to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures” and of not being ready “to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective”.

These are really cruel reproaches to address to faithful members of the Church, who for many years have suffered every kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!

When the other party has no intention of respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and on our part one wants unity at all costs, there is only one possible choice, that of forcing everyone to enter the “bird’s cage”.

d) With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will this encourage people to walk together? To embark on a new path? With serenity? With confidence?

It is said that it will be a gradual process, but let us suppose that the authors already have the next steps to be taken after the legitimization of the illegitimate in mind.

What will become of those Bishops who are legitimate according to the law of the Church but who are not recognized by the Government? Will they be “accepted”? That is, admitted to the cage? Will it finally be “a” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to the cage?)

Parolin and company recognize that this solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. You can endure and suffer an evil (damage), but you can never do wrong (sin), great or small.
Our suffering at the creation of a schismatic Church by others may be inevitable, but we cannot assist in its creation.

Moreover, a schismatic church created by the party is not a cause for fear, it will fade with the fall of the regime. Instead, a schismatic church with the Pope's blessing would be horrifying!

(4)
Having clarified the nature of the unity to be reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this unity?

With reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue (with the Government).

a) Reconciliation is not without difficulty but possible, because it depends only on our goodwill, dialogue with the Government is more difficult.

b) Pope Francis in Seoul had said: “The first condition of a dialogue is consistency with one's own identity.”

It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need to know and let it be known where we want to arrive, that is, what our conscience dictates as a desirable outcome to dialogue. In our case, obviously it is: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but favours the true good of the nation”.

Will we be able to manage this dialogue? Is there a hope of success? Is there at least a minimum foundation to hope in the present situation when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and overbearing than ever? When, both its words and actions point to an even more rigorous control of every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign” religions.

The Communists no longer feel the need to save appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic. (The joint meeting of the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference is [always] led by a government official”) The Popes refrain from using the word “schism” for compassion for those who find themselves not of their own will under severe pressure.

From what we can observe see, the Holy See is acquiescing to this unacceptable reality. (Is it really sure that this is for the good of the Church?)

In order for a dialogue to be true, it must start from a position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our own seems to start from a position of weakness. Reliable source says that the Vatican Delegation could not discuss the case of Bishop James Su Zhi Min who has been in the hands of the government for more than twenty years, because our interlocutors refused. In my opinion, our delegation should have left the negotiating table and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling down to them from the outset.

After all we are not the vanquished. Do our diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted, and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That they have churches and cathedrals in various places? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have churches, they say Masses in private homes so as not to be disturbed by the public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as of February 2018 we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on the activities of these our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows that by now it also has the consent of the Holy See.

c) While supporting the need for external dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the Church. With a supremely rude gesture it dismissed the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China set up by Pope Benedict without so much as a word. The only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican was Archbishop Savio, sending him as Nuncio to Greece. So much for “finding synthesis of truth”! So much for “discovering God's plan together”! They are convinced that they “have considered everything properly”.

(5)
The most repugnant thing I find in the whole interview is the dishonest exploitation of expressions of the Letter of Pope Benedict, making it appear as if he was a faithful supporter of the Pope Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for 'Evangelization of the Peoples have thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to bring the Church in China back on the right path.

At the beginning and end of the interview he made two citations respectively.

a) In Chapter 4 Paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to 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.. “

b) In Paragraph 6 he had said: (Citing “Deus caritas est”) “The Church cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice..”

In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the first half, leaving out the other half, losing the balance of Pope Benedict’s thought.

(6)
Given the recent controversies, I feel the desire to clarify my relationship with Pope Francis who, whenever I meet him, fills me with tenderness.

It is true that my revelations of a private interviews may have caused him embarrassment and for this I am sorry. But I am still convinced that there is a void between the way of thinking of His Holiness and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who readily take advantage of the Pope's optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from the responsibility of the erroneous judgement of his collaborators and that he has communicated his encouragement to my brothers in China who are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep water”.

If, by chance, one day a bad agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will withdraw in silence to “monastic life”. Certainly as a son, even if unworthy, of Don Bosco I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord will preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of his enemies.”