關於 out of context quotes ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【台灣防疫成效 #國際政要 都肯定👍👍👍】

第二波移入疫情強勢回流 🌀
看到確診人數增加
相信有在追指揮中心記者會的大家
內心不免七上八下
但只要我們 #謹慎應對 持續落實 #防疫工作
相信還是有機會守住J一波‼️

雖然還是會擔心
但蒐集癖小編決定要再發一篇落落長的文
讓各位看看世界各國的政要大咖
如何讚 #台灣 目前為止的防疫模式 👏👏👏

#我們不害怕雨淋
#因為我們知道大雨之後會有彩虹 🌈
#團結一心 #正向防疫
#台灣加油 💪

As the coronavirus pandemic continues, we'll endeavour to remain prudent in our epidemic prevention measures. We believe we can stem the tide.
To reinstill some confidence, we've collected a series of quotes from politicians and ministers around the world, praising the #TaiwanModel as part of the fight against the #COVID19 #WuhanCoronavirus. Read what they had to say below!

《亞太地區》

#紐西蘭 New Zealand 🇳🇿
3/15 ─ 紐西蘭總理阿爾登：「我們將緊密遵循相當接近於台灣的模式，他們(台灣政府)針對公眾集會所建立的因應架構，是相當成功的。我們將以它為根據，來設定我們的標準。」
March 15 - Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, in a Q+A interview on Sunday, that officials were looking at tailored criteria for events that may need to be cancelled, such as whether people would be in close proximity to one another.
“We're going to follow, pretty closely, the Taiwanese model. They worked up a framework for mass gatherings that's been quite successful,” she said.

#日本 Japan 🇯🇵
3/12 ─ 日本台灣交流協會代表泉裕泰：「我相信台灣的真知灼見可與世界各國廣泛共享，並對苦於遭受傳染蔓延的其他國家與地區做出巨大的貢獻。」
March 12 - Japan's chief representative in Taiwan, Hiroyasu Izumi, stated that he believes Taiwan's insights can be widely shared with other countries in the world and make great contributions to other countries and regions suffering from the spread of infection.

《亞非地區》

#以色列 Israel 🇮🇱
3/14 ─ 以色列總理尼坦雅胡：「順帶一提，這個方法已經在台灣試過了，可能很成功。以色列是少數國家當中，有這個能力做的。我們將採用這個方法。」
March 14 - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was not an easy choice to make and described the virus as an “invisible enemy that must be located.” He said Israel would follow similar methods used by Taiwan.

3/14 ─ 以色列前總理巴拉克：「以色列可以對抗新冠病毒，但必須像台灣一樣反應快速。」
March 14 - Former prime minister Ehud Barak stated that Israel can fight against the novel coronovirus, but that it must react as swiftly as Taiwan.

《拉美地區》

#尼加拉瓜 Nicaragua🇳🇮
3/11 ─ 尼加拉瓜副總統穆麗優：「我們得知台灣政府及人民實行了成功的防疫模式，我們已向台灣駐尼大使提出請求，期盼台灣與我們分享經驗，因為台灣不僅成功防制傳染，且維持人民秩序免於慌亂，確實值得學習。」
March 11 - La vicepresidenta de Nicaragua, Rosario Murillo, declaró: "Nosotros hemos conocido el Modelo exitoso de contención que puso en práctica el Gobierno y el Pueblo de la República de China(Taiwán), y hemos pedido a su Embajador aquí, que nos presenten ese Modelo exitoso, porque han logrado no solo contener, sino también mantener a la población en un estado que no esté de pánico." (The vice president of Nicaragua, Rosario Murillo, stated, "We are aware of the successful model of prevention that the government and the people of Taiwan have put into practice, and we've asked the Taiwanese ambassador to make a presentation on this successful model, because they've not only managed to contain the virus, but they've kept their population from panicking.")

#聖文森 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines🇻🇨
3/12 ─ 聖文森衛生部長布朗：「台灣因『一個中國』原則不被承認為獨立國家，因此未被納入參與「世界衛生大會」（WHA），台灣距離中國僅為海峽之隔，然而疫情爆發至今卻僅有少數確診病例，我已正式致函何大使尋求台灣的協助以對抗聖國疫情。」
March 12 - "It’s quite remarkable that they’re just 81 miles from mainland China and whereas coronavirus in mainland China has been spiralling out of control...That’s incredible,” Health minister Luke Brown said. Taiwan is not a part of the World Health Assembly as it is not recognised as being an independent country under the One-China policy. Browne said the ambassador has mentioned some of the measures that Taiwan has taken, some of which he believes will work in the Vincentian context while others may not.

#聖露西亞 Saint Lucia🇱🇨
3/11 ─ 聖露西亞衛生部長艾瑟柯：「目前全球正共同對抗來自中國武漢的新型冠狀病毒，聖露西亞政府藉此機會讚許臺灣採取有效率且具成效的防疫措施，並提議與露國緊密合作防疫。」
March 11 - “As the world is fighting the COVID-19 Coronavirus originated from Wuhan, China, the Government of Saint Lucia wishes to take this opportunity to commend Taiwan for its efficient and efficacious measures, and its offer to work closely with Saint Lucia to contain the pandemic,” said Health Minister Mary Isaac.

#貝里斯 Belize🇧🇿
2/4 ─ 貝里斯衛生部長馬林：「貝國政府及衛生部肯定台灣關鍵的公衛措施，包括對隔離案例進行電子監控、口罩及其他物資供應，強化防疫工作。」
Feb. 4 - Minister of Health, Hon. Pablo Marin: “The Government of Belize, and by extension the Ministry of Health, applauds Taiwan’s key public health measures that include electronic monitoring of quarantined cases and the provision of masks and other items to support the prevention efforts.”

#巴拉圭 Paraguay🇵🇾
3/17 ─ 巴拉圭參議員法切提：「儘管與WHO無任何合作關係，台灣仍向前行…台灣也因此能夠成功防堵新冠病毒。」
March 17 - Fernando Silva Facetti, Paraguayan politician: "A PESAR DE LA NULA COOPERACIÓN DE LA @opsoms, #TAIWAN SIGUE ADELANTE... Así es como Taiwán logró contener el brote de #coronavirus" (Despite the lack of cooperation from the WHO, Taiwan continues to progress... This is how Taiwan managed to contain the coronavirus.)

#委內瑞拉 Venezuela🇻🇪
3/13 ─ 委內瑞拉臨時政府代表楊杰斯議員：「感謝情同手足的台灣人民贈交我們防疫所需的口罩及酒精。Taiwan Can Help！」
March 13 - Jesús M. Yánez M., Venezuelan politician: "Gracias a el hermano pueblo de Taiwan nos encontramos entregando tapa boca y kits de alcohol, denunciando la falta de prevención y de medidas acordes contra el COVIDー19 Taiwan Can Help" (Thanks to our brothers and sisters in Taiwan, we find ourselves with face masks and alcohol kits, denouncing the lack of prevention and appropriate measures against COVID-19. Taiwan Can Help.)

3/15 ─ 委內瑞拉駐西班牙大使艾卡利：「台灣及早警覺，並已阻擋了疫情擴散。」
March 15 - Antonio Ecarri B., Ambassador of Venezuela in Spain: "Taiwan se alarmó y frenó su expansión." (Taiwan was alarmed and curbed the spread.)

#阿根廷 Argentina 🇦🇷
3/11 ─ 阿根廷國會議員康帕紐利：「台灣是成功控制疫情的模範。」
March 11 - Marcela Campagnoli, National Deputy in Argentina: "Taiwan es un ejemplo de como lo han controlado." (Taiwan is an example of how to control it.)

3/16 ─ 阿根廷國際關係委員會秘書長桑提巴聶茲：「認為威權政府防疫工作做得比民主國家好，這個想法是錯的。台灣、韓國及新加坡做得非常好，他們都是民主國家。」
March 16 - Francisco de Santibañes, Secretary General of the Argentine Council for International Relations: "Sería un error pensar que los gobiernos autoritarios actuaron mejor que las democracias a la hora de controlar el coronavirus. Corea del Sur, Singapur y Taiwán lo hicieron muy bien y son democracias." (It would be a mistake to think that authoritarian governments act better than democracies in curbing the coronavirus. South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan did it very well and they're democracies.)

#哥倫比亞 Colombia🇨🇴
3/12 ─ 哥倫比亞內科醫師學會前主席希尼爾：「看看台灣，從全球確診統計圖表中漸漸消失，並對照其他亞洲國家防疫進展。他們比其他國家聰明嗎？不，是因為他們比較有組織、守紀律！」
March 12 - Juan Senior, ex-president of the Colombian Association of Internal Medicine: "Miren la evolución de Taiwán, desaparece del panorama y como evoluciona la epidemia en países asiáticos. Son más inteligentes que todos? No, son más organizados y disciplinados!!!" (Look how things have gone in Taiwan, they're out of the picture now and how the epidemic has developed in asian countries. Are they smarter than everyone else? No, they're more organized and more disciplined!!!)

#巴拿馬 Panama 🇵🇦
3/11 ─ 巴拿馬前駐台大使馬締斯：「台灣向世界展現，他們運用2003年抗煞所學到的經驗，準備好對抗新冠疫情。」
March 11 - Dr. Alfredo Martiz, former Ambassador of Panama in Taiwan: "Lo que Taiwán puede enseñar al mundo sobre la lucha contra el coronavirus Análisis: Taiwán aprovechó las lecciones aprendidas durante el brote de SARS de 2003, y esta vez su gobierno y su pueblo estaban preparados" (What Taiwan can teach the world about the fight against the coronavirus. Analysis: Taiwan took the lessons learned during the SARS outbreak of 2003 and this time its government and its people were ready.)

《歐洲》

#捷克 Czech Republic🇨🇿
3/15 ─ 捷克總理巴比斯：「政府決定改變中央危機應變中心的定位及人員調度，仿照如同媒體所報導台灣的因應做法。」 March 15 - Prime Minister Andrej Babis: “The government decided to change the status of the Central Crisis Staff, where the crisis staff will be modeled, as we read in the media and it was in Taiwan.”

#丹麥 Denmark🇩🇰
3/18 ─ 丹麥前總理拉斯穆森：「台灣利用大數據、透明、由中央指揮的防疫作為奏效，值得世界各國學習。現在是時候告訴中國，確有地方可以討論地緣政治的，但不是在世界衛生組織。」 March 18 - In his March 18 piece in Time Magazine, former prime minister of Denmark Anders Fogh Rasmussen, stated "After the first notifications at the end of 2019, Taipei swiftly deployed a combination of measures to identify and contain the virus, including the use of big data to help contain potential cases."

#法國 France🇫🇷
3/5 ─ 前法國衛生部長及外交部長杜斯特：「檢視中央集權與非中央集權國家決策模式的差異十分有意思。台灣雖緊鄰中國卻可能是受武漢肺炎死亡率最低及受影響最輕的國家，其防疫成果完全令人難以置信，是為出色的危機管理。」
March 5 - Former French health and foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said, "Ce qui est très intéressant en regardant les différents pays, c’est la centralisation ou la non-centralisation des décisions. Et on s’aperçoit que par exemple Taiwan est probablement le pays où il y a le moins de létalité et le pays le moins touché alors que c’est extrêmement près de la Chine. Le résultat est absolument invraisemblable. C’est une magnifique gestion de crise." (What is quite interesting with different countries, is centralization vs non-centralization of decisions. And one realizes that, for example, Taiwan is probably the country where the mortality rate is the lowest and the least affected country despite its extreme proximity to China. The result is absolutely implausible. It’s wonderful crisis management.)

3/7 ─ 法國國民議會友臺小組主席瑟賽希尼：「臺灣是處理武漢肺炎疫情的典範。」
March 7 - The chair of the French National Assembly's France-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, Jean François Cesarini, stated "Taïwan : Exemplaire dans sa gestion de l’épidémie du Coronavirus." (Taiwan: an excellent model for the management of the coronavirus epidemic.)

3/6 ─ 法國國民議會友臺小組副主席拉赫迪耶：「臺灣堪稱處理武漢肺炎危機的典範。」
March 6 - The deputy chair of the French National Assembly's France-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, Laure de La Raudière, stated "Gestion exemplaire de Taiwan de la crise du Coronavirus." (Taiwan's exemplary management of the coronavirus crisis.)

#義大利 Italy🇮🇹
3/16 ─ 義大利前外交部長德爾其：「台灣可能是第一個向WHO報告新冠病毒人傳人的國家，而且早在中國和WHO承認之前。顯然地，台灣因為北京施壓，被排除在世衛組織之外已有兩年之久。」
March 16 - Former foreign minister, Giulio Terzi: "Taiwan potrebber esser stato primo Paese a comunicare alla OMS che coronavirus COVID19 si stava trasmettendo da uomo a uomo.Molto prima che Cina e OMS lo ammettessero. Ovviamente, per volere Pechino, Taipei subisce esclusione da OMS da due anni." (Taiwan may have been the first country to report to WHO that coronavirus COVID19 was spreading from amongst humans, long before China and WHO admitted it. Obviously, at the behest of Beijing, Taipei has been excluded from WHO for two years.)

3/19 ─ 義大利北聯黨外交事務首席法拉利，轉推蔡總統「台美簽署防疫聯合夥伴關係聲明」推文：「這是向中國，也是向世界傳達的重要訊息。」
March 19: Lega Nord head of foreign affairs in Lombardy, Max Ferrari: "Coronavirus. Importante messaggio alla Cina e al mondo da Taiwan e Usa." (Coronavirus. Important message to China and the world from Taiwan and the USA.)

#歐盟 EU🇪🇺
3/14 ─ 歐洲議會議員暨中國關係代表團團長包瑞翰：「在這次疫情危機中，台灣在拯救生命方面做得很好。為什麼不邀請他們充分參與國際呢？ 為什麼WHO不這樣做？因為北京玩弄民族主義政治，犧牲人民的利益。」
March 14 - “Taiwan is doing a great job with saving lives in this corona crisis. Why not acknowledge that and invite them to participate fully in international efforts? Why doesn't WHO do it? Because Beijing is playing nationalist politics at people's expense,” said Reinhard Bütikofer

#英國 UK 🇬🇧
3/13 ─ 英國前衛生大臣杭特表示，政府應採取更積極的行動，包括禁止探視養老院的長者。他認為，英國應該像是泰國和台灣等已控制住疫情的國家一樣，採取行動。
March 13 - Jeremy Hunt, the UK former health secretary: "Countries like Thailand and Taiwan had controlled the outbreak by taking such action. People will be concerned we are not moving sooner on social distancing."

#瑞典 Sweden🇸🇪
2/18 ─ 瑞典國會議員溫和黨主席席德斐：「從長遠來看，世衛組織不願將台灣納入扼止新冠病毒傳播及由該病毒所引起的傳播的任務，是完全站不住腳的，並且從很多面向來看是適得其反，例如從醫學和經濟角度。」
Feb. 18 - Moderate Party MP Margareta Cederfelt pointed out that “WHO’s unwillingness to include Taiwan in its work with limiting the spread of the coronavirus and stopping infections caused by the virus in the long-run, is indefensible and counterproductive seen from several perspectives, for example from a medical and economic perspective.”

#德國 Germany🇩🇪
3/13 ─ 德國自民黨主席國會議員布本多弗：「有一個國家在抗疫上脫穎而出，運用明確的策略及冷靜的態度有效對抗新冠肺炎，這個國家就是臺灣。」
March 13 - Chair of the district association Mühldorf am Inn of the FDP Bavaria Sandra Maria Bubendorfe: "Bei meiner 3. Rede im Deutschen Bundestag zum Thema Zivil und Katastrophenschutz in Deutschland vergangen Freitag, war es mir ein besonderes Bedürfnis Taiwan hervorzuheben, das gezeigt hat wie man mit klaren Strategien und kühlen Kopf auf die Gefahr des Corona Virus antworten kann und damit die Ausbreitung deutlich erschwert und verlangsamt wird." (During my third speech in the German Bundestag on civil and civil protection in Germany last Friday, I felt a need to highlight Taiwan, which showed how to respond to the dangers of the coronavirus with a clear strategy and a cool head, and thus significantly slowed its spread.)

#荷蘭 The Netherlands🇳🇱
3/18 ─ 荷蘭前中央銀行主席維林克：「臺灣防疫預警作為，是這個擁有約2400萬居民，且每年接受約300萬中國旅客往訪的國家，迄今得以有效控制疫情的關鍵作為。」
March 18 - The former head of the Dutch central bank stated that with its 24 million strong population and 3 million annual tourists from China, Taiwan has unrolled effective key measures to curb the spread of the epidemic.

3/18 ─ 荷蘭50 Plus黨眾議員兼主席克羅及民主論壇黨眾議員兼主席伯德特：「台灣是成功例子」 無黨籍眾議員哈加：「台灣大量檢測與居家隔離，成功控制疫情，為何荷蘭不學習？」
March 18 - The leaders of the 50PLUS party and the Forum for Democracy, Henk Krol and Thierry Beaudet, stated that Taiwan has provided a successful model. Independent Dutch MP Wybren van Haga stated that Taiwan has been testing on a large scale and enforcing home quarantines, successful measures in curbing the epidemic and asked why the Netherlands wasn't learning from their example.

#瑞士 Switzerland 🇨🇭
3/10 ─ 瑞士國會下議員瓦爾德：「臺灣對抗新冠病毒具特別成效。」 March 10 - Swiss National Councillor Nicolas Walder said Taiwan's response to the novel coronavirus has been particularly effective.

#葡萄牙 Portugal🇵🇹
3/15 ─ 葡萄牙前人民黨黨揆暨資深媒體評論家波塔斯：「台灣承襲2003年對抗SARS經驗，成功壓抑疫情曲線峰值，值得葡國作為借鏡。」
March 15 - Former Deputy Prime Minister of Portugal and media personality Paulo Portas stated that Taiwan's experience in fighting SARS in 2003 allowed it to be successful in flattening the curve, providing a model Portugal can learn from.

3/18 ─ 葡萄牙國會友臺小組歐利維拉：「台灣病例出現雖早，卻在努力下獲得很好的控制，台灣防疫措施值得肯定及學習。」
March 18 - Chair of the Portugal-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group Paulo Rios de Oliveira stated that although cases in Taiwan started to appear quite early on, they've controlled it very well with a lot of effort. Taiwan's epidemic control measures should be praised and studied.

#西班牙 Spain🇪🇸
3/13 ─ 西班牙前國會議員瓦紐費瑞：「這些措施證明台灣公衛模式有效，包括世界上最先進的醫衛系統、自2003年抗煞以來所累積的廣泛防疫經驗等。」
March 13 - Francisco Vañó Ferre, a former member of the Spanish Parliament: "Estas y otras medidas prueban la eficacia del modelo sanitario de Taiwán, que cuenta con uno de los más avanzados sistemas de salud del mundo y con amplia experiencia en la lucha contra enfermedades contagiosas tras haber sufrido la epidemia del SARS en 2003." (These and other measures prove the efficacy of the health model of Taiwan, which has one of the most advanced health systems in the world and a wealth of experience in the fight against contagious diseases, after having suffered from the SARS epidemic in 2003.)

#匈牙利 Hungary🇭🇺
3/15 ─ 匈牙利醫師學會：「在中國其他省份和其他亞洲國家，例如台灣和新加坡等，已經能夠預防感染的傳播。」
March 15 - The Hungarian Medical Chamber stated “In other provinces of China and other Asian countries (eg Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) have been able to prevent the spread of the infection.”

北美：
#美國 US🇺🇸
2/5 ─ 美國前衛生部長派司：「台灣已經證明其防疫行動極為負責且透明，特別是在醫學和科學領域。最近有幸到訪台灣，台灣協助研發疫苗或以其他方式協助拯救生命，並促進人類對抗病毒的能力及情報，此刻尤顯出色。」
Feb. 5 – US former secretary of health and human services Tom Price: "Taiwan has shown itself to be extremely responsible and transparent in its actions, especially in the area of medicine and science. Having had the privilege of visiting recently, the capacity of Taiwan to help formulate a vaccine or assist in other ways to help save lives and advance human engagement and intelligence at this time is remarkable."

#加拿大 Canada🇨🇦
3/6 ─ 加拿大前國務部長契爾格：「將台灣排除在世衛組織之外，會讓新冠病毒對其國民和世界其他地區變得更加危險。」
March 6 - Canadian former secretary of state David Kilgour: “Excluding Taiwan from contact with WHO makes COVID-19 more dangerous for its nationals and the rest of the world.”

With the SAT test coming up in a few days, you need to check your understanding of grammar!

Awesome SAT and ACT grammar resource!

This webpage has pretty much all of the most important grammar rules which are tested on the SAT and ACT. (Even though the TOEFL and IELTS don’t test grammar directly, grammar certainly is tested indirectly, so IELTS and TOEFL test takers would be wise to check out the webpage too!)

This is a great place to check when you’re unsure about why the correct answer to a particular question is not the answer you believe to be correct.

Remember that the SAT and ACT are testing grammar from the 1950s which is specifically designed to fool native speakers. The better your English is, the more easily they will fool you with their underhanded tactics. Don’t fall for them! Check out this website.

Standardized tests are like a game. You can’t play by your own rules (your own grammatical understanding) - you must play by their rules (1950s’ grammar).

Here are a few quotes which are extremely important to keep in mind:

Note that whose, unlike who, can be used for both people and things/places.
Correct: London is a city whose many museums, palaces, and monuments make it a popular tourist destination.

Important: make sure to read through every sentence all the way through to the period! Otherwise, you might not notice when there are two sentences.

Unlike a semicolon, a colon can be followed by either a full sentence or a fragment.

Always keep verb tense consistent with that of other verbs in the paragraph.

Important: If there is an OMIT/DELETE option, or an option without a transition, check it FIRST because it will usually be correct (at least on the ACT).
When two transitions have the same meaning (e.g. but/yet) and are both grammatically acceptable in context, both can automatically be eliminated because no question can have more than one right answer.

Good luck on test day!

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.”