|
作者
|
內容
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 12:18:18
|
|
|
On local paper today :
看見一些淺薄之徒對甘浩望神父橫加非議，形容他是一個傻傻戇戇的意大利流浪漢，在意大利通街都是；又說爭居權者崇洋，為何會受這個洋人的擺布。又在非常想當然的情況下，說他只是傳教士心態，自以為是地到落後地方（香港？）拯救世人。又似是而非地質疑教宗也不是一人一票民主地選出來，為何又不見他非議，卻走來香港搞搞震……
非常心痛，不但是反智文人，就是很多代表正義一族的朋友、記者，就因為對爭居權者沒有好感，連帶對甘浩望帶充滿偏見的看法。這對他的批評，是多麼不公平。
首先甘浩望並非民主派，與民主派無任何關係，民主派當時得令，風風光光的整個九十年代，不見他的蹤影；這段時間他到了遙遠的中國內陸地方教書。其次他早就背棄了教會，獨斷獨行，空有神父之名，不理教會之事。教會以神為本，行事以教會利益為依歸，甘浩望卻是以人為本，他的公義在世上，不是在天上，他的關愛在人間，在他所見到，所接觸到的每一個人。
How accurate is this regarding his connection with the Church?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 12:36:52
|
|
|
I don't really know what actually is meant by Rev. Mella's 'connection' with the Church. On statistics, he is a P.I.M.E., one of the most senior Pontifical religious order that came to HK. Fr. Mella is also a very mature and highly active religious.
The SARG doesn't welcome him, so do most HK people. I for one do not welcome him with open arms, but I still respect his stance - a person true to himself and his belief, though he is not God, and may not necessarily represent God, nor carry out God's will.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 12:49:15
|
|
|
"其次他早就背棄了教會，獨斷獨行，空有神父之名，不理教會之事。教會以神為本，行事以教會利益為依歸，甘浩望卻是以人為本，他的公義在世上，不是在天上，他的關愛在人間，在他所見到，所接觸到的每一個人。"
甘仔是入世信徒的代表人物,不見得他有'背棄教會'的行為,這文章的作者是個大話西遊的作家。他的行俓不能說沒有錯 - 他當年說過很錯的話,當然,他是外籍人士,講中文容易'開口夾著脷'。任何人都不能說他自己所作的事全對。甘仔對香港整體社會的認識不夠深,不夠闊,一腔熱血,很容易好心做壞事,這才是問題的癥結。
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 02:00:48
|
|
|
甘神父是入世信徒嗎？端看你如何理解入世了。我覺得他是以很出世的態度面對入世的事情，才可以做到這個地步而令人敬服。如果看看"千言萬言"，或看看"由米蘭到鑽石山"，又或是看過甘神父的絕食宣言(我只看過一九九九年那一份)，對甘神父的歷史認識多一點，我們會明白，甘神父關懷的，只是一個個活生生的人。他有自己的原則，就是愛主愛人。實在是令人非常感動的一個神父。
所以，神職亦有利有弊，經驗上，唯有神職可以把天主的愛臨現人間，但是神職亦可以是最大的壞表樣。
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 03:05:23
|
|
|
The point is whether you like him or not, people begin to ask : "這人到底是誰?" . . . .
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 03:39:40
|
|
|
That is the beginning of publicity. Well, publicity is neutral stuff - if you are a cold-blooded killer, you would also be given due publicity. The point about Fr Mella is controversial - people like him; people dislike him. I think what he did in the past have nothing to discredit him at all. The present issue is much more controversial.
The more interesting issue is about 'crucifixationism', a branch of Christianity that emphasize the need to 'die' (literally) and then 'reborn' (to a new faith in a new order). In this sense, Fr. Mella is an out and out 'crucifixionist'.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 03:59:22
|
|
|
People liked Jesus. People hated Jesus. After they had seen him in action, they all ask : "這人到底是誰?"
But I wont label Fr Mella as any "xxxxxxx"ism, I think he is a true Christian in action.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 05:12:32
|
|
|
It is all too easy to draw a cosmetic parallelisation with Jesus - even adolf hitler and Mao Ze Dong could draw such parallel 'at the time'.
There is a difference between 'crucifixionists' and those that are not - the former forms a not insignificant group among Christians. What is 'right' as being interpreted by us may hold truth to a certain extent, but is not infallible. Hence Vatican saw it fit to remind us faithful that no resort to violence in the present ROA issue should be attempted.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 05:16:30
|
|
|
的確,對於可敬的甘神父今次的行動我也有所保留。嗯,讓時間來證實吧,分辯不來的,不然,又跟蘇大師有何分別?
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/8 下午 08:15:51
|
|
|
If it is all too easy to draw parallelisation between hitler and Mao with Jesus, may be Jesus is just another politician then. Or may be Fr Mella just want to be famous. Or may be we should excommunicate him. Or may be we should give it time, cos time will tell ( thats what we usually say... because that requires no action at all ).
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/9 上午 10:40:20
|
|
|
Action is valuable if the action leads to a just result.
What most people say (the media at least) is that by doing xyz... justice would be the result.
Some people say that this is not justice, because by doing xyz... some other people would be prejudiced. Well, of course here we say that those anti-xyz... are selfish. That is OUR judgmenet, our value system. Is it absolute?
Well, if it is not absolute, what room do we leave to those anti-xyz...? By our action? Would that action restore 100% fairness? If it cannot, those prejudiced would then come up and say "We are the under dogs, we are being deprived".
Let us face this squarely - it IS a dilemma. Under situations of dilemma, there is NOTHING as some people's justice are more just than others. The solution simply isn't 1+2=3. This is at best lateral justice: justice according to one side's own viewpoint.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/4/9 上午 10:46:18
|
|
|
"Under situations of dilemma, there is NOTHING as some people's justice are more just than others. The solution simply isn't 1+2=3. This is at best lateral justice: justice according to one side's own viewpoint. " -
Typographical errors are abundant here!
"...there is nothing as some people's justice BEING more just than others...This is at best uni-lateral justice: justice according to one side's own viewpoint".
Well, that's the crucifixationists favorite stance, isn't it? Me iright, you wrong. But one word - Fr. Mella, if he doesn't INSIST on having the last word, and pushing to the point of the last straw, he is still not a crucifixationist. Real crucifixionists look for blood shed (though it did happen once in 2000 August).
I share Vatican's concern here.
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/5/1 上午 09:45:06
|
|
|
28/4-1/5三天，明報副刊中，陶傑都談到甘神父的"所作所為"，很值得一看。尤其是從歷史的角度出發，看出西方傳教士的使命，值得我們反思。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/5/2 上午 10:27:54
|
|
|
一哥,老陶說甚麼可否大略一談?舊報紙對我這網民來說是天方夜談老哩!
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/5/4 上午 10:28:21
|
|
|
四月三十日的明報：題目是壞神父，其中一段：
"想了解甘浩望之謎，不必讀聖經，答案在一本世俗的小書裡，名叫<<葉錫恩自傳>>。葉錫恩是英國女傳教士，年輕時在中國傳教，然後來香港，協助香港人向殖民地的英國政府抗爭。葉錫恩是一個叛國者，她沒有忠於英女王，但她認為上帝比英女王更高尚。
葉錫恩在自傳中記述，一九六三年初，一群住木屋的中國人向她投訴，殖民地政府拆了他們的木屋。天氣很冷，他們無家可歸。葉錫恩很生氣，決定要為窮人出頭：
""我見了福利處副處長，他是一位中國人，我向他解釋，要求他是否可以幫助這些無家可歸的人。從他養尊處優，穿著整齊的外表來看，我的期望並不高。
<為什麼那些人不租房子住呢？>他問。
<他們平均每月收入只有一百八十元左右，單房租就得付出這個數目，一家還靠什麼餬口呢？>我回答。
<可是，我本身也要自己找房子呀。>他爭辯。他還不停說：>在香港，沒有一英寸丁方的地方，屬於他們的。>
我既厭惡又驚奇地瞪著他。
<可是，你自己也是中國人呀﹗這是中國的領土，你怎可以說出這種話？如果上帝准許人生下來，難道祂不希望他們活在祂給他們的土地上嗎？你是不是希望他們浮在空中或在海浪裡游泳呢？>
<你現在扯到政治問題去了。>他說。""
葉錫恩的憤慨，在於"在中國的領土，有一些中國人，不讓其他中人在這裡生活。"拆木屋，是為了建公屋，為了城市衛生，通通"依法有據"，但葉錫恩才不管這些，她認為：只要是中國的領土，中國人都有權住下去。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/5/4 上午 11:02:15
|
|
|
這比喻恰當否?
殖民地政府為富不仁可以理解的;當過殖民地官員的就能理會得到了(我家長們就是這一類)。
特區政府為富不仁到哪個地步,可以看數據,看政策,來個八萬五,給罵個狗血淋頭了。民資民羔數千億,就化在綜合社會援助一項已經去了使用的大半,社會是否是杜太年輕時的情況,已很明顯。杜太曾在兩年前接受黃霑訪問,談到到肉處,給電視台'自我監察'刪除了。她原想爆英國佬好些'大穫野'的；所以她晚年也'入藉'中國嫁給老杜去了。
甘仔對香港的了解,不如杜太當年多矣。
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/5/4 上午 11:30:08
|
|
|
四月二十九日明報：
"甘神父維護弱勢族群，覺得家庭團聚、中國人住在中國的領土，天公地道。甘浩望依據的是"天國法"(Divine Law)，可惜特區政府另有"人間法"(Secular Law)，這部"人間法"，就是以中國式思維草擬、因此才漏洞百出的<<基本法>>。甘浩望說上帝大，特區政府認為人大常委會大。大家談的不是同一層次。甘浩望的神學空間，屬於火箭穿梭機的"電離層"，特府的"法理空間"屬於噴射客機飛行的"大氣層"。
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/5/4 上午 11:37:46
|
|
|
更有趣的是今天(五月四日)在明報世紀版的梁文道：<法治唔係大晒>，也引一段：
「法治唔係大晒﹗」在香港說這句話，沒有一點勇氣是不行的。因為自九七年前開始，香港的基礎在於法治這種想法已經洗腦一般地深深植在每一個人掌管嘴巴的大腦區域裡了。……像居港權事件一類與公眾利益相關的課題，只要介入了法律的領域，整個公共討論就會迅速被吸收窄化，再也沒有其他處理這個題目的可能性。因為我們都相信法律就是那個最終的答案。……所以當政府不談別的，只拿人大釋法的結果出來，就可以很乾淨很漂亮地叫，還在爭取居港權的人早早打道回府。……可是到底，何謂「法治」？那些法規是那裡來的？它們怎樣生效？誰有權使它們生效？誰解釋它們？依據什麼解釋？誰執行它們？如可執行？
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/5/4 上午 11:58:35
|
|
|
'像居港權事件一類與公眾利益相關的課題，只要介入了法律的領域，整個公共討論就會迅速被吸收窄化，再也沒有其他處理這個題目的可能性。因為我們都相信法律就是那個最終的答案。……
(2)所以當政府不談別的，只拿人大釋法的結果出來，就可以很乾淨很漂亮地叫，還在爭取居港權的人早早打道回府。……
(3)可是到底，何謂「法治」？那些法規是那裡來的？它們怎樣生效？誰有權使它們生效？誰解釋它們？依據什麼解釋？誰執行它們？如可執行？'
這三段都值得深入的討論的,因為目前在社會上,在教區內,都沒有持平的討論(即使正委也礙於資料嚴重不足,無法有meaningful的討論)。
當然在這裡討論也存在相當大的困難,比方是各方面的資料是否齊全,觀點上能否開放,出發點是否正確......
可以說的,卻是 - 如果因為不了解(法律,社會整體情況,立法因由,政策的前因後果,中國和香港的'國情'等等),根本上就只能'大脊講',而甘仔給予社會人士的觀感即此;但他更進一步,身體力行,這樣就給人很多理論的空間了。
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/5/6 下午 05:51:35
|
|
|
Brother One spoke about Tao Jie, a journalist in Ming Pao (and others).
Tao Jie is a queer fish - he is bright, but he is not shiny; he is sharp, but his words do not cut deep into people's hearts. It is because he is a synic.
His synicism has much to do with China and Chinese culture - he detests Chinese culture, like many post May Fourth personnels in China. Had I not had the opportunity to gain certain insights into traditional Chinese culture, I would also have picked up Mr Tao's viewpoints, EASILY.
As it is, his viewpoints are opinionalistic and biased. It does NOT do justice to Chinese culture.
|
