Sanctioned Religious Organizations

  

Sanctioned Religious Organizations

By Van Nguyen




Based on the results of an investigation conducted by the Ban Dan Van (Civic Action Commission) in 1997, the director of the Bureau of Religious Affairs had given estimates on the total rise of the number of believers in the country. It soars to 15.2 million, that is, 20% of the total 78, 324,753 population of the country, as confirmed by the census of April 1999. However, the article did not indicate what criteria were used to differentiate the believers from non-believers, and the believers from those who practice animism and constitute a large number of inhabitants among the ethnic minorities. Neither did it mention the number of people who observe the cult of ancestors, the most popular belief recognized by the greatest number of Vietnamese as their unique religion.  In addition, It seems, the figure 15.2 million is only reflective of the total addition of the numbers of adherents of only six “sanctioned” or “legal; y-recognized” religions (EDA 299). To each of these six religions, the author of the article also gives the estimates. By order of the size, Buddhism takes the lead with 7,378,417 adherents, Catholicism follows with 4,952,605 adherents, the Evangelical Christians, abbreviated as Evangelicals (Tin Lanh), is credited with 403,238 adherents. Two local religions, Caodaism and Hoa Hao Buddhism have, 1,122,827 and 1,252,905 adherents, respectively. Islam constitutes a small minority of 93, 174 adherents.  

Save for the Catholics, the figures given by the director of religious affairs are far below from the figures claimed by the religions in question. The figure of 7,378,417 Buddhists for the whole country is very far lower from the corresponding 80% of the population traditionally claimed by the Vietnam Unified Buddhist Church. The figures for Caodaism and Hoa Hao Buddhism are largely bias, based on the investigation published in the review of the Communist Party. Caodaism and Hoa Hao Buddhism, according to their own declarations, comprise 6 million and two million of adherents, respectively. A similar misinterpretation marks the number of adherents attributed to Evangelical Christianity whose development is considerably expansive in the 1990’s. The figure of Evangelical Christians must be almost the double, estimated at 800,000, at least.

The statistics concerning Catholicism is very much closer to reality. The number is 4,952,600 adherents, which is a little less than the figure established by the last investigation conducted by the Catholic Church itself and was reported by the bulletin of the Episcopal Conference in December 1999, 5,080,487 adepts. Other figures mentioned in the article concerning the number of priests and religious differ from the ones reported by the Episcopal Conference in December 1999, 2,200 priests by the government, and 2,300 by the bishops.  The number of seminarians varies between 1 and 2; 548 by the government and 1,036 by the bishops.

 One also finds, in this article, the besetting declarations of this type of propaganda literature emanating from the politics of religious freedom by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The Vietnamese are free to choose a religious faith, to be not to be a believer. Among the happy results of this religious politic of the government were the formation of the State-sponsored Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the foundation of the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam in 1980, the creation of the Committee of Union of Patriotic Catholics in 1983, an association operating within the Fatherland Front.  Lastly, according to the Head of the Bureau of Religious Affairs Le Quang Vinh, the two most remarkable events that marked the recent history of Vietnamese Catholicism were the ceremonies that opened and closed the two-century old of Our Lady of La Vang Cathedral in 1998 and 1999, the ceremonies that drew hundreds of thousand adepts to attend.                    

A census by the Roman Catholic Church published by the bulletin of the Episcopal Conference in December 1999 reported that the Catholic population is numbered at 5,089, 487. The Christian Evangelical Churches has approximately 800.000 followers, and Islam has few adepts. The term "recognized religion," in the view of the investigator, is referred to an organization that operates within the orbit of the Fatherland Front and in accordance with the Marxist sociology and that is not entitled to a legal status owing to which it benefits the protection of the law.

There are many Churches with various denominations in the country. Nevertheless, official documents of the government reduce the number to six legally-recognized religions. They are legal even though the notion of legality does not correspond in any aspect to reality and is virtually unclear these six “legal” religions are: the State-sponsored Buddhist Church of Vietnam, founded in the 1980’s, the Roman Catholic Church of Vietnam, certain denominations of the Evangelical Christianity, State-oriented Caodaist Sect, and the State-created Hoa Hao Buddhist Sect, and Islam. With the exception of Catholicism that operates independently from the Communist Party satellite Fatherland Front, other independent religious organizations or sects, particularly Cao Dai and Hoa Hao Buddhism, are subject to elimination. Independent Churches of Evangelical Christianity are targeted with repression and persecution. Legally recognized denominations are bound to go through a process of “normalization” to become satellite organs of the Fatherland Front that controls their central committees or administrative boards,   

Illegal Religious Groups

An article on religions published on November 23, 1999 in the Nong Thon Ngay Nay (The Countryside Today) reported that there actually exist 31 illegal religious organizations having considerable numbers of adepts in the rural areas. Eighty percent of them belong to the peasantry, and many of them are physically and mentally handicapped. They hardly prove to be religious organizations, and thus are not authorized to operate by the State. Ministers of these cults are mostly illiterate and conduct activities illegally. There are, however, practical measures envisaged to deal with them. The article in question also affirmed that these illegal cults generally originate from foreign countries, Taiwan, Japan, India, China, and France. Their religious allegories are essentially addressed to poor people without education, who, in the view of author "suffered physical and mental illnesses."  Cults as such do not deserve to be considered as religions practices. They only practice superstitions (Commission of Religious Freedom, Feb. 2000).

There appear two types of opinions as regards these cults. The great majority of the religious of diverse religions have this opinion to consider: “The State must control and neutralize the activities of new religious phenomena originating in either the interior or exterior of the country in such a way that traditional religions as well as public order could be protected. Traditional religions should mobilize their faithful not to be attracted by these new religious phenomena.  Furthermore, these new religious phenomena should be classified into two categories, positive and negative. Most of them belong to the second category. The State should, then, weigh the pros and cons to come up with concrete judgments for separate cases and avoid errors.”

Strict measures of control are indiscriminately imposed on the propagation and growth of all religions, both legally recognized and illegally non-recognized religious organizations or cults and superstitions practices. The Roman Catholic Church is denied to be a “moral person.” The legitimate Vietnam Unified Buddhist Church, the legitimate pure Hoa Hao Buddhist Church, diverse sects of legitimate Caodaism, diverse denominations of Evangelical Christianity that claim independence from the Communist Party are all outlawed.

Authorities equally adopted an attitude of hostile intolerance towards independent religious Churches as well as religious cults that are viewed as superstitions and applied strict measures against them. This semiofficial policy evokes controversial dispute in public opinion. There appear two types of attitude in this regard. The great majority of priests of diverse religions have this remark to consider: The State must control and neutralize with harsh measures new religious phenomena from either the interior or exterior. It must not pretend to do this in the interests of traditional religions, and it would only maintain protection of traditional religions and secure public order. Traditional religions, on the other hand, should mobilize their faithful not to be attracted by noxious religious phenomena.  Furthermore, these new religious phenomena should be classified into two categories, positive and negative. Most of them belong to the second category. The State should, then, weigh the pros and cons to give concrete judgments for either case and avoid erratic errors.