From: CNguyen.osbu_north@xerox.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: Re: [POL] Ho`a Ho+.p Ho`a Gia?i & Gia'o Ho^.i Thie^n Chu'a
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:23:41 GMT
Reply-To: Cuong_M._Nguyen.OSBU_North@xerox.com
Organization: SCV Relay
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu



From:	nguyend@netcom.com (Quang Dinh)
>  BK wrote :
>>
>> 1. To`a Tha'nh Vatican dda~ hai la^`n cu+? pha'i ddoa`n sang VN
>>    ga<.p go+~ va` ddo^'i thoa.i tru+.c tie^'p vo+'i Chi'nh Quye^`n
>>    Co^.ng Sa?n Ha` No^.i -
>>
>> 2. Chi'nh quye^`n CS Ha` No^.i tha'ng 6 vu+`a qua dda~ cu+? pha'i
>>    ddoa`n sang ga<.p go+~ Toa` Tha'nh Vatican (Gia'o Ho^.i Thie^n
>>    Chu'a Gia'o Hoa`n Vu~)
>>
>   My reply :
>
>    Theo tin tu+` Va<n Pho`ng Trung U+o+ng To^ng Ddo^` Mu.c Vu. Vie^.t
>  Nam Ha?i Ngoa.i ( va<n pho`ng na`y do Ddu+'c o^ng Tra^`n Va<n Hoa`i,
>  phu. ta' cho Ddu+'c Gia'o Hoa`ng , coi so'c ) va` tin tu+` to+` dda<.c
>  san BA'CH VIE^.T pha't ha`nh trong th'ang 7 qua ( to+` ba'o na`y do
>  nho'm cu?a Ba'c si~ Nguye^~n DDan Que^' , 1 ngu+O+`i bi. VC ca^`m tu`
>  vi` ddo`i ho?i Tu+. Do, Da^n Chu? cho VN  , chu? tru+o+ng )   thi` :
>
>   - Trong di.p VC vu+`a qua dda~ cu+? pha'i ddoa`n sang ga<.p go+~
>  Ddu+'c Gia'o Hoa`ng dde^? xin no^'i la.i quan he^. ngoa.i giao
>  va` xin xo? 1 so^' vie^.c. Thi' du. xin va^.n ddo^.ng giu'p ddo+~
>  ta`i cha'nh,  nho+` Vatican va^.n ddo^.ng chi'nh quye^`n My~ Lift
>  Embargo cho VC.
>

What had happened to the last 2 times that Vatican sent delegates to Vietnam?
Does anybody know anything? Has Vatican issued any official comment or
statement regarding its 2 trips to Hanoi and the subsequence trip made by Hanoi
to Vatican? Do we have any official statement from the Vatican or it's just
word-of-mouth, hearsays, rumors, etc. so far? We need some official statements
from the Vatican. I hope that someone can provide us or point to us where to
get them. Again, we need "official statement(s)" from the Vatican regarding the
issue.

...
>  BK wrote :
>>
>> 3. Trong Ba?n Tin Ye^?m Tro+. Gia'o Ho^.i (Thie^n chu'a Gia'o) VN
>>    pha't ha`nh tha'ng 7/92, LM Vie^.t Cha^u dda~ cho pho^? bie^'n
>>    ke^' hoa.ch du+. ddi.nh ddu+a 25 pha'i ddoa`n gia'o da^n VN ve^`
>>    tha<m 25 gia'o pha^.n trong nu+o+'c - Mo^~i pha'i ddoa`n go^`m
>>    khoa?ng 24 ngu+o+`i - To^?ng so^' va`o khoa?ng 600 ngu+o+`i tham
>>    du+. cuo^.c ha`nh hu+o+ng - Ke^' hoa.ch na`y ddu+o+.c su+. hu+o+?ng
>>    u+'ng chi'nh thu+'c va` no^`ng nhie^.t cu?a chi'nh quye^`n CS
>>    Ha` No^.i -
>
>   My reply :
>
>    Theo tin tu+'c tu+` nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i trong cuo^.c thi` :
>
>    Chuye^.n na`y co' thie^.t! Linh mu.c Vie^.t Cha^u na`y dda~ nga^y
> tho+ ( ddi tru+o+'c 1975 ne^n kho^ng ne^'m mu`i Vie^.t co^.ng) ba<'t
> tay vo+'i NGO^ THANH NHA`N , 1 ngu+o+`i Vie^.t Nam thie^n ta? o+? My~ co'
> co+ so+? la`m a<n vo+'i Vie^.t co^.ng dde^? to^? chu+'c chuye^'n la`m a<n
> na`y. Ngo^ Thanh Nha`n ddo^`ng y' lo mo.i thu? tu.c xin VISA nha^.p
> ca?nh cho 600 ngu+o+`i na`y va` Nha`n cho 600 ngu+o+`i na`y Free VISA Fee.
>  ( tu+'c la` Nha`n bo? tie^`n tu'i cu?a Nha`n ra lo vu. VISA Fee)
>
>  Bu` la.i, Nha`n se~ lo he^'t mo.i thu? tu.c di chuye^?n, kha'ch sa.n
> no+i a<n cho^'n o+? cho 25 chuye^'n bay na`y. Nhu+ va^.y Nha`n se~ a<n
> tie^`n lo+`i tre^n so^' 600 ngu+o+`i ve^` VN trong di.p Te^'t 93 sa<'p
> to+'i.
> ...

LM Viet Chau, one of the highest ranking Vietnamese Catholic officers overseas
(currently Chu Tich Cong DDong CG HK va Chu Tich HD Tu si VN tai HK ?), was
that careless/ignorance or even naive (nga^y tho+)? Something might go wrong
here. I suspected this is a case of "jumping the gun". It could be a false
start. As one of the top leaders he should have read many classified stuffs.
Knowing a lot is basically a good thing but sometimes it might backfire.

>  NHU+NG , qua su+. pha?n ddo^'i ma.nh me~ cu?a ca'c ngu+o+`i Co^ng gia'o
> o+? ha?i ngoa.i ( dda<.c bie^.t o+? Orange County, Nam Cali, o+? San Jose
> Ba<'c Cali) cu~ng nhu+ qua su+. gia?i thi'ch, trao ddo^?i quan ddie^?m,
> la^.p tru+o+`ng cu~ng nhu+ kinh nghie^.m so^'ng vo+'i Vie^.t co^.ng
> cu?a mo^.t so^' ngu+o+`i hoa.t ddo^.ng trong co^.ng ddo^`ng vo+'i LM
> Vie^.t Cha^u, thi` LM Vie^.t Cha^u dda~ tuye^n bo^' du+'t khoa't ba~i
> bo~ chu+O+ng tri`nh du li.ch ve^` VN co' lo+.i cho Vie^.t co^.ng na`y
> ( LM Cha^u dda~ tuye^n bo^' nhu+ tre^n khi no'i chuye^.n qua phone vo+'i
> 1 u?y ban Co^ng gia'o vu`ng San Jose ddo^`ng tho+`i cu~ng Fax 1 ba?n
> no'i vie^.c LM Cha^u ba~i bo? chuye).

Quang DDinh, can you tell me where I can get a copy of LM Cha^u's statement
over the cancelation of his plan of visiting Vietnam? Since I haven't read it I
can't comment on it, but some VN weekly newspapers I read in San Jose expressed
discontents after reading his statements (he denied of any wrong doing (?), he
said he only continued what's been set up by his predecessor(?))

>
>  BK wrote :
>
> 4. Lo+`i Ddu+'c Tha'nh Cha Gioan Phaolo II dda~ ddu+o+.c ghi la.i
>    trong bu+'c Thu+ Chung nga`y 15 tha'ng 4 na<m 1992 nhu+ sau:
>    "Ddu+`ng dde^? la.i su+. cay dda<'ng na`o giu+~a anh em cu`ng
>     mo^.t da^n to^.c - Ho`a gia?i la` con ddu+o+`ng ta^'t ye^'u
>    dde^? xa^y du+.ng va` ba?o ve^. To^? Quo^'c va` Gia'o Ho^.i"
>

My question to Quang DDinh and other interest people is:

	Between "To^? Quo^'c va` Gia'o Ho^.i" if you have only one choice,
which is to put one aside for the benefit of the other, then which one will you
put aside? Your country or your Vatican (Gia'o Ho^.i)?



/cuong
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese