Sunday, October 25, 2015

The Nomination




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 journalLa 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).

No comments:

Post a Comment