Fr. Nguyen Van Ly (continued)

Repressive Measures

   Fbe Press Campaign

Beginning on March 3, 2001, a press campaign was launched against the priest. The official daily Ha Noi Moi (Hanoi Today),  published the first article on the incident. It opened attacks on Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, concentrating mainly on the report the priest sent to the Internationl Commission of Religious Freedom. That was the report in which, according to the author of the article, the priest denigrated the Communist Party and the leader Ho Chi Minh, who was portrayed  as  a “war criminal.” The priest even went so far as to urge on the United States to help the people  overthrow the regime. The priest thus committed the serious crime as prescribed by Article 13 of the Constitution defining the punishment against those who conducts “activities and plots (of sabotage) against the independence, suzerainty, reunification and integrity of Vietnam.” The following day, February 4, 2001, the  Quan Doi Nhan Dan, a journal of the army, took the relay, furiously poured charges on the priest in an article entitled “The Traitor of the People Is Demasked.”  Among other accusations, the journal stressed the magnitude of the crime. “The priest deserves heavy punishment, but the regime has showed clemency for humanitarian purpose. The authorities only decided to take an administrative measure to reeducate the priest and adjust  him to the civil and religious laws.” Then, in the days that followed, all the big headings on the subjet along with meticulous articles appeared in the official press. For two consecutive days February 7-8, the journal  Lao Dong of the Union of Workers, charged the priest with undesirable crimes.  In March 2001, the official daily Nhan Dan, in a series of articles  entitled “Under the Cover of Religion, an Evil Acti” elaborated  the priest’ s acts of confrontation with the State, accusing him of committing crimes of treason against the nation. It nevertheless committed grave mistakes, not only giving an eclesiastic curriculum vitea of  the priest with gross errors of clumsiess but also a wrong account of the days Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was in prison, and a tabulation of unfounded subversive activities. On March 9, 2001, in a maneuver, it collected unfavorable opinions of the so-called  Catholic adepts “indignant of the conduct of Nguyen Van Ly.

 The outpouring of accusations of the official press against the promotor of the campaign for religious freedom raised doubts as to whether the authorities intended to impose stricter measures on the dissident priest. Why did the authorities impose a house surveillance sentence on the priest on February 27, 2001.  Second, the accusations  by the officical press were vague as they failed to qualify Fr. Nguyen Van Ly‘s confrontation as crimes. Still, they could not produce evidenc but plain accusations, showing the authorities’ abuse of power, making false accusations and groundless fabrications. In addition, the prescriptions for this crime are even bias and unclear. The definitions  for  crimes of treason against the fatherland by the Penal Code, in fact, were subject to revision in Decamber 1999. pecifically, Article 78, concerning the defiinitions of the penalty, the terms in prison, the perpetuity of life imprisonment, and the condemnation to death .

The tone of the campaign became increasingly critical as Fr. Nguyen Van Ly received strong support from rights international organizations and government agencies. The priest was accused of undermining the ratification the Trade Agreements between Vietnam and the United States. On March 13, 2001, in a communication to the international press, authorities publicly made allusion to the “subversive” appeals by Fr’ Nguyen Van Ly and the campaign for religious freedom conducted by Fr. Nguyen Van Ly and the priests of the archdiocese of Hued, They condemmed these activities as concerted acts of sabotage. In he weekly press conference, the spokewoman of the Foreign Affairs Ministry Nguyen Phuong Nga responded with firmness to the critics in the article of the Asian Wall Street Journal, published on February 9, 2001, saying that religious repression would certainly jeopardize the ratification of the trade accords between Vietnam. She nevertheless affirmed that the bilateral trade accord, which is an effort to join the interests of the two countries, would not be affected by the people who deliberately sabotage the relations between the two countries. She also added that the government of Vietnam “neither restricts nor repress religious activities and the liberty of faith in a religion and that those who abuse the rights and utilize religion to cause social disorder and undermine national unity will be severely punished.” Again, the accusation was unfounded. The measures taken against Fr. Nguyen Van Ly had nothing to do with religious repression. As regards the government policy, the spokewoman said that the Vietnamese Communist official information agency already specified that “the priest commits acts of violation against the laws of Vietnam. Large layers of the population among which are religion practioners express their indignation over and criticize those acts that go against the interests of the country.” The trade accords between Vietnam and the United States, in reality, was signed in June 2000 after years of negotiation. The ratification of the accords was subject to deliberation at the U.S. Congress following reports on measures of relegation taken against Fr. Nguyen Van Ly. The analysis of the crime attributed to the priest weighed in by the Foreign Ministry spokewoman certainly accentuated the seriousness of the confrontation of the priest with the State.

The press campaign accelerated. Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was repeatedly accused of crimes of sabotage, having undrmined the nationial interests by sending  to the  International Commission on Religious Freedom of the U.S. Congress a report denouncing the situation of the religions in his country. Although the text was not officially read in the meeting of the Commission that took place on February 13, 2001, an Englih translation had been laid into the hands of the participants. Among other things, the report  recommends the commission not to accord support to the Vietnamese communists, an act that, according to the priest, would only “prolong religious repression and reinforce totolitarian dictatorship.”

The campaign for religious freedom of Fr. Nguyen Van Ly received support from the international press. To mete out influence, the official Press launched a campaign of crimes relevations against the priest, who had been, in reality, assigned to residence surveillance since November 2000. The authorities had stripped off him all means of communication, the at Nguyet Bieu and at An Truyen as well. The campaign continued with hissing tone. On March 26, 2001, the journals of the police and the People’s Army attacked him with all violence. The daily of the military, Quan Doi Nhan Dan, aiming without doubt to give a blow at certain leaders of the Vietnamese Communist Party judged to be much indulgent to the pastor of An Truyen, raised the question: “Why Didn’t We Rapidly Taken Measure to Force Nguyen Van Ly to Put an End to His Religious Propaganda Immediately?”  The journal continued, ascertaining that the measure taken against him on February 27, 2001, two years of assignment to residence, had  only little effect on him since he “continues to desperately devote himself to his activites, sabotaging, provoking, and defying the power.” The article also called into question, for the first time publicly, the attitude of  the ecclesiastic superiors and was indignant with the priest in that whether or not he would be suspended from his functions in the Catholuc Church. Certain observers saw in this diatribe the prelude of an arrest and condemnation. Others saw in it the sign of hesitation of the Vietnamese Communist Party, embarassed by the critical situation created by the campaign for religious freedom animated by Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, diffused on the netwok of internet, supported by the Vietnamese diaspora, and increasingly leant on for propaganda by the clergy in Hue .

The Quan Doi Nhan Dan, then, had reason on one point: the strict control to which the pastor of Antruyen was subjected and the deluge of accusations that befell him had not prevented the priest neither from comtinuing his activities nor reviewing the literary mode of expression he adopted from the beginning. Since November 2000, he had expressed his protest with appeals for religious freedom, denouncing the infringes of the authorities on the freedom of cult and demanding the dissolution of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the holding of general elections. The official press could not dissimulate furor when Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, in a letter sent to the priests of Hue who were in retreat for Lent, March 13-16, 2001,  presented the alarming the situation. He even came up with a new process of claims. Reversing the role, it was from him and not the authorities to draw up reports. In the “Report No. 1 entitled “Serious Violation of Human Rights” handwritten by the priest on March 20, 2001, reproduced on scanner and diffused throughout the world on the internet, he informied of the world the suffocationg suppression under which he was suffering. The system of sonorization of the commune An Tuyen was unsustainable. Everyday since February 27, 2001, at about 5 o’clock in the morning, 17 o’clock in the afternoon, diffused by loud-speakers 5 speeches  accusing the priest  of m of ungrounded charges. Still, inumerable articles and radio and television emissions of the same natured were repeatedly blared out.

 

However they had already assigned Fr. Nguyen Van Ly to residence surveillance, the authorities multiplied their acts of repression in the christendom of Nguyet Bieu where the priest still  had strong support. After the first  raid the police tore off the bannes on which were inscribed slogans of  protest by  Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, a troop of 500 agents, police and workers, on March 14, 2001, without a notice came to concrete a trench of irrigation running through the ground of the Church and the ricefields in the presence of the parishioners who supported Fr. Nguyen Van Ly in his fight for faith and rights. The non-violence opposition by the parishisioners came to no result in face of a police force that instantly disbanded the protest.  Sixteen priests of the archdiocese of Hue, who were in retreat during the Lent celebration at Hue, wrote and signed a letter of protest against the dealings of the police and expressed their support for Fr. Nguyen Van Ly and the parishioners. The call was echoed widely. At An Truyen, police  multipled raids. They took place at night and seemed to sow terror in the mind of the parishers and the pastor.

Reactions from Overseas Rights Organizations

 On February 13, 2001, personalities of the Vietnamese diaspora came to testify the situation of religions in Vietnam before the International Commission on Religious Freedom  of the U.S. Congress, creating a strong effervercence in many milieus  of Vietnamese immigrants abroad as well as contestant circles in the country. Anong the participants who came to testify on the situation  of religion in Vietnam was Fr. Tran Cong Nghi, director of the press agency Vietcatholic News Network. The long report he read before the commission presents a tabulation of constraints that weigh on the exercise of religious freedom in Vietnam. In particular, he stressed, the various limitations, imposed on the exercise of cult, the formation of priests, abuses of power the exercise of the authorities, and the State’s unlawful confiscations of properties of the Churches. Vo Van Ai, director of the International Buddhist Bureau of Information whose siege is in Paris, wished that the question of human rights and democracy be raised in the negotiations that were taking place between the United States and Communist Vietnam. According to him, the advantages that Vietnam would benefit from the future accords with the United States must be taken into consideration  and be materialized with reforms accomplished in the domain of religious freedom and human rights. Having not obtained the necessary permission from the State, certain personalities in the countrycould not respond to the invitations. Among them were the Venerable Thich Thai Hoa of Hue and Fr. Nguyen Van Ly.

The press organ of the Vietnamese Communist Party Nhan Dan (The People)  put itself right with the Party, accusing the United States of “making the most of religion to grossly meddle in the internal affairs.” The jounal contended that  “the off-the-point critics”  launched by “hostile forces” had  only the objective “to calumniate and denigrate the shining image of Vietnam.” According to the journal, “eloquent proofs belie the allegations of those who have the habit to calumniate Vietnam by accusing it  of repressing the religions.” Then, it affirmed: “In Vietnam, no one is arrested for reasons of religion and faith. The situation of certain  religious adepts is due to their violations of the law and those people must evidently judged according to the Vietnamese law.” In conclusion, one could also read: “It is clear that those who give themselves the right to judge the religious situation of Vietnam have intentionally closed their eyes before reality and fail to understand the trend towards improving the relations of Vietnam with the countries of the international community one of which is the United States.”The Foreign Affairs spokewoman finally doubled  attack against the Commission of the Religious Freedom, affirming that by giving themselves the right to judge the religious situation of another country, the commission committed gross interference in the internal affairs of another country, and thus is in contradiction with the Charter of the United Nations.

Fr. Nguyen Van Ly (continued)

At An Truyen

 Resistance to Repression

  At An Truyen although the peiest was, again, subject to surveillance.  His relations with the outside world was controlled. He nevertheless successfully sent his “Papers on Serious Violations of Human Rights to the Communist Authorities” to world organizations and agencies. In his papers, the dissident priest called into question the shortcomings and erroneous conduct of affairs of the Communist administration in Vietnam.  In reality, he had worked on this project since November 1999, promoting a campaign of protests against the violations of religious liberty in Vietnam. And, his displacement to An Truyen was not accidental. He would have received the visit of the archbishop of his diocese sometime on January 20, 2001. and learnt from him the situation in the parish of An Truyen, the parish of about 900 Christians (according to the statistics of 1995) situated 12 kilometers from Hue and 17 kilometers from Nguyet Bieu Parish, the small christendom where he had been in residence and of which he had been in charge of a chapel. It seems that the pastoral duty confided in him had been effective since. Also, according sources, the ordinary of the archdiocese of Hue might have reflected an act of coercion since on January 2, 2001, the authorities of Thua Thien - Hue “had given” the authorization to displace Fr. Nguyen Van Ly to An Truyen.” The decicion was a predisposition. It was not until January 16, 2001 that the official order to remove  Fr. Nguyen Van Ly from Nguyet Bieu Parish came into effect.

The Appeals

In every way, this new appointment would nott slow down  the fight for faith and rights of Fr. Nguyen Van Ly who had multiplied declarations and extended the domain of protests. In fact, after a series of open letters sent the authorities on the occasion of the Lunar New Year’s Day of “Tan Ty,” the priest edited and diffused numerous appeals to compatriots in the country and abroad, among them were the Appeals No.5 and No.6 dated January 25, 2001, the Appeal No.7,  January 28, 2001, denouncing wrongdoings of the Communist administration and calling on them for support. Denunciations included uncivil treatment against him right in the place where he was quartered. The Appeal No. 5, specifically asked international organizations not to favor admission to membership of the Vietnamese Communists to world organizations and conventions. They even viotate the provisions in rights covenants and treaties of which they pledge to abide. The Appeal No. 6, which was addressed to professors, teaching staffs, college and high-school students of Vietnam,  asked the country’s intelligentsia to abandon the study and instruction of socialism, communism, and the history of the Communist Party, and other subject-matters relating to communism. The priest justifies the motive, underlying the ill-omen character of communism whose ideological tenets only corrupt  the conscience of the students. The seventh appeal was directly addressed to the Vietnamese communists and Vietnamese compatriots in the country and abroad. To the communists, the priest heightened political pluralism and condemned monopoly of power.  The Communists win a war but fail to consolidate peace. They destroy national reconciliation. Their one-time adversaries should be treated with decency and have the opportunity to share responsibilities. In conclusion, the dissident priest urges on all Vietnamese in and outside the country to claim their rights in the rebuilding of the country.

    

 Against winds and tides and regardless of his isolation from the world, Fr. Nguyen Van Ly continued his campaign for religious freedom in his country In his eigth appeal conceived from November 2000 was diffused in the afternoon of February 22, 2001 by the Vietnamese Radio in the United States, the priest concentrated his attack on the Vietnamese Communist Party and urges on its members to dissolve this party for the interests of the people. He equally invited the National Assembly to suppress Article 4 of the 1992 Constitution that arbitrarily places the coumtry under the illegitimate patronage of the Communist Party and urged on it to organize democratic and fair popular general elections.

Instances of Harassment

On February 5, 2001, Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was officially appointed as pastor at An Truyen Parish by the ecclesiastic order of the archbishop of Hue Nguyen Nhu The. The titular priest was warmly greeted in an assembly hosted by two senior pastors in the region, a dozen of priests, and a delegation from Nguyet Bieu Parish and heartily welcomed by the parishioners. Sources said that his displacement  from Nguyet Bieu, in fact, resulted from the civil authorities’ pressure on the Hue archdiocese, removing “a reactionary pastor” from his post.  The archbishop had no authority; he simply enacted the decision. The priest obediently submitted himself to  his superior’s order, although he was firmly intent on confronting the hazardous fight for faith and rights when at Nguyet Bieu Parish. Nevertheless, the appointment to this  desolate parish of the diocese gave him a far more favorable condition. He considered himself “a priest in exile,”and he would practically perform even more earnestly his  pastoral duties, helping the followers to pray God to redeem them from sins while living theirfaith with decency as free religious citizens, a situation he thought would be more conforming to his sacerdoral mission. He reminded the parishioners that the mission confided in him as pastor is not only to conduct a sarcerdotal life and to pave way not only for a life of saintiness but also to promote a life of human dignity. To the civil authorities, to restrict him to inaction at An Truyen resulted from a hidden scheme; it wais only a step backward, a right move to wait for a  right time.

Repressive Measures

On February 27, 2001, a decision was sent to Fr. Nguyen Van Ly to inform him of the adminitrative assignment No.401/QDUB subjecting him to residence surveillance for a period of 24 months. The order was signed  by the People’s Council of the province Thua Thien - Hue. The measure is based on the Arrete 31/CP of 1977 that allows the administrative authorities to assign a person to residence surveillance without premilinary sentence of the court of justice to enact the case. According to witnesses, after having read the decision that specified that, since that day on, the priest had no right whatsoever to leave the village of Truyen Nam, which is the parish of An Truyen. The decision noted that Fr. Nguyen Van Ly had the right to make an appeal within ten days.  However, the priest answered that he would not do that. On the contrary, he declared that he only served his pastoral duty, and he would serve it obediently. Immediately, the loudspeakers of the commune began to diffuse accusations against the pastor of An Truyen. Unfounded accusations were continually reinstated  any time everyday. 

The priest could only speak up in his writings. In his Minutes No.1 of March 20, 2001, reproduced by scanner and diffused on the internet, he frankly denounced the authorities’ rights violations. He cited,  as a case in point, the responsible of the commune of Phu An, who, each day, since February 27, 2001, at 5 in the morning and at 17 in the afternoon, diffused though loud speakers 5 texts of propaganda denigrating his achievements and accusing him of unfounded charges along with numerous articles already diffused by radio and television broadcasts. The cadres, obedient to their superior drew up a verbal report to the least of their knowledge of the law on his offense, thereby forcing the priest to make repeated reports revealing the authorities’ abuse of power against him and his parishioners.

He confronted police strict control and malicious propaganda maneuvers with relilience. He flied banters of protest. Local authorities retaliated with violence. On March 14, a troop of 500 people, including policemen and plain-clothes agents overwhelmed the small parish of An Truyen without notice to construct a concrete strech of irrigation running through the  ground of the Church and the rice-field of the parish. At the sight of blatant oppression, Fr. Nguyen Van Ly decided to launch a campaign of non-violence opposition against  the authorities' breach of the law.  Police laid a heavy hand, conducting a search-and-arrest operation throughout the parish, and it was succsessful. Sixteen priests of the diocese of Hue, while in retreat of the Careme, wrote and signed a letter protesting against the dealings of the police and expressed their support for the persecuted priest and parishioners. At An Truyen, police multiplied acts of violence that took place at night, sowing terror in the minds of  the pastor and parishioners.    

Police control on the pastor of An Truyen had been displayed before that. According to the disclosure of the general vicar of the archdiocese,  reports by state officials showed instances of coercion on the archdiocese of Hue—pressuring it to disqualify the pastor of An Truyen from religious services. The archbishopric authority of Hue had answered that it could not take such a sanction. Concerted efforts against the priest were self-evident. An article on the official press portrayed the house arrest Fr. Nguyen Van Ly in affirmative terms, running the heading “Temporary Arrest of Father Ly for Offense of the Law” without  mentioning the reason. On the other hand, local authorities sought to intimidate parishioners at Nguyet Bieu and An Truyen that had relationship with the dissident priest.  Every day, ten parishioners of An Truyen or two or three parishioners of Nguyet Bieu were convoked for interrogation with threats at the police office. Some among them were even beaten. The priests close to Fr. Nguyen Van Ly were one after another placed under strict surveillance and isolated. Many other priests of the archdiocese were summoned to the security police for interrogation for information concerning Fr. Nguyen Van Ly’s confrontation with the regime.  

For Faith and Rights

Fr. Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly

 After a 10–year prison term (1983-1992) for unfounded charges of reactionary activities, Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was still targeted with strict surveillance, first at Nguyet Bieu Parish, and then at the distant An Truyen Parish of the archdiocese of Hue. Mgsr. Nguyen Son Lam, the Secretary-general of the Vietnam Episcopal Conference, exptressed caution about the matter. He stressed, hoeweer, that the responsibility rests with the individual priest who undertakes all by himself the struggle for religious freedom when referring to the current situation of Fr. Nguyen Van Ly on the occasion of the visit tour of the Vatican delegation to Vietnam on June 11, 2001. This matter might be treated by the Episcopal Conference, and the treatment would remain conditional on the Archbishop Nguyen Nhu The’s decision. (EDA 323)

At Nguyet Bieu Parish

    An devout priest to his faith and determined fighter for rights, Fr.Nguyen Van continued himself to his self-professed commitments right after his release from prison. He became an idol for the movement for rights that was on the rise. His devotion and determination cost him tight police watch, being viewed as “a dangerous element to the regime.” In 1995 and the years that followed, floods ravaged the Mekong delta and many regions in the countries.  Aids missions to flood victims by religious dignitaries and groups met with repression from the authorities. Fr. Nguyen Van Ly engaged in these efforts, and voiced protest and promoted the creation of an interfaith committee for religious freedom, regrouping the representatives of three main religions: the Unified Buddhidt Church, Hoa Hao Buddhism, and Catholicism. This committee had at its head the Venerable Thich Thien Hanh for president, the venerable Le quang Lem, vice-president, and the Reverend Nguyen Van Ly himself, the secretary.

Fr. Nguyen Van Ly became then the thorn in the side of the local administration. Authorities sought to pressure the Catholic Church to exile him from Hue. Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was appointed with reluctance pastor at Nguyet Bieu Parish, a congregation of 56 Catholic households whose members were largely poor and mostly illiterate. Under such conditions, the dissident priest could hardly “cause trouble.” At Nguyet Bieu, regardless of difficulties, the pastor still keenly devoted himself to his commitments, to attend to the parishioners’ spiritual, social, and educational life, encouraging them to practice religious virtues and better their lives socially and educationally. They became much more aware of their needs for educational betterment and  rights. The youth was particularly interested in the practical use of the computer and were trained in the computer technology with his money aid and under his direction. The priest’s benevolence was greatly appreciated. The villagers of  Nguye Bieu and those in the areas neaby, Catholics and non-Catholics, saw in him a true moral and spiritual leader.

 Fr. Nguyen Van Ly became well-known nation- and world-wide and received warm support, both amiable and financial, particularly from the Vietnamese abroad. He fast became an opponent to the regime, nevertheless.  Police tightened control on him. His movement within Nguyen Bieu was attended with  police escort. In the afternoon of  January 11,  Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was summoned to the seat of the communal People’s council for an interrogation. The priest refused to comply with the arbitrary summon without clarification. The police then made it clear that, because the priest refused to comply with the law, he was restricted to his residence and was not permitted not go outside the perimeter of his parish. On February 7, 2000,  two young men who accompanied him on the way back to the parish were arrested, and the hard disk with registers for religious services and several other disks were confiscated. Supposedly, the hard disk was also registered a text of communication that might have been read on February 13 before the U.S. Congress Committee for Human Rights.

Under restrict surveillance Fr. Nguyen Van Ly still performed with success his daily pastoral and secular duties, to live and help people live the Catholic faith and serve the people. He made plans for cultural activities  for the parish and alliance of all religious faiths to struggle for religious freedom. He drew up minutes with records of instances of acts harassment against religious worship and activities of the parish and send them to the cenral admiistration denouncing these violations on basic human rights. The authorities replied with retaliation.The official press launched a propaganda campaign against him. On Monday, March 26, the journals of the police and the People’s Army attacked him most fiercely. The military daily  Quan Doi  Nhan Dan, alluding to the attitude of certain leaders of the Communist Party, proliferated that the leadership showed much indulgence to the priest and raised the questioni “Why haven’t  we  taken measures rapidly to compel Nguyen Van Ly to end his religious propaganda?” The journal went on ascertaining that  the restriction taken  against him on February 27 was only ineffective, that is, the penalty with two years of surveillance in residence, had not take muc effect on the interested, because the priest “continues to indulge himself desperately in his activities of sabotage,  provoking and defying the regime.”  The arcticle put into question, for the first time publicly, the attitude of the Church’s superiors and pointed out that the priest’s clerical functions might always not be suspended.  Certain observers anticipated that his arrest was certain, and the punishment would be more severe.  The sign of hesitation on the part of the Communist Party was evident. The administration was truly embarrassed by the situation created by the campaign for religious freedom led by the Reverend Nguyen Van Ly and his reports diffused on the website operated by the Vietnamese diaspora.

Conflict between the local authority and the parish became tense when the land claim by the local congretgation emerged, requesting the authorities to return land of the parish it had arbitrarily dispossessed. Fr. Nguyen Van Ly expressed warm compassion for the parishioners’ demand and was held responsible for the incident. He was immediately isolated from the world. His computer was made paralyzed, and his communication to the world was dead. Tensions rose in December 2000 when the compassionate pastor supported a demonstration of thousands of villagers from Nguyet Bieu and the adjacent areas against the authorities’ land confiscation and a total ban on flying banners demanding religious freedom.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Repression in the Central Highlands

After 80 years of propagation, the Vatican, on January 18, 1932, separated Kontum from Quy Nhon Diocese and established Kontum Diocese, including the territories of  Kontum, (now Gia Lai)  Pleiku, Dak Lak, and a part of Attopeu (Lower Laos). The bishops who were successively in charge of the missionary administration in the diocese were Mgsr. Jean Simon Kham (1942-1951), Mgsr. Paul Seits Kim (1952-1975), Mgsr. Alexis Pham Van Loc (1975-1995), Bishop  Tran Thanh Chung (1996-2002), and Mgsr. Hoang Duc Oanh (2003- …). The information given by UCANEWS noted that the  Redemptorists were most active in the propagation of the faith in the community of the ethnic Jarai, More than 10% of the members of this ethnic minrity have now become Catholic. After decades of Gospel preaching, multiple trials and political tension, the Jarai Catholic community actually constitutes as many as 30,000 for a population of 270,000.

     Fr. Tran Sy Tin

During the first years of the propagation, missionaries came and went.  Some stayed a period of time and left. Beginning in 1950,  Mgr. Paul Seits settled permanently to serve faith in this distant region. During this time, Fr. Joseph Tran Sy Tin made frequent visits to the region. An ardent missionary, he devoted himself to his pastoral worship, laying foundation for permanent church  services. Until then, there was only some Jarais baptized along with several Catholics of Vietnamese origin. The preaching for the faith of the region was still confided in the Redemptorists who preached the faith in missionary center in the areas of Pleiku, Pleichoet, and Checoreo-Torui in the province of Gia Lai.  According to an account of Father Tran Sy Tin, it was not until October 1969 that the Bishop of Kontum could bring four religious to Pleiku. Arriving at the place, he read to them a passage of Bible, prayed with them, blessed them, then returned to Kontum. In the beginning none of the local inhabitants dared to receive them at their houses and show them how to stay overnight in a shelter in the dark forest.  Father Tran Sy Tin accustomed himself to the ways of life of the local ettnic minority, learning the Jarai language and practicing the ethnic culture. Conversion to Catholicism began, and the faith gradually became a reality During the Vietnam War, Catholic missionaries was targeted with terror out of ideological hatred, being captured and killed in the jungle by the Liberation Front troopers. By he end of April 1975, the Communists took over South Vietnam, the missionaries were disbanded. They lived in smaller groups and stayed underground in the areas inhabited by the ethnic Jarai. Father Tran Sy Tin recalled that they survived by fishing, hunting, and cultivating the hard land with the help of the Jarai. During the ceremonies for funerals. Tr. Tin  even beat the gong for the local traditional music band. The small  group of Redemptorist missionaries compiled the Jarai version of New Testament, a book which,  Father Tran Sy Tin believed to have truly become a companion of the Jarai people in his service for faith.

Reports also noted that, in 1967, the Vatican took a part of Buon Ma Thuot (now Dak Lak) territoty to create a the  Kontum Diocese. This is the poorest Catholic diocese of the country. Like other people of the ethnic minorities, Catholics in this area lived miserably on slash-and-burn farming. Until then They contributed almost nothing to the Church materially. They relied on it for all sorts of aids and reliefs, from provisions and necessities of life to education. Still, they lived their faith loyally, without a priest to take care of religious services and without a house of worship for assembly for prayers. The diocese took charge of large mountainous areas such as Kon Chro, K’ Bang Ia Grai, Chu Prong where guerilla groups sprang up during the Vietnam War. Local cadres hailed them as heroes for their success. The expansion of guerrilla zones brought with it continuation of the elimination of the limtied propagation of the Catholic faith.  Catholicism is ever a taboo subject. Catholic practices were thus practiced in hiding and limited only to small numbers of families. It was not until 1988 when 117  martyrs of Vietnam were canonized that conversions to Catholicism of the Jarai minority resumed. The Redemptorists achieved remarkable work in this effort.  Actually, the Jarai Catholics continue to brave danger, assemble for prayers, and sing hyms together. They come from different localities. Siu Biu, aged 90, a native of Pleiku, thanks the Lord, having found God Father after baptism; Siu Kle,  a follower of Pleidjreck, disclosed to his companion he had been alcoholic. “ He is now a Catholic. He is aware of his religious responsibility for his family. He travels a 100 kilometers to come and share the Word of God with his compatriots.” A student told his fellow Catholics that one of his teachers advised him to declare himself a non-believer on the “curriculum vitea” for better chance or admission to college. He refused to do this. He would be happy to be showered with favor from Jesus Christ, his Lord.