Who defied the law and helped the enemy?

>> Taking advantage of faith to provoke

(Baonghean) - As reported by Nghe An Newspaper, on September 8, 2013, the People's Committee of Nghe An province issued Official Dispatch No. 139/UBND - NC on activities related to Catholic dignitaries and parishioners of Nghe An province, in which special attention was paid to the situation of law violations by a number of dignitaries and parishioners in Nghi Phuong commune, Nghi Loc district, sent to Archbishop Nguyen Van Nhon - President of the Vietnam Bishops' Council, with goodwill to soon resolve the complicated situation in the province.

However, instead of sincerely accepting and cooperating with the government to resolve the issue, on September 15, 2013, the Office of the Xa Doai Bishop's Office issued a document "Protesting Official Dispatch No. 139/UBND - NC dated September 8, 2013 of the People's Committee of Nghe An province and related issues" deliberately distorting the truth, deceiving public opinion, and blaming the government. In the issue dated September 20, 2013, Nghe An Newspaper published an article "Taking advantage of faith, inciting acts" to systematize all developments and events related to the incident, so that readers can easily follow and understand the cause of the incident. Based on the developments of the incident, with an objective view, according to the provisions of Vietnamese Law, Nghe An Newspaper will now focus on discussing issues (5,6,7,8,9,10,11) in the document related to the incident that occurred at My Yen Parish (Nghi Phuong Commune, Nghi Loc).

September 17 parade of some extremist parishioners.

On the fifth issue, the Office of the Xa Doai Bishop's Office once again refused to acknowledge the true nature of the incident that occurred at My Yen Parish on September 4, 2013 and continued to use a slanderous tone, "strongly condemning the government's use of violence to suppress the masses." The document also argued that: "This incident has its root cause in the fact that police officers were not in uniform, did not carry police badges, did not give a reason, but harassed and unjustly blocked the way of people coming to Trai Gao to pray and attend Mass," "leading to a scuffle between the people and (those who were later discovered to be) police on May 22, 2013," but no parishioners spoke up about being unjustly blocked or harassed.

In the report on the incident that occurred at Trai Gao on May 22, 2013 by My Yen Parish (sent on May 26 to the Bishop of Vinh Diocese and the parish priest of My Yen) and the report of the Office of the Xa Doai Bishop's House (signed on May 31 by Priest Nguyen Van Huong - Chief of the Bishop's House Office), there was no evidence of "harassment and groundless blocking of people going to Trai Gao", but only general and baseless accusations and slanders. Let's ask when and where did the police "harass and groundless blocking of people going to Trai Gao to pray and attend Mass"? Please ask specifically who was blocked and who was harassed? How could just a few people in plain clothes "block" hundreds, even thousands of parishioners from everywhere coming to Mass right at Trai Gao Shrine? This is clear as day, who made up the story and slandered?

The sixth issue, the Episcopal Office loudly accused that Official Letter No. 139 of the People's Committee of Nghe An province was "completely fabricated and slandered", "denying the positive contributions" of Mr. Nguyen Thai Hop - Bishop of Vinh Diocese in the past time, especially in "pacifying the people and rescuing 3 injured people" related to the incident on the evening of May 22, 2013 at Trai Gao Parish (Nghi Phuong Commune).

In fact, immediately after the incident (7:30 p.m.), the provincial and district authorities contacted the Bishop's Office and a number of priests in the area to request coordination in resolving the incident. However, at around 10 p.m. the same day, Bishop Nguyen Thai Hop and a number of priests arrived. When he arrived at the scene of the incident, Bishop Nguyen Thai Hop also "urgently" acted, but not to rescue or provide first aid to the three injured police officers, but to instruct the Pastoral Council of Trai Gao Parish to draw up a report with the content of slandering the police force for preventing parishioners from attending the ceremony.

The police officers refused to sign the minutes, Mr. Hop threatened: "If you don't sign after 10 minutes, I'll go home, let the parishioners handle everything themselves." At around 0:00 on May 23, 2013, Mr. Hop called a car to take the 3 officers back to the district police headquarters. Can the above actions be called "active" in resolving the matter, "especially in pacifying the people and rescuing the 3 injured people"?

The seventh issue, the Document affirms: "The permission for priests to celebrate Mass at places of worship is under the authority of the Church, not the authority's business". Regarding this issue, Article 25 of Decree No. 92/2012/ND-CP of the Government stipulates: "Religious activities outside the annual registration program that do not fall under the provisions of Articles 28 and 25 of the Ordinance on Belief and Religion are regulated as follows: Religious activities with the participation of believers outside the district, county, town, city under the province, or outside the province, the grassroots religious organization must be approved by the People's Committee of the province where the religious activity takes place...". This ceremony is outside the annual registration program of My Yen parish and has not been permitted by the local government. On the other hand, Priest Dang Huu Nam is not the parish priest of My Yen. In this case, the Xa Doai Bishop's Court has given itself the right to stand above the laws of Vietnam, specifically Decree No. 92/2012/ND-CP of the Government.

The eighth issue, the Document stated that “there is no basis to connect the Bishop’s return to the country with the My Yen parishioners coming to the Nghi Phuong Commune People’s Committee on August 30, 2013”. Right from the incident on May 22, Mr. Nguyen Thai Hop was present and knew clearly about the incident. When the Nghe An Provincial Police Investigation Agency arrested the two subjects Ngo Van Khoi and Nguyen Van Hai, Mr. Hop was also directly informed.

However, it is clear that from May 22 to August 26, the matter was being handled by the authorities in accordance with legal procedures in a positive direction. Things became complicated when Mr. Hop returned from abroad (August 26), with the demand to "let the 2 subjects return to their families" before September 4, which was not in accordance with the law, so it was not accepted. Since then, in less than a week (from August 30 to September 4), at My Yen Parish, there were 3 incidents of public disorder, illegal detention, and resistance to law enforcement officers.

Furthermore, in the incident on August 30, when some radical parishioners were present at the time when they caused trouble, violated and insulted officials right at the Nghi Phuong Commune People's Committee headquarters, Mr. Hop, with his responsibility as a "shepherd", should have advised his parishioners not to continue to commit illegal acts. On the contrary, this Archbishop deliberately evaded and deceived his parishioners when he told the crowd of parishioners: "You guys just go home, I have discussed this matter with the Lieutenant General of the Ministry of Public Security and the government to consider and resolve it. If the government does not release the person after 5 days, then I am no longer responsible, you guys can do whatever you want?". Isn't the above argument an attempt to incite the parishioners to cause further incidents?

The ninth issue, the Document also loudly "denied the legal value of Official Letter 139" by affirming that "the Bishop of Vinh Diocese never proposed bail" for the two subjects Hai and Khoi, and "questioned" that the charges against the two defendants were less than the charges against the case. Is it possible that the Document believes that the charges against the two defendants are too small compared to the acts they committed? And is it also because they clearly know the charges of these two subjects that they now loudly declare "never proposed bail" for them? On the other hand, it is also seen that this Document contradicts Mr. Hop's own promises to the relatives of the two defendants and his words in the meeting with the representative of the leadership of the General Department of Security II that "if necessary, the Bishop's Court will stand up to guarantee".

The tenth content of the Document questioned "why was the military-civilian meeting to deploy socio-economic development tasks arranged and deployed at the entrance gate of the committee, surrounding and everywhere around the committee?". I would like to say that this meeting took place right after two incidents of disturbance and illegal detention by hundreds of extremist Catholics at the headquarters of the Nghi Phuong Commune People's Committee. Therefore, to avoid similar incidents and to protect security and order at state agencies, the presence of functional forces is obvious and necessary. The fact that extremists came to cause disturbance and throw stones was not "invited" by the Nghi Phuong Commune government or functional forces, but by incitement, incitement and the sound of the assembly bell. Dispersing the extremist crowd that violated the law is the task of the functional forces.

Finally, after loudly slandering that “The incident on September 4, 2013 was the result of the police aggression on May 22, 2013 and the illegal arrest of people by the authorities on June 27, 2013”, the Bishop's Court asked the question “what needs to be clarified is why the masses are so upset?” This issue, Nghe An Newspaper analyzed and pointed out in the article “Taking advantage of faith, inciting acts” published on September 20, 2013. That is, the event of Priest Dang Huu Nam, parish priest of Binh Thuan, Nghi Thuan commune, Nghi Loc district, "enthusiastically" entering the Trai Gao family church, My Yen parish, Nghi Phuong commune, Nghi Loc (a place not under his responsibility) to organize prayers and communion on the evening of May 22, in order to incite and gather parishioners to go to Vinh to cause disturbances in the appeal court hearing of Ho Duc Hoa and his accomplices (who are members of the reactionary group Viet Tan) for the crime of overthrowing the people's government. Are the activities of these defendants related to Priest Nam and a number of other dignitaries and officials, that they actively organized communion, prayers, and encouraged these reactionary elements?

The prayer session turned into a communion session for members of the reactionary group Viet Tan working to overthrow the people's government.

It can be affirmed that it was none other than some extremist dignitaries such as Mr. Nguyen Thai Hop and Dang Huu Nam who had actions and words that incited, distorted, and slandered the government, causing "the masses to be angry" and "confused". These people also "seriously offended religious beliefs" when they took advantage of the faith of some gullible parishioners to divide the national solidarity bloc and, more deeply, supported and assisted the reactionary group Viet Tan and hostile forces plotting to overthrow the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. That is the truth behind the cases of parishioners violating the law that occurred consecutively in Nghi Phuong commune (Nghi Loc district) that Nghe An Newspaper has reported recently.

Reporter Group