|
作者
|
內容
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/7/2 下午 02:24:20
|
|
|
不知大家有沒有看過這篇文章﹖
--------------------------------------
(本文轉自2003年6月30日《明報》A14版)
〈要 求 公 開 民 主 投 票〉
致香港天主教會的公開信
作為一位生於斯､長於斯，入教超過30年的平信徒，我對香港天主教會內某些
人的言行感到十分痛心！
每人的政治立場不同，為何每週主日內的「信友禱文」總要各人參與彌撒者為
某些人的政治主張祈禱？陳主教對中國共產黨的憎恨自有其歷史原因，但作為香港天主
教的領導人，其言行無法使人看酊一位宗教領袖的愛心和寬裕，我們看到的卻是一位充
滿憤怒和過份執著對錯的社會活動家！
面對印度社會對賤民的壓迫和不公，德蘭修女何曾上街抗爭？何嘗要求外國政府歉印度施壓以改變現狀？（當然，這並不表示德蘭修女認同印度教文化中種性制度裏的賤民主張）凡事皆有兩面，除主以外，誰敢說擁有絕對的真理？希望別人改變，可否先「易位而處」，多聆聽和考慮對方的困難，互相尊重和溝通而收窄意見。很多事不是「爭取」而成就的。那些因「捨」而「得」的果實才是珍貴而持久的。教會現在所播種的，究竟是「憤怒」､「仇恨」的種子｜或是「仁愛」和「寬恕」的種子？將來所收獲的將會是怎樣的果實？只重「公義」而缺乏「慈悲」和「寬恕」是否基督的教訓和表現呢？
香港天主教會近日積極鼓吹「民主」。敢問我們何曾有一民主產生的教會架構？在此我公開呼籲教會能進行一次公開､不記名和沒有拉票活動的投票，讓全港天
主教徒投票決定：
1.你是否贊成天主教徒可以投票選舉自己的主教？
2.你是否贊同陳主教與政府抗爭的「方式」？
3.香港作為梵蒂岡與中國之間的橋樑，你認為陳主教正在築橋還是拆橋？
4.如大部份教友反對陳主教的言行，你認為陳主教應否接受和改變方式，以
示對民主制度的體現？
願天主賜福香港天主教會的人：
多些祝福與諒解，少些憤怒和自以為義。
一名痛心但仍深愛教會的天主教友
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/2 下午 05:39:13
|
|
|
我可以'介紹'弟兄姊妹們看看六月30日經濟日報阮次山君的文章"陳日君先生,主教是沒有個人身份的".
但我覺得應否反23是很個人的事 - 23的內容,其目的,其前後的改動,如非暸如指掌,不能隨便"說三道四",因為這不是章回通俗小說,人人可解讀無誤.
要立這法,先得對立法者有信心,天主教神職人員對大陸沒信心,可以想見.如果我是神父,我上街快過陳主教.
但香港不只是神父修女們的香港 - 其他人信教的,不信教的,各自有支持或反對的理由.
我無政治黨派,更不恥政客們的所為.睜開眼說謊話,公教政客不怕落地獄,連信仰也利用,認真心寒.
我更怕這些德性的人一旦掌權,肯定衰過老共,所以我不能支持這些我齒冷之人.
如果教會打正旗幟為地下教會而戰而非為政客們胡說八道的假民主假人權,我的說話會完全不同.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/7/2 下午 08:47:51
|
|
|
天主教徒可否投票選舉自己的主教？
我看這倒不是「可否」的問題。提問的人在他的問題中，反映了他對教會的理解。
教會自稱是啟示信仰的團體，由教主升天之日，差遣使徒傳福音和建立教會。因此教會就其本質而言，是自上而下的。教會歷史早期，繼承使徒職位的主教，基本上是「選舉」和「委任」並存的，但繼任人首要是對基督和祂所託付的啟示內容負責，而不是對民眾負責。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 12:19:07
|
|
|
This 'practice' of the Church of course has its historical background - the Church came from an era not knowing what is franchise. The amazing aspect is that over more than two milleniums the Church has not grown out of this set practice.
The real 'crux', actually, is that 'truth' is NOT some thing borne out by popular opinion.
As some philosophers and thinkers put it - truth is some thing vertical, not horizontal.
In this respect, I have always refrained from advocating democracy as the ONLY true system there is in this world. NOr is the Church advocating it.
It has been blown out of proportion by unscrupulous politicians here.
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 08:40:44
|
|
|
Vox Populi, Vox Dei !
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 09:57:33
|
|
|
Does this sentence: "vox populi vox dei" come from Scripture itself? According to my limited knowledge, it orignated from Peter of Blois (Epistulae 15)
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 上午 01:18:58
|
|
|
小弟不識拉丁文﹐這兩句話是怎樣解釋呀﹖
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 上午 06:08:37
|
|
|
我認同阮次山那篇文章的一句話：主教是沒有個人身份的。所以我基本上不贊同主教參與政治行動，或許說，香港的情況，未至於主教要甚積極參與，又或者說，主教即使行動，也不應講咁多野。
明白教會的傳統，不難明白直選的不恰當，不過，由一個非直選的人來支持民主選舉，也確令人感到雙重標準的，劉迺強在信教也寫過一篇文章，指出主教的問題。
也許不一定要直選，但是主教在教會內的工作，是否做到民主的素質呢？例如在合併堂區一事上，算不算粗暴合併呢？在學校收無證兒童一事上，主教是否有尊重教會內不同意見人士的意見呢？我有點存疑。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 上午 10:44:26
|
|
|
讓我試一試理解那兩句拉丁文:
Voice of the people, the voice of Ｇｏｄ．
天主的子民更加是”聖潔的邦國”．
達致這樣，也不見得非要一人一票不可．
撒殫也是’有票’的，因為牠也活在人間．
|
|
josemaria
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 上午 11:02:10
|
|
|
I agree that the voice of the people 'should be' the voice of God, since God dwells within them.
A pre-requisite, however, is that the 'people' is acting in a way that is not motivated by selfishness like fear, greed, lust, power......When any of these are present in the motive, 'they' are no longer the 'people' that represent the voice of God.
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 下午 12:21:52
|
|
|
In a practical sense, the voice of people is often distorted by greed, selfishness, etc. The church (in this case, the HK Diocese or Bishop Zen), however, should be able to reflect the voice of God, although some people (e.g. the writer of this "open letter") are starting to get skeptical about that.
|
|
josemaria
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 下午 03:55:26
|
|
|
That can lead to faithfuls losing 'faith' in the local Church, then the universal Church, if things are not 'put right'.
|
|
大黃傻貓GARFIELD
|
Posted -
2003/7/5 上午 01:26:55
|
|
|
在無證兒童入學事件裡面﹐我認為陳主教做了別人不敢做的事情﹐天主教徒應該自豪他們有一個勇敢的主教。
那些兒童在留港期間已經受歧視﹐並且不能夠上學。陳主教的做法是希望暫時給他們教育的機會﹐等他們學業不會退步﹐回鄉後不會趕不上﹐而不是長久給他們一個學位。這是大家忽略的。天主教教會學校傳統是有教無類﹐他們從不是BAND-1到成為BAND-1雖然不容易﹐但是辦學精神不是為了做BAND-1﹐因此收什麼學生不是問題。但是太多天主教徒(和基督教徒一樣)也世俗化了﹐﹐誰說那些反對陳主教處理無證學童的做法合乎天主教仁愛的精神﹖
至于所謂教會因為政教分離所以陳主教不可以參加政治行動﹐更加是信徒普遍誤解政教分離的意思。
政教分離意思是教會應該超然于世俗政權﹐不依附政權的勢力去達到自己的目標﹐也不屈服于政權無理和違背神公義的做法﹐也在參政時候﹐不以因為從政得的權力和方便給教會擴張權力。
當基督徒參與社會事務﹐無可避免會接觸政治敏感問題﹐基督教不應該以其敏感而害怕去碰(害怕是害怕遭到政權報復多于是希望教會團結)。
如果陳主教是政教不分﹐他早應該直接命令煲汰曾喇﹐攪這麼多事情幹什麼﹖
真正企圖政治干預教會的﹐是政府企圖利用煲汰曾去說服教會不要與政府對抗。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/7 上午 09:44:12
|
|
|
Will Bowtie receive 'orders' by the Bishop as you suggested?
Your logic is too difficult to follow, babe.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/7 下午 04:11:25
|
|
|
On the other hand, the Bishop COULD well have influenced the government to carry out good administration, even in the wake of 'bad' laws.
The biggest flaw in your logic is that the Church and the faithful COULD have temporal power in politics and shape the government by the temporal system. I am not saying that they couldn't - like the Philippines when nearly ALL the population are catholics, Cardinal Sin really shaped the government, but fact is a fact, there is still a very very long way before the Catholic church could do so in this area of the world. Even if you are given ten votes in one person.
Face the reality - there are 12 billion people in the PRC awaiting evangelisation, but their livelihood depends on bread at the time being, and they would not get bread from guys like you.
Even Christians would NEED to face realities and be practical in their deeds.
Bowtie is a practical man - you think Lao Tung treat him well? Even if the Bishop did not 'order' him, he already got a name of being 'powerless Tsang' in the HKSARG.
So what's the point of 'ordering him', pray?
The game just isn't played in the manner imagined by you, even if the results sought to be achieved are the same.
|
|
sk2
|
Posted -
2004/10/7 下午 03:32:33
|
|
|
"天主教徒可否投票選舉自己的主教？"
According to 2003年6月30日《明報》 "一名痛心但仍深愛教會的天主教友" who want to ask why the Church demands democracy but is not one herself : 香港天主教會近日積極鼓吹「民主」。敢問我們何曾有一民主產生的教會架構？
There is one article on yesterdays Sing Pao :
------------------------------------------------------
不民主與非民主
民主已成為現代政治信念之核心價值信念。故此，反對民主，便是不民主，亦會被視為極權統治者。例如希特拉，密索里尼等。然而，「民主」之思想，卻有着無窮膨脹的趨勢，「民主」觀念甚至離開了其自身應有之範疇。
反對民主，往往被扣帽子，被加以「極權」之稱號。問題是：是否甚麼都要民主？是否其他領域（例如家庭、教育、宗教）都要實施民主？不實施民主又是否等於極權？此些問題則需深切反省！
以思考方法來作概念釐清，反對民主政制，此固然是不民主。但是，「民主」之觀念是應用在政治制度之範疇內。我們的社會還有很多其他制度：家庭制度、教育制度、宗教制度、商業制度、軍事制度等。故此，不在政治制度中的制度（家庭乃至軍事），雖然不實施民主，這不是「不民主」，也不是極權，而是「非民主」。
如果將「民主」看為「普世價值信念」，進而將之視為「普遍價值信念」，並將「民主」觀念無窮地引入其他制度，此則變成民主氾濫，這是「單一性觀念無窮膨脹」的謬誤。例如：「你爸爸去年有否懷孕生子？」這是一個沒有意思的問題，因為當中使用的概念「爸爸」，離開了其應有的範疇：爸爸是男性，沒有肉體上的條件懷孕生子。民主離開了政治關係，則算是概念入錯範疇，此乃謬誤。
因此「家庭民主」、「學校民主」、「宗教民主」、「辦公室民主」、「軍事民主」等，均是思考上的謬誤。這是民主觀念氾濫化的謬誤，亦即是泛民主造成的謬誤。
家庭民主的謬誤
家庭制度是父慈子孝、兄友弟恭之倫理關係，而不是政治關係。父母親不是統治者，子女也不是父母征服的臣子或人民。
家庭制度是遵從血緣之人倫關係，而不是執政者與被統治者之權力關係。家庭不實施民主，此是「非民主」，而不是「不民主」。「民主」之概念於此範疇不能使用。
學校民主的謬誤
學校制度是師道莊嚴之教育關係。在學校，老師是繼往開來，為天地立心，為新民拯命，為萬世開太平，這是道統傳承之文化關係。絕不是老師作為執政者來統治班中的學生，學生也不是被征服的奴隸。
師生互相是承先啟後的文化關係。學校不實施民主，這是「非民主」，而不是「不民主」，更不是「極權」。萬萬不能弄錯。故此在校園不需實施「民主」。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/10/7 下午 07:16:32
|
|
|
Deeply agree with the analysis of sk2.
Since the destruction of scholastic Metaphysics and together with it the cosmological view of Reality from the 14th century by such tenets as Nominalism, Europe has entered into a period of philosophical decadance which gradually amplified the value of reality in the individual at the expense the Objectivity of the trans-subjective reality.
Philosophical investigation is no more based on an established hierarchy of Metaphysical or Theological Truths, unrevealed or unrevealed, self-evident or not self-evident, but based on individualistic appreciation of realities, either in the form of Empiricism, after Heraclitus, trying to explain knowledge by mere sensical data or (Cartesian) Intellectualism, after Platonism, trying to explain knowledge from the conscious Self, by immanent, innate "ideas".
But both are based on the Infinite Value of the Individual Self: whether it is the "esse est percipi" of Berkeley or the "Cogito ergo sum" of Descartes.
"It" is, because I sense it / I conceive of it.
(Each) Man determines (His own) Truth, he is to be the arbiter of truth.
Empricism and Intellectualism transformed to be the great Kantian Immantanism, which officially announced the a priori Rule by which men determine Truth. Finally, Truth is Subjective.
The seeds of truth is in each of us.
Men has finally declared war against the objective Truth, after Her innumerable attempts, often successful, to revolt against:
(1)the Catholic Church (Reformation),
(2)the Secular King (French Revolution) and then
(3)the Savior Jesus Christ while preserving the notion of God (Freemasonry), and finally against
(4)the mention of "God" whatsoever (Atheist Communism/Bolshevism).
Of course, to determine which truth (of yours or mine or his or hers) is the Truth, we need some means, either:
Absolutism OR Democracy, which of course the former was used by Hitler and he failed so we have the prospering of the latter
Few really knows that Democracy is essentially, though effective, a Compromise, the utilitarian way par excellence to verdict on matters of truths.
One could cite many examples how democracy pretends to reflect truths which are against Natural Law or the Common Good.
You could vote to legalize Abortion, Homosexual "unions", Pornography, Drugs(in Holland), then WHY couldn't we vote to have the Name of God eliminated from our Constitutions, schools, and then the whole Society?
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/10/14 下午 10:40:44
|
|
|
奧兄你的引文，對民主的態度是悲觀的。
其實，作為現世的管治機制，教會是不反對民主的。可是她亦沒有認定任何一種政治機制最為符合天主的旨意。國情與民情不同，就會有不同的判斷。
即使是民主政體，亦須視乎投票者的水準。
推翻世俗君主，與「推翻客觀真理」，有何關係呢？
客觀「真理」有時亦不是絕對「客觀」。正如米兄所曾說的：是否要把異端者統統放上火刑架，才算是維護了真理？或把通姦者全部浸豬籠，才算是保全了道德倫理？
|
