Legal aspects of the church's request?
"Adam @ UoM" <fforde@unimelb.edu.au>
date Jan 26, 2008 6:13 PM
subject RE: [Vsg] Legal aspects of the church's request? // Access to property ...
I recall a few years ago, as part of some public administration reform work, being told that the % of properties in Ha noi that had decent papers was far far lower than that in HCM City. And that the take-over of Hanoi property by the 'new people' after 1954, by implication, was far less 'legal' (in the very minimal sense of having a decent paper trail) than that in HCM City after 1975. Does anybody know of more recent reliable and systematic work on the evolving realities of access to property in the two centres, and the changing practices? I am more interested in the realities than the formal systems, for obvious reasons. One could hypothesise that these issues have probably been solved in default rather than through formal consistent 'legalistic' rulings. Which would suggest that the Party has had internal rulings / norms when needed.
Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: vsg-bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu [mailto:vsg-bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of T. Nguyen
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2008 2:47 AM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: [Vsg] Legal aspects of the church's request?
Dear VSG members:
Recently hundreds of Vietnamese Catholics had a public demonstration in Ha Noi asking the government to return to the Church a piece of property that she previously owned. Putting aside historical and political aspects of this matter, I am interested in different legal aspects and interpretations on the Church' s request. Could someone comment on this?
Thanks so much and I am looking forward to learning from you.
Thanh Nguyen
Instructor, Vietnamese Language and Culture
Mission College
Santa Clara, California.
From: T. Nguyen <nguyenthanhbl@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Dear VSG members:
Recently hundreds of Vietnamese Catholics had a public demonstration in Ha Noi asking the government to return to the Church a piece of property that she previously owned. Putting aside historical and political aspects of this matter, I am interested in different legal aspects and interpretations on the Church' s request. Could someone comment on this?
Thanks so much and I am looking forward to learning from you.
Thanh Nguyen
Instructor, Vietnamese Language and Culture
Mission College
Santa Clara, California.
--------
From: Sidel, Mark <mark-sidel@uiowa.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Attachments: winmail.dat
Any more information on this demonstration (and on calls or provisions for return or transfer of property held by the government or Party to religious, charitable, nonprofit or other such institutions) would be warmly welcomed....
Mark Sidel
mark-sidel@uiowa.edu
--------
From: Diane Fox <DNFOX@holycross.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 9:28 AM
yes--along with anything else on church/state relations these days
Diane
--------
From: Tai VanTa <taivanta@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Dear Thanh Nguyen,
I have not done research on this specific case, but my
"shoot from the hip" response to your question about legal
aspect of this request for return of "Toa Kham Su" to the
Vatican is: UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, VIET NAM MUST
EVENTUALLY RETURN to the Vatican THE "TOA KHAM SU", WHICH
PIECE OF LAND, IN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DOCTRINE, RULE AND
PRACTICE,IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO A FOREIGN
STATE, THE VATICAN. SUCH PROPERTY, VIETNAM CAN HOLD AS
CARETAKER--since the dark days of Vietnam's respect(or
disrecpect) for international law in 1954-- BUT CAN NEVER
TAKE IT OVER without flagrantly violating international law
in this globalization era, when Vietnam wants to be known
as an engaged and civilized member of the international
system of modern states.
I predict Vietnam will return it to the Vatican this Toa
Kham Su (the other properties belonging to the Catholic
Church in Vietnam is another matter). Just look at the
radiant smile of the Prime Minister when he visited and
talked nicely to the Archbishop and the people who knew how
to demonstrate peacefully with prayers. I admire them for
doing it. Very moving and effective.
So, I guess VSG should not worry too much or debate too
much about this Toa Kham Su Issue, which is going to be
resolved anyway.
Tai Van Ta
--------
From: thao nguyen <vietthao_99@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Very updated imformation about the church's request has been posted in Vietnamese, English and German at
http://vietcatholic.net
Thao
--------
From: Tuan Hoang <thoang1@nd.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Quoting "Sidel, Mark" <mark-sidel@uiowa.edu>:
> Any more information on this demonstration (and on calls or provisions for return or transfer of property
> held by the government or Party to religious, charitable, nonprofit or other such institutions) would be
> warmly welcomed....
VietCatholic News Agency - or Thong Tan Xa Cong Giao Viet Nam - has been following these events and filed
reports in both English and Vietnamese. (I have no idea whether it is affiliated to a larger group, but
apparently its headquarters is outside Vietnam.) It also republishes some articles from English- and
Italian-language sources. Copied-and-pasted below are three of the recent articles.
http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/default.htm
~Tuan Hoang
------
http://vietcatholic.net/News/Html/51382.htm
-------
http://vietcatholic.net/News/Html/51441.htm
-------
http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Html/51440.htm
--------
From: T. Nguyen <nguyenthanhbl@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Dear Professor Tai,
Thanks so much for your comments on this.
Respectively yours,
Thanh Nguyen
one of your former students
--------
From: frank.proschan@yahoo.com <frank.proschan@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:08 PM
The AP story says the property in question "belongs to the diocese". This would seem to a lay person to be something quite different than belonging to the Vatican as Professor Tai Van Ta indicates. Is there a matter here of distinguishing use from ownership--e.g., land owned by the diocese but used as the "former residence of the apostolic delegation" may not have the same status in international law as land owned by the Vatican? Or land that would have had diplomatic status when it was inhabited by the apostolic delegation but, if owned by the diocese, loses its diplomatic status when no longer used as his residence? Vietnam rents office space on 22nd Street in Washington, and they doubtless have certain diplomatic inviolability within that rented space, but perhaps it has a different legal status than the chancery on Massachusetts Avenue. Perhaps Professor Ta or others have additional information that is not readily apparent from the published news
sources.
Best regards,
Frank Proschan
Paris
-------
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Attachments: winmail.dat
I think prof. Tai is right if it's proven that the property is legally possessed by the Vatican per some form of ownership document. Even in this case, would it be complicated if that ownership document was signed between the Vatican representative and a colonized regime, ie. one that is not being recognized later by the Vietnamese ?
Since I am an ignoramus in this matter, I would defer to prof. Tai's judgment.
In this case, however, Frank is correct: the property does not belong to the Vatican but the Hanoi diocese. The full ownership history is recounted by Tran Minh Khoa in the following article (in Vietnamese only):
http://www.phattuvietnam.net/index.php?nv=News&at=article&sid=2881
Let me try a brief, very brief, summary here:
1. The land orignally belongs to Bao Thien pagoda, a national landmark built in 1057 under the Ly dynasty.
2. The pagoda was heavily damaged during the Trinh troop rebellion, and rebuilt by Governor Ton That Bat under king Tu Duc.
3. In 1873, bishop Puginier, together with Nguyen Huu Do, got the colonial regime's permission to build a wooden church on a part of the land of the pagoda. In 1883, the pagoda was completely razed to provide the land to build what is today Nha Tho Lon or Saint Joseph Church.
[Part of the info is also from "Hanoi Dia Danh" Dictionary, nxb Van Hoa Thong Tin, 1993, pp 26-27 & "Di Tich Van Hoa Viet Nam", nxb Khoa Hoc Xa Hoi, 1993, p. 76]
4. When papal nuncio John Dooley transfered his office to Hanoi in 1950, the Hanoi diocese "lent" him a building within the church complex for his use.
5. Khoa then cites the laws invoked to apply in this case - Luat Cai Cach Ruong Dat (Land Reform Law) of Dec 4, 1953, esp. articles 1, 2, 3, & 10 and others.
This event has caused quite a lively discussion both in VN and overseas. Earlier colleagues have listed the Viet Catholic websites. Here are two in Vietnam among the Buddhists:
http://www.phattuvietnam.net/index.php?nv=News&at=categories&catid=3&start=2569 <http://www.phattuvietnam.net/index.php?nv=News&at=categories&catid=3&start=2569>
http://huongsenviet.blogspot.com/ <http://huongsenviet.blogspot.com/>
The controversy has also surfaced on Talawas - the premium forum among the Vietnamese. A sample:
Le Tuan Huy, "Xin Hay Dung Lai Truoc Khi Qua Muon!" (Please Stop Before It's Too Late!)
http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/showFile.php?res=12024&rb=0401 <http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/showFile.php?res=12024&rb=0401>
Responses to Huy:
Nguyen Huu Liem, "Mot Lich Su Da Muon" (A History Already Too Late")
http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/showFile.php?res=12060&rb=0401 <http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/showFile.php?res=12060&rb=0401>
Tran Chung Ngoc, "Toi Doc Nguyen Huu Liem Va Le Tuan Huy" (I read Nguyen Huu Liem and Le Tuan Huy)http://giaodiemonline.com/2008/01/toidoc.htm <http://giaodiemonline.com/2008/01/toidoc.htm>
Ben Stocking's "Catholic-Communist Land Fight in Vietnam"
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/international-25/1201163963227350.xml&storylist=international <http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/international-25/1201163963227350.xml&storylist=international>
is notable for the fact that he skips over this long history of the land altogether. Should he or shouldn't he - an interesting question for post-colonial study.
-Chung
--------
From: Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
This is a little off the topic, but I notice Chung refers to Talawas as the premium forum among the Vietnamese. Is this site available in Vietnam, and are there sites of similar value either among overseas Vietnamese or published from within Vietnam?
- Steve Denney
--------
From: Peter Hansen <phansen@ourladys.org.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Attachments: winmail.dat
Just for the record, Chung, Ben Stocking interviewed me for the article, I
gave him as much of that history as I could, but it didn't appear in the
article.
Peter Hansen
--------
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 7:29 AM
Attachments: winmail.dat
Dear Father Hansen:
Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. It's so great to know that you did that ! We can then deduce than either Ben Stocking judges that the history is irrelevant, or that his editor deems it irrelevant.
For those members on the list who haven't paid much attention to this issue, let me just add that the case of the Nha Tho Lon Ha Noi is not unique. There exists a pattern in which many pagodas were razed in order to build Catholic churches. Here are a few notable examples:
- Ba Da or Linh Quang pagoda, built in the Ly dynasty, razed to become part of the Nha Tho Lon property and part given to Jean Depuis to construct houses on what is now Pho Nha Tho street.
- La Vang pagoda, built in the Le dynasty, Quang Tri province, razed to become what is now the Duc Me La Vang or the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of La Vang.
- Dieu De pagoda, Hue, part of its land taken to build several government offices in 1885, and a small church (Nha Tho Kim cang) in 1887.
- Nha Tho Duc Ba (Cathedral of Our Lady, Notre Dame Basilica) was built on the land of a dilapidated pagoda in 1877.
All these were part of a well-designed policy to destroy the native culture, replacing it with the culture of the conquerors, to make Vietnam into, to use bishop Puginier's phrase, "a little France."
Since Ben Stocking piece covers the Land dispute, without this historical background, he ends up providing an incomplete narrative, which may, one could ask, be his or his editor's intention. A complete narrative does not change the need for continuing dialogue and understanding, but it would reveal the issue in a much more complex light, not just the simple Church-State, Human rights sort of pigeonhole we see so ever cleverly used by empires and former empires.
I raise this issue because this isn't an isolated occurence. Being a person of Vietnamese origin, I could see this in a lot of reporting in the western press, and a lot in the mainstream scholarship (the works by the majority of American historians on the Vietnam war are, it's really a wonder, a great exception). The fields of post-colonialism and Orientalism have done a lot for Middle-Eastern studies. Communication is a powerful medium, and persistent omission reveals a persisent domination, which has a long history. What we need, I think, is a similar effort in post-colonialism and Orientalism in Vietnamese study.
It should be also noted that Archbishop's Ngo Quang Kiet's letter, which starts the campaign, and Archbbishop Nguyen Van Sang's several communications that follow, do not refer to this long history either. Neither do all the discussions in the Viet Catholic websites, as much as I could see.
It's a real interesting case for post-colonial study.
- Chung
--------
From: johnev@netspace.net.au <johnev@netspace.net.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Dear Chung,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Recent developments as reported on Vietcatholic website leave me rather less
sanguine about this matter than I was last week. I attach importance to these
developments:
- That there were alleged attacks in the press against Archbishop Kiet which,
as you point out, he has publicly repelled;
- That, as you again point out, Bishop Sang from Thai Binh has become
involved, attending at the site, allegedly with a delegation of Thai Binh
Catholics
- That similar 'prayer events' are now occurring (according to Vietcatholic)
at Ky Dong in TPHCM.
All of this suggests a considerable ramping up of what is at stake here,
drawing in the Vietnamese (or even universal) Church as a whole. It seems to
me that there are three possible scenarios:
1. There are negotiations between church and state occuring on a subterranian
basis which are keeping things within acceptable parameters fromr the
viewpoint of both sides; or
2. The Vietnamese Church's collective leadership has boldly determined to
test these parameters of acceptable contestation;
3. The whole process of dissent has taken on a momentum of its own, driven by
its participants, rather than by the ecclesiastical leadership.
I have no idea which of these possibilities constitutes the reality.
Chung, do we know that Archbishop Kiet's first letter actually began the
process? Or was it a follow-on from the actions of others? We know he wrote
the letter, but did he call the lay faithful to prayer in front of the old
Apsotolic Delegation?
Regards,
Peter Hansen
--------
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Attachments: winmail.dat
Dear Father Hansen:
I think it's true that the issues with the Toa Kham land in Hanoi as well as with many other locations have always been underground flash points for the Vietnamese Catholics. Archbishop Kiet's letter, however, made it an official matter for the first time, allowing public and open participation by the faithful.
As for what's going to happen, I am as much in the dark as anyone: I have no insider information or contact. All I know is based on what I read and my long-term interest in current and past events in Vietnam.
As you probably have seen by now, the recent letter of the Vatican's Secretary of State to Archbishop Ngo Quang Kiet has thrown even more mystery into the question. It says:
"But on the other hand, the fact that such demonstrations continue, can only raise some concerns, because, as it often happens in similar cases, there exists a real danger that the situation can get out of control, and that it can degenerate into demonstrations of verbal or even physical violence.
This is why, in the name of the Holy Father, who is constantly informed of the evolution of the situation, I kindly request you to intervene, so that acts which could disrupt the public order be avoided, and that the situation comes back to normality. It will be thus possible, in a more serene climate, to resume the dialogue with the authorities, in order to find a fitting solution to this delicate problem."
This has been the government's request to the diocese for quite a while, to which the diocese has always rejected.
I have no idea what brings this about, it certainly, on the face of it, it will aid the process of normalization of relations.
Let me ask you about a few matters that have always bothered me. First let me explain where I am coming from.
I always have a great deal of admiration for the progressive Catholic tradition in the US - Dorothy Day's Catholic Workers movement, the Berrigan Brothers, the stand of the Bishop Conference towards the war, etc. Part of this , I think, has its root in the fact the American Catholics came to America as a minority that had been harshly discriminated against by the Protestant majority. It had been a long hard road to equality and respect.
The goal, I think, is nothing better than the emergence of a vibrant Catholic community in VN, which moves beyond the constraints and prejudices of the past and contributes substantially to the rebuilding of the country. A little competition not only does not hurt anyone, it could do a world of good in the complex environment we are living in.
The case of Vietnam is, of course, not the same as that of the American church. After the eighty years under the French, what could be called, to borrow a term from the post-colonial scholar Vicent L. Rafael, a "colonial-Christian" regime, we came to the US-supported Catholic regime of Ngo Dinh Diem (with the State-Department - directed formation of the Catholic-only Can Lao party), and finally to Nguyen Van Thieu's, which some call a Diem without Diem rule for the party he created rehired many of the Can Lao members.
We can see that the protests in Hanoi and elsewhere in Vietnam have been restrained when compared to the support for it in the overseas Catholic community. The overseas faithful could barely contain the anger. Steep in the Pius XII position, reinforced by Father Hoang Quynh view that "Tha Mat Nuoc Hon Tha Mat Chua" (tough to translate this, but roughly - We rather give up our country than abandon our Lord, a conflict between loyalty to one's country and to one's religion that had never occured in Vietnamese history before), perhaps nothing would be better than to be able to overthrow the "atheist" regime in Hanoi. For that reason, Father Nguyen Thanh Liem of Lien Doan CGVN Tai Hoa Ky (The Federation of Vietnamese Catholics in the USA) issues the threat that with the Catholic influence overseas - inside the US Catholic hierarchy, the US government, etc., VN could face pressure from the US with serious loss of trade and business, unless the Catholic demand is met. (http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Html/51593.htm <http://email.umb.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Html/51593.htm> )
Due to the happenstances of history, the Vietnamese Catholic church is very much still deep in the old tradition. It has not had to face the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the industrial and post-industrial challenges as have many churches in the West.
With the above background -
1) Do you think such tactic as this (Father Liem's) would be most effective in the long run ?
2) In all the proclamations, discussions, protests we have seen so far, the issue is framed strictly as between the diocese and the government. The rest of the country is not seen as part of the conversation. Do you think the issue involves the Buddhists, or other Vietnamese in general ?
3) What should the church do vis-a-vis its past history re: the taking of Buddhist's temples & support of other anti-Buddhist policies (eg. "Du so 10" or Ordinance #10 which recognizes Christianity as a religion but not Buddhism).
I wish to thank Father Hansen for giving me the opportunity to raise these issues. Please ignore any question that you find not appropriate at the moment. It's always my belief that if we are sincere and of good will, we should always be able to discuss things frankly, and come up with an approach that perhaps would be acceptable to all sides and therefore long lasting.
Warm Regards,
Chung
--------
From: johnev@netspace.net.au <johnev@netspace.net.au>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Dear Chung,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'd prefer not to widen the discussion
to one concerning the overall nature of Vietnamese Catholicism, or the
historical antecedents of the Catholic-Buddhist relationship in Vietnam,
interesting as those topics may be. I dio wonder, though, what are the basis
for youer claims that the Shine at La Vang is built on the site of a Buddhist
Temple. I always thought it was built on the site of the apparition, and that
that event occurred in a forest. Can anyone enlighten us on this point?
Best wishes,
--------