As regards the hierarchical rank of “hoa thuong’
with respect to Buddhism or cardinal and bishop with respect to Catholicism and
corresponding ranks in other religions, approval for promotion of the Council
of Ministers is necessary (Article 18). Priests or religious devotees, ordained
or nominated by overseas religious organizations all have to be granted
approval by the Council of
Ministers. The Roman Catholic Church, in
particular, ever met difficulties in the domain of nomination. Nomination of high dignitaries to the prelacy
by the Vatican was thus complicated by decisions and law orders, creating a serious
problem to ten Roman Catholic
Church of Vietnam.
The Reverend
Chan Tin voiced dissent in an interview with the Radio VNCR, January 28, 1998, contending
that the Communist State infringed on the rights as citizen of the Vietnamese
Catholics and committed serious religious violations against the Roman Catholic
Church of Vietnam. The State imposed restrictions with rules and restrictions
regulating on the religious life and intervened in the Church’s internal
affairs. It negated the Vatican’s nomination of Bishop Nguyen Van Thuan to be
Coadjutor Archbishop of Saigon Diocese. Worse still, it eliminated the bishop
from the Saigon prelacy. The dignitary was charged with false crimes for
treason -a - blood debtor to the people. He was arrested and imprisoned without a trial for 13 years. in
prison. Such an hostile act to a high dignitary of the Church not only constituted offense against the constitutional law but also a violation on the right to
religious worship and an infringement of
religious freedom .
The
Difficulties
After April 1975, the Episcopal leadership was in
crisis. Highest dignitaries in the South
were either arrested and imprisoned or placed under residence. In the North, the body of bishops thinned out
after decades of persecution. In 1980,
the year of the establishment of the Episcopal Conference, there were
thirty-one bishops for forty-two dioceses. Many bishops were very old. Only two coadjutor bishops were
nominated, four dioceses had no titular bishops, and many Episcopal sieges were
vacant. The siege at Phu Cuong, Bui Chu Diocese, had been vacant since February
1995. No bishop had been nominated for Hung Hoa Diocese to replace Bishop
Nguyen Phung Hieu who had passed away.
In the South, the diocese of Saigon had been without
a titular bishop for a long time. The apostolic administrator Bishop Huynh Van
Nghi of the Phan Thiet diocese could not fulfill his functions in an official
manner. The civil authorities had not recognized his nomination by the
Vatican. It was not until March 9, 1988,
five years of delaying of the approval of the State that Bishop Jean-Baptiste
Pham Minh Man could be nominated archbishop of Saigon. The nomination had
strained the efforts to normalize the Church ' s religious life, causing
discord between the Vatican and the
Communist administration. Tension, in fact, began after the fall of South
Vietnam with the negation of the Vatican nomination of Bishop Nguyen Van Thuan
to the post of coadjutor archbishop of Saigo Diocesen. It was flatly denied by
the civil authorities who not only sent the nominee out of the city but also
inflicted on him 13 years in prison and house arrest. For the diocese of Hue
where the Episcopal siege was also vacant, the situation was not much less
complicated since the apostolic administrator, Bishop Nguyen Nhu The, who was
recognized as titular prelate by the civil authorities, could only perform his
duties under watch, however.
Elsewhere in the country, the situation remained
entangled in difficulties. At the Episcopal ordination of the coadjutor bishop
in Nha Trang, Cardinal Pham Dinh Tung, the Archbishop of Hanoi, maintained that
amid the renovation of the country the urgent need for rejuvenation of the
Roman Catholic Church of Vietnam as well as the upgrading the standard of
competence of the episcopate, the clergy, and laity are still a must. The
Vietnamese society is undergoing a radical transformation, and the Church can
only respond to it by renovating and rejuvenating itself. “It is now the time
the Church of Vietnam should be suitably equipped with a new contingent of
bishops capable of assuming their role to meet the challenges in the coming millennium.” He also hoped for “the advent of a competent, generous,
clear-sighted, and united clergy to work in collaboration with a laity that is
well-formed and firm in faith” The
appeal of the cardinal was possibly addressed in part to the authorities. The Episcopal nomination in
Vietnam, in any case, must necessarily be approved on good will by the civil authorities. The call fell to
the deaf ears however. The delays of nomination for the two new coadjutor
bishops, the prospective bishop Nguyen
Thich for Ban Me Thuot Diocese, andthe prospective bishop Nguyen Van Nho for
Nha Trang Diocese, were the cases in evidence.
Sources reported that since the nomination
of Msgr. Pham Dinh Tung to be the head of the Hanoi prelacy, the relations
between the civil authorities and the ecclesiastic members in the Saigon
diocese became much more uneasy than it had been. Likewise, the nomination of
Msgr. Huynh Van Nghi to the apostolic administrator of the Saigon prelacy
presented a typically thorny problem,
causing severe damage to the relations between the State and Church. In September 1993, the State showed
its open opposition to the Vatican's nomination of an apostolic administrator
for the Saigon prelacy. It openly downgraded the prestige of the clergy of
Saigon that unanimously supported the Vatican's nomination and, mostly, that of
the bishop concerned, Msgr. Huynh Van Nghi, who was performing with
caution his functions of Coadjutor
Administrator instituted by the Vatican. Additionally, it seemed to ignore the
demands of the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam. In fact, in a petition sent to
the prime minister, the Episcopal Conference had reminded the “the government
of "the rights to freedoms which the Church deserves to exercise and which
are ignored by the government." The
Ho Chi Minh City People's Council had even shown its disapproval to the
proposal of the Vatican. The negotiations between the city authorities and the
Saigon prelacy became increasingly worsened. The apostolic administrator was
obstructed from performing his functions. The apostolic authorities at the
Vatican might have plighted to restore Msgr. Nguyen Van Binh, whose health had
been ameliorated, to his old position. A proposal announced in April 1994
presaged the nomination of Msgr. Huynh
Van Nghi to be Bishop Coadjutor of Apostolic Administrator of the Saigon
diocese. His nomination, which took place on August 11, 1993, seemed to have
caused dissatisfaction among the civil authorities of the city. The reaction
was revealed in the City authorities’ hostile attitude. which was sonorously
reflected in the letter of communion of September 15, 1993, in which the People's
Council of Ho Chi Minh City categorically disapproved the nomination of the
Vatican. (Eglise d'Asie, October 1,
19994).
Bishop Huynh Van Nghi, the apostolic administrator
of the Saigon diocese, who had been nominated to the post by the Vatican since
August 1993, was obstinately denied approval by the authorities. As a result,
on September 6, 1997, he could not
preside over the sacerdotal ordination of 7 priests that took place in the
church of ND on Ky Dong Street, Saigon. The police warned him that his
participation in the celebration or even his presence at the event would cause
its immediate intervention. On October 7, 1993, he planned to organize an
ordination for a group of 11 priests in Saigon. The civil authorities, again, denied
the authorization to perform the services, arguing that the bishop, who had
been not recognized by the State as coadjutor administrator of the Saigon
diocese, would not be allowed to preside over the ceremony.
In addition, the government still held the decision
to appoint Bishop Huynh Van Nghi to the Saigon prelacy to replace the ailing Archbishop
Nguyen Van Binh. A Catholic priest who asked anonyrmity said that the Party voluntarily
troubled itself with the ”religion of
the Lord in Heaven.” The nomination of Msgr. Huynh Van Nghi to be Bishop Coadjutor
at Saigon Diocese of the Vatican was not the sole object of disapproval. Tension
grew as the authorities had already put the blame on the conduct of affairs of
Msgr. Huynh Van Nghi, who, in their eyes, did not qualify for the post. Premier
Vo Van Kiet in his remarks confirmed
this during an interview with the monthly magazine Cong Giao va Dan Toc
(Catholicism and the Nation) on February 27, 1994. This was the reason for
which the civil authorities of the city disapproved of Msgr.
Huynh Van Nghi's conduct of affairs at the archdiocese.
Msgr. Huynh
Van Nghi, in an interview with a correspondent of the journal “La Croix en Asie et du Sud Est,”
explained that there was a reason behind
the conflict between him and the civil authorities. This resulted from the difficulties in his conduct of religious
affairs with the authorities of the city of Saigon. The prelate particularly
complicated the matter, relying on the blame the administration had mounted on
him . He was accused of trying to
exclude "the Committee for Solidarity of Catholics" from the Saigon
prelacy. The accusation was unfounded since the bishop only committed himself
to the Church’s services. He had been nevertheless
obstructed from performing his duties in the diocese of which he had been in
charge and where he had been officially nominated to perform his services. His
duty was to obey once he had been nominated to the posit.
In its issue of October 1994, the bulletin of
information of the Vietnamese Communist Party published a report on the
political situation in the country. Among other issues, it stressed the
intricate situation that entangled the relationship between Hanoi and the
Vatican, imputing the blame to the Holy See for complicating the matter in the
nomination to the highest prelate of Saigon Diocese. “The Vatican has striven
to install Bishop Huynh Van Nghi in replacement of Archbishop Nguyen Van Binh
and continues to obstruct priests and bishops from participating in political
activities.” The allegation was an allusion to the letter of Cardinal Sodano to
the president of the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam to help bring under
protection the Vietnamese priests against political attempts of the Committee
Of Union of Patriotic Catholics or political organs of similar type.
The deplorable situation of human rights in Vietnam
became the center of attention of rights organizations worldwide. Australia, in
particular, showed particular concern. A parliamentary delegation made a visit
tour to Vietnam after the visit of Vietnam Foreign Affairs Minister Nguyen Manh
Cam to Australia in February 1995. The delegation led by the Honorable Gareth
Evans came to Vietnam to inquest the situation, which action had been accepted
in principle by Vietnam Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet during his visit to
Australia in May 1993. The Honorable Gareth Evans in an interview on the radio
on February 7, 1995, declared that whereas the economic reforms inspired
confidence and were even attractive abroad, a long way remained to go in
matters of respect for political and civil rights.
The issue of religious freedom remained the subject
of hostility. Vu Quang, Director of the Bureau of Religious Affairs, did not
hide his uneasiness on the first day of meeting of the Conference of Catholic
Bishops during September 5-12, 1994 after its Standing Committee had presented
programs of activities. The presentation of the Conference was part of the
proposal that the bishops had addressed to the government in 1993. It was a
three-point proposal, including such matters as confirming the nomination of
Msgr. Nguyen Van Thuan, who was then in Rome, restoring the position of Msgr.
Nguyen Van Binh to his functions as Principal Bishop of the Saigon diocese, and
nominating the Bishop of Phan Thiet to be Bishop Coadjutor at the Saigon
prelacy. An agreement seemed to be far from taking shape. However, the
government and the Church agreed to arrive at a decision within the several
months to come. Nevertheless, until
November 1996, both the Vatican and Hanoi had not reached an agreement.
The Vietnamese State refused to accept the nomination of Msgr. Huynh Van Nghi
to the prelacy of Saigon Diocese but was ready to accept the nomination of any
other bishop (Muc Vu (Ministry), No. 152, November 1996).
In his meeting with Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet,
Msgr. Nguyen Minh Nhat, President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of
Vietnam, expressed his "satisfaction to see the doors more largely opened" with regard to "unity
and promotion of democracy." In his
meeting with Party Secretary-general Do Muoi, Msgr. Nguyen Minh Nhat also
reminded the Party leader of his speech at the Congress of the Fatherland Front
whereby "it is necessary not to
intervene in the internal affairs of the religions." No action had
practical been taken since then.
Msgr. Nguyen Van Sang, Bishop of Thai Binh, evoked
two major obstacles that faced the clergy of his diocese. One of them was the
transfer of priests. In 1993, in a petition sent to the prime minister, the
National Conference of Bishops requested the rights to appointment of bishops
and to transfer of diocesan priests from one parish to another within a
diocese. In his reply, the prime minister said he considered that "the appointment and transfer of posts of priests in the diocese are determined
by the exigencies of the work in the diocese." In a way, the
appointment of a priest is conditional on certain specified criteria. The
Bishop of Thai Binh remarked that “it is still uneasy to arrive at an accord
between the government and the diocese on this issue. The prelate stressed that
"disagreement took place at all levels, between the province authorities
and the diocesan clergy and the local authorities and the diocesan clergy. This
State’s conduct of affairs impedes the priest’s from performing his religious
duty and disables the religious life of the diocese. obstructing the equitable
services of 31 priests in 64 parishes of the diocese with total faithful of
120,000."
The problem of nomination became an issue at the
arrival of a Vatican delegation in the capital (EDA 338. There were still no
response to the proposals for the three auxiliary bishops at Bui Chu, Phan
Thiet, and Saigon On June 11, 2001,
while conducting negotiations with the Vietnamese Communist government, the
Secretary of the Episcopal Conference, Mugs. Nguyen Son Lam, in an interview
accorded to “Radio France Internationale,” drew up a broad picture of the
situation of the Roman Catholic Church
of Vietnam. The prelate presented
a certain number of problems that he thought to be appropriate at the moment. In the first place, he evoked the problem of
nomination of bishops. This was the principal object of discussion between the
representatives of the Holy Siege and Hanoi, Msgr. Celestine Migliore, of the
Secretariat of State at the Vatican and Msgr. Nguyen Van Phuong of the
Congregation for the Bible Propagation, on one side, and the officials of the
State Bureau of Religious Affairs, on the other. The Vatican delegation had
made proposals but had received no answer from the Communist
government. The delegates of the Vatican, on their part, had received no clear answers
on many of these proposals.
Msgr. Nguyen
Son Lam himself had expected positive answers concerning the nominations of
certain prospective bishops that had been approved by the authorities,
especially, the nominations for the auxiliary bishop for Saigon and the coadjutor bishop for the
diocese of Phan Thiet in the Central Vietnam. As a matter of sine-qua-non principle,
the decision should be agreed upon by the Vietnamese Communist government. The
situation in these two dioceses presented separate difficulties. The Vatican desired to see Msgr. Nguyen Van
Hoa, the bishop of Nha Trang, occupy the post of coadjutor cardinal of Saigon
Diocese because the cardinal in charge was then aged and weak. The Prime
Minister, on the other side, opposed to this nomination, and, to clarify the
situation the cardinal in charge had to testify,
expressing his opinions in writing. Again, no practical decisions were
made, and the Episcopal Conference had to wait and see (EDA 319).
