Precisazioni e chiarificazioni in margine alla nazionalizzazione delle cliniche cattoliche in Eritrea.

La Chiesa, nel continuare il suo servizio al suo Signore, non può non interessarsi anche dei problemi e delle necessità dell’uomo (salute, istruzione, etc.), perché vi è un preciso comandamento di Gesù Cristo, secondo il quale non basta amare e onorare Dio: è altrettanto doveroso amare il prossimo, tutti gli uomini, e fare loro del bene. Il servizio che la Chiesa offre agli uomini e alle donne per mezzo dei suoi figli e figlie non ha finalità di proselitismo religioso: molto semplicemente esse vanno incontro alle necessità degli uomini e delle donne di ogni tempo perché  ciò fa parte integrale della sua fede. Infatti “la fede senza le opere è morta” (Gc 2,26).

Con riferimento alla recente nazionalizzazione delle cliniche cattoliche da parte del governo eritreo, in queste settimane abbiamo registrato alcuni commenti e dichiarazioni palesemente erronei e fuorvianti, a cui riteniamo di dover offrire essenziali chiarificazioni per chi ha interesse di conoscere la verità dei fatti.  

1.- Le recenti misure adottate dal governo eritreo, si dice, sarebbero un’applicazione del proclama del 1995!

Quando fu emanato quel Proclama, la Chiesa Cattolica in Eritrea consegnò alle più alte autorità statali una chiara ed articolata riflessione/risposta sui punti centrali del documento, con lo scopo di facilitare una reciproca comprensione e suggerire modifiche e correzioni al medesimo testo. Si partiva dalla premessa che non era possibile tacere quando ci si trovasse di fronte a problemi ed approcci che toccavano la propria identità, i propri diritti e doveri. Per questo si proponeva al Governo un dialogo, in quanto ciò costituiva parte della sostanza della libertà, la quale a sua volta avrebbe permesso alla Chiesa di autodefinirsi e di illustrare la propria identità, i propri diritti, missione e servizi. Più specificatamente, nella sua riposta, la Chiesa chiarì, puntualizzò e corresse gli errori e le imprecisioni contenute nel Proclama relativamente a quelle specifiche tematiche.

Tutto ciò premesso, la nostra risposta ribadì che ogni servizio che la Chiesa svolge a favore dell’uomo e della donna non solo non ha nulla di incompatibile con le leggi e con la legalità, ma si propone di sostenere i principi che lo stato, qualsiasi stato, afferma di volere promuovere per la vera e autentica crescita e maturità della società umana. In termini di tempo è di spazio, la Chiesa ha perseguito tali finalità per duemila anni e in tutti le latitudini del mondo. Ad essa non bastano chiese e cappelle per esplicitare la sua identità religiosa e celebrare la sua fede. Le occorrono luoghi e strutture anche per attuare quella componente integrale del suo credo religioso che è l’amore per il prossimo. La Chiesa non obbliga nessuno ad avvalersi delle sue attività socio-caritative; è semmai essa stessa obbligata, e ne ha il diritto, di adempiere tutti i suoi doveri verso chi sceglie di ricorrere ai suoi ministeri di carità: poiché, lo ribadiamo ancora una volta, ciò fa parte essenziale della sua fede, e senza di esso questa perde il suo significato. Perciò guai, se per inerzia o pigrizia della Chiesa, tali opere venissero a mancare fra i suoi ministeri! D’altra parte, se per intervento di forze esterne le venisse impedito di svolgere le opere di carità, verrebbe violato il suo diritto al libero esercizio della fede.

2.- Le istituzioni caritative gestite dalla Chiesa, si afferma, non apparterrebbero né ad essa, né agli istituti religiosi ivi impegnati, e nemmeno li riguardano, in quanto sono donazioni di enti di beneficenza.

a. Gli aiuti erogati ai bisognosi che ricorrono alle nostre strutture non sono donazioni di un non meglio specificato e definito, sedicente benefattore, bensì l’espressione di un’organica e programmata cooperazione inter-ecclesiale, cioè fra le comunità cattoliche sparse nel mondo da una parte, e le chiese viventi ed operanti in mezzo alle popolazioni in via di progresso, dall’altra. Gli enti di beneficenza che, in tale contesto, ci offrono i loro aiuti, lo fanno con la deliberata e dichiarata intenzione che siano a nostra completa disposizione, affinché tramite noi raggiungano i bisognosi. A tale fine, gli aiuti ci vengono consegnati in base ad una comprovata e consolidata fiducia nei nostri confronti. Altrimenti, perché mai i nostri partner non li avrebbero consegnati alle istituzioni statali? D’altro canto forse che gli stessi governi non ricevono aiuti destinati al popolo e alla nazione da parte di enti e istituzioni che anch’essi chiamano “sostenitori” o “partner”?

b. Le istituzioni di beneficenza sono libere, nel rispetto della legge, di fare gestire i loro aiuti da chi vogliono. In tale contesto esse scelgono di avvalersi delle congregazioni religiose cattoliche e consegnano ad esse i loro contributi, in quanto le ritengono competenti e dirette conoscitrici delle necessità e dei problemi delle nostre popolazioni.

c. In quanto persona giuridica, anche la Chiesa ha il diritto nativo di acquisire e di possedere: tale diritto afferisce alla sua identità, alla sua fede e ai suoi servizi.

d. Non vediamo nessun ragionevole motivo perché l’esercizio di un simile diritto possa essere vietato, fintantoché rimane immune da reati o da azioni a questi riconducibili. Anzi, tale esercizio è reso inderogabile dai bisogni e dalle necessità delle persone. Con coscienza tranquilla possiamo riaffermare l’integrità morale e la trasparenza deli nostri servizi, ieri come oggi, così come la loro utilità per gli uomini e le donne del nostro paese. E’ quanto può essere attestato da tutti, amici e meno amici, nella stessa misura.

e. In considerazione dei punti di cui sopra, le competenti autorità ministeriali e governative stesse hanno sempre riconosciuto quanto veniva in nostro possesso, attraverso un processo di ricognizione e registrazione legale, con relativa documentazione e sotto il nostro nome.

3. Le cliniche e le scuole gestite dalla chiesa, secondo qualche isolata voce, opererebbero solo in aree cattoliche!

a. Se non fosse che c’è sempre qualche incurabile ingenuo in giro pronto ad abboccare all’amo, e che non sarebbe giusto lasciare che gli ingannatori per hobby o per professione scorrazzino liberamente nei media, la falsità dell’addebito è talmente evidente, che non ci sarebbe nemmeno bisogno di soffermarvisi.  L’lato numero e la diffusione nel mondo di eritrei, istruiti e curati nella scuole e nelle cliniche cattoliche senza distinzione  di razza, di religione, di cultura, sono una vivente testimonianza dell’universalismo delle nostre opere. Siccome tali opere, lungi dall’essere come dei segni sulla sabbia, sono riccamente documentate, archiviate, e riportate nei più svariati curricula e certificati, sarebbe estremamente agevole, per chi se ne curasse, conoscere chi ha studiato dove, e chi si è curato dove! Basterebbe una scorsa ai registri conservati nelle nostre strutture e nei competenti ministeri governativi.

b. Un altro punto che non richiede né studi approfonditi, né analisi, è la distribuzione delle nostre attività caritative e di promozione sociale nell’intero territorio nazionale: basterebbe aprire bene gli occhi e dare uno sguardo alla collocazione geografica delle nostri strutture da una parte, e le aree di insediamento delle comunità cattoliche dall’altra: così la grossolana falsità dell’addebito salterebbe da sola agli occhi!

c. L’accusa che la selezione dei destinatari delle nostre opere obbedirebbe a criteri etnici, religiosi, ecc… è platealmente smentita da un altro dato di fatto: non solo le persone che beneficiano dei nostri servizi, ma perfino quelle che erogano tali servizi – dal portinaio, agli insegnanti, agli, infermieri e ai medici  - appartengono alle più diversificate provenienze religiose, culturali, etniche!

5. Le strutture caritative, così l’ennesima bufala, sarebbero strumenti di proselitismo religioso!

a. I propagatori di questa falsità in genere si ricollegano a quella riportata al n.3 e, inevitabilmente, l’accusa gli si sfarina in mano: se queste strutture servono solo quanti appartengono già alla Chiesa cattolica, come è possibile che le medesime siano strumenti di proselitismo cattolico?

b. Possiamo lanciare una sfida? Se c’è qualcuno o qualcuna - fra le centinaia di migliaia di persone passate per le nostre strutture - a cui è stato chiesto di accettare il Cattolicesimo come precondizione per essere curati o istruiti,  può per favore farsi avanti e alzare la mano a conferma di tale illazione?  Siamo certi che i propagandisti si sarebbero trovati davanti a una smentita senza appello! Più semplicemente è nel modus operandi e nella missione della Chiesa non sfruttare la povertà degli individui per ingrossare le file dei suoi membri e, ugualmente, non accogliere chiunque, spinto o ingannato da interessi materiali, chiedesse di fare parte delle sue comunità di fedeli. Infatti la parola di Gesù è esplicita a tal proposito: “voi mi cercate non perché avete visto dei segni, ma perché avete mangiato di quei pani e vi  siete saziati” (Gv 6,26).

c. Ben diverso è invece il discorso di chi liberamente e spontaneamente chiede di unirsi alla Chiesa cattolica, perché edificato dalla testimonianza di vita e dalla totale dedizione a Dio e ai fratelli di quanti e quante operano nelle nostre strutture. Ma ciò, lungi  dal privare di un diritto il richiedente, è semmai motivo di onore per tutte la parti in gioco: per coloro che con la loro vita e il loro disinteressato servizio incarnano una testimonianza viva e credibile, come per quelli che con piena cognizione di causa, maturo discernimento e libera scelta, lasciandosi ispirare dalla testimonianza delle persone con cui vengono a contatto, decidono di unirsi alla Chiesa cattolica. Tale scelta è frutto della libertà e della lucida riflessione personale;[1] contestualmente, ogni persona ha il diritto inalienabile, radicato nella legge naturale e riconosciuto dalla leggi internazionali, di fare le  proprie scelte religiose, senza condizionamenti e senza coercizioni.

---

[1]

Further Clarifications on the Recent Nationalization of the Catholic Clinics in Eritrea

 

The Church, while carrying on her service to the Lord, cannot forsake the problems and difficulties of man (health, education…). In fact Jesus Christ has left her with an unambiguous commandment: it is not sufficient to love and honor God, it is as much mandatory to love one’s neighbor and to cater to his needs. The services that the Church renders to society through her sons and daughters have no purposes of religious proselytism. She serves man in his diversified needs only and simply because charity is a constitutive part of her faith: in fact, “faith without charity is dead” (Jm 2,26).

With reference to the nationalization of the Catholic Church’s clinics by the Eritrean government, in the last few weeks we have recorded some comments and declarations, which are overtly untrue and misleading. Hence,  the need, on our part, to offer our clarifications and refutations to such allegations for the sake of anyone interested in knowing the truth of the matter.

1.- The recent measures taken by the Government would be, it is said, an application of a 1995 proclamation!

When the Proclamation was issued, the Catholic Church earnestly elaborated a clear and articulate response on the central points of the document, and delivered a finalized text to the highest government authorities. Her aim in doing so was to facilitate a mutual understanding and to suggest modifications and amendments to the Proclamation. The legitimate presupposition from which the Church’s response set out was that it was impossible to keep silent when one is confronted with issues and approaches that, directly or indirectly, infringed on one’s identity, rights and duties. The proposal that was submitted to the Government as a result of the above premise was to be open to dialogue, as this was a substantial part of freedom, which in turn would allow the Church to define herself and to illustrate her duties, rights and mandate. More concretely, in her response, the Church clarified, specified and amended the errors and inaccuracies contained in the Proclamation.

With all of the above in mind, our response restated that whatever service that the Church carries out fort man’s benefit, far from being incompatible with law and legality, purports to buttress the principles that the state itself, every state for that matter, claims to be committed to, for the promotion of society’s veritable growth and maturity. In terms of time and space, the Church has pursued such goals for two thousand years now and in every latitude of the globe. She does not need only churches and chapels to celebrate her faith and to perform her worship. She needs places and structures as well, in order to give concreteness to that other dimension of her faith which is love for neighbor. Obviously the Church would never force anyone to resort to her social and charitable services. Instead, she has the duty, and the right, to fulfill all her responsibilities towards anyone who chooses to benefit from such services, because, let us repeat it once again, this is an irreplaceable part of her religious faith.  If the Church misses such a dimension, it is faith itself that falls into irrelevance. Woe then, if due to inertia or laziness, the Church fails to meet her vocation to the ministry of charity. On the other hand, if and when external forces prevent her from carrying on her works of charity, then they would violate her right to the free exercise of faith.

2. The charitable institutions of the Church - here is another specious allegation - would belong neither to her, nor to the religious institutes in charge of them, and they wouldn’t even concern them, as the said charitable institutions are donations from external benefactor entities.

a. The aid that is delivered out to the needy who come to our structures for help originates not from unspecified, undefined, self-styled benefactors; it is rather the result of an organic and properly planned inter-ecclesial cooperation, i.e. between the Catholic communities throughout the world and the church communities living and ministering in the developing countries. In this context, the donor entities deliver their aid to us with the clear understanding that it is put entirely at our disposal, so that, thorough us, it may  reach out the needy. To that purpose, the aid is delivered to us by the donors on the basis of a proven and consolidated trust towards us. Otherwise one cannot fathom why the donors would not send their donations to the state authorities! On the other hand, who can deny that the governments themselves do receive aid for the population from individuals, groups, and organizations which they call “supporters” or “partners”?

b. The donor institutions are free, always with due respect for the law, to choose or select whomever they see fit to run and administer their aid.  In our specific context, from the very beginning they have chosen to avail themselves of the Catholic religious institutes, and entrusted them with the responsibility of administering their contributions. This they have done on the basis of their high consideration for our personnel’s competence and first-hand knowledge of the needs and problems of our people.

b. Inasmuch as a juridical person, the Church too has the native right to acquire and possess. Such a right is rooted in her very identity, faith and multifarious charitable ministries.

c. This said, we don’t see any reasonable motivation why the exercise of such a right should be outlawed, as long as it remains immune from crime, or whatever action retraceable to crime. To the contrary, the exercise of such a right is made imperative by the urgent needs of the people. In this connection, we have the privilege of stating, with clear conscience, the moral integrity and the transparency of our charitable services to the people, yesterday as much as today, and to reiterate the critical importance of all such services for the people. This can be attest to, anytime, by everybody, friends and not friends alike.

d. In view of the above points, the competent ministerial and government authorities themselves have always recognized whatever aid came into our hands, through a process of recognition, legal recording and related documentation under our own name. 

3. Another gross misrepresentation: the clinics and schools of the Catholic Church would be located only in Catholic areas!

a. Gross misrepresentations such as the above wouldn’t deserve the slightest attention, if it were not for the existence of some  incurably naïve people ready to bite the hook, and for the need to keep track of the fabricators of lie running about the wide spectrum of social media. The sheer  number and the worldwide  spread of Eritrean men and women educated and treated in our catholic institutions irrespective of ethnicity, religion and culture, is an incontrovertible evidence of the universalism of our work.  All such activities are so well documented, properly filed and accurately recorded, that it would be extremely easy, for anyone interested, to verify who has studied or was treated where. Leafing through the registers kept in our centers and at the relevant government ministries would be sufficient to confirm the truth of our statements.  

b.   Another point which does not require particular enquires or deep analyses is the distribution of our charitable activities and  social promotion facilities (clinics and schools) throughout the national territory: it would suffice to give a glance at the map and identify  the location of our social structures on the one hand, and the areas of Catholic settlements on the other: no doubt, the falsehood of the above contention would come to the fore in no uncertain terms!

c. One more solid evidence disproving the claim that the services provided by our centers obey to ethnic, religious or cultural biases, is the fact that not only the beneficiaries of our centers, but the staff and the personnel working in them too, right from the doorman up to the teaching staff, the paramedical and the medical personnel, belong to the most diversified ethnic, religious, and cultural provenances.

4. According to one more hoax, our charitable institutions would be instruments of religious proselytism.

a. The propagandists of such an allegation, generally, reconnect themselves to the one we have already mentioned above (see n.3), and inevitably their accusation is pulverized by its own internal contradiction: if our social structures are supposed to serve only the members of the Catholic community, how on earth is it possible for them to become, at the same time, instruments of Catholic proselytism?   

b. At this point, may we launch a challenge? If, from among the hundreds of thousands of men and woman who have attended our institutions, there is someone to whom conversion to Catholic faith was requested as a precondition for access to our services, can he or she please raise his or her hand? We are definitely certain that the above accusers would be hopelessly belied by all the evidences to the contrary. More simply, it is a normative modus operandi of he Church not to exploit the poverty of people in order to increase the numerical consistency of her membership. By the same token, the Church would never accept anyone who would ask to join her faith community guided by material interests; for the Lord’s word is explicit: “you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I have performed, but because you ate the loaves and had your fill” (Jn 6,26).

C. Quite different is instead the situation of those who, inspired by the witness of total dedication to God and to the brothers offered by the men and women serving in our structures, freely and spontaneously ask to join the Catholic Church. Here we have an instance in which the applicant cannot be deprived of the right of free choice. Rather, there is sufficient room for a legitimate pride for all the parties involved: for those who, with their life and selfless service, incarnate a living and credible witness, as well as those who, with full knowledge, mature discernment and free deliberation, choose to join the Catholic Church.  The truth in fact is that every person has the inalienable right, rooted in the natural law and recognized by international legislation, to make his religious choice, without coercion, manipulation or conditioning of any type.

Clarifications about the recent nationalization of the Catholic Church’s Health Centers in Eritrea

kòq ÃöIÊq ŠrDïŠgñq kòo‹X]oñ¥} „íXqV

ERITREAN CATHOLIC SECRETARIAT (Er.C.S)

2/4 Digsa Street-178

P.O.Box 1990

ASMARA-ERITREA

Tel. 120514/125000

Fax +291-1-120070

E-mail: ercsec@tse.com.er

…]KV________________

ASMARA

cëÃöU_________________

Ref. No

Clarifications about the recent nationalization

of the Catholic Church’s Health Centers in Eritrea

Asmara, 25 June 2019

(Translation from the Tigrinya original language)

In recent weeks, twenty-one Catholic Church-owned clinics, spread throughout the country, have been confiscated on the orders of the Eritrean government. If we recall the eight closures of last year, again at the order of the government, the health Centers condemned to suffer such a fate amount to twenty-nine units. Though the Catholic Bishops have expressed their opposition to this measure, they have not yet received any response from the State authorities. On the other hand, some information has been passed on to the mass media which, for being decidedly erroneous or deliberately misleading, is confusing those who, far or near, are unable to verify its reliability. It is precisely for the benefit of the latter that we consider it our duty to offer the following clarifications and specifications.

1. Mr. Tajadin Abedel Aziz, Director of the Public Relations Office of the Ministry of Health, in an interview with Asmara’s correspondent of Radio Voice of America on 12 June 2019 said, against the evidence of the facts, that “it was a matter of administrative actions of delivery and not of closure or of nationalization of the Centers, or of intimidation of staff and employees.”

• Well, we all know what the terms “delivery/passing on of something to someone” mean in the common modus operandi. How then to define behaviors such as: taking unilateral decisions about our structures and personnel without any previous agreement on the matter, without any notice, without a minimum of dialogue with the legitimate superior authorities who own those structures, without any attempt to understand the spirit and purpose of such institutions?
• If it had been a matter of “delivery”, is it acceptable that those who requested them [the government envoys], indeed imposed them, did so without presenting a letter, a formal written piece of document of accompaniment, signed by the higher sending and ordering authority? In the absence of all this, can anyone politely tell us in which category of actions should we classify what has happened in our Centers in these days?

·         Such being the situation, it is useless to declare that this was not a question of nationalization: the action taken against our Clinics was not only such, but on account of the way it was carried out, it went far beyond mere nationalization! While in some locations actions of force were involved, in other Centers the staff were ordered to “get out of the way”, the premises were sealed, and the staff was placed in a position to be unable to accommodate patients…

·         Words of threat and bullying have been spoken in various Centers. This could be observed by people who, unexpectedly, found themselves involved during the course of these deplorable events. When the staff on duty at our Clinics were required to sign the property transfer of the premises, and legitimately and conscientiously replied that such an act was not of their competence - as they were just mere executors of higher orders, and specified that such an act was of competence of the Church authority - at this stage the reaction of those making the request was more of intimidation and, sometimes, of blandishment.

2. Often, when issues such as the ones we are now talking about are raised, there is a kind of mantra repeated over and over again: “We have not touched religion”, “religious freedom is protected and guaranteed by law”, “Eritrea is a secular state” (in Tigrinya ‘alemawi: secular’), “State and religions, Politics and religions are separate realities”, and so on.

·         It is our firm belief that, with the recent requisitions of our Clinics, a specific right of our religion has been violated, which prescribes “to love others and to do good to them”. Any measure that prevents us from fulfilling - within the law and without harming anyone - the obligations that come to us from the supreme commandment of brotherly love, is and remains a violation of the fundamental right of religious freedom. At the same time, another right is violated: the right of people who choose, or need to, make use of our social services.

·         To freely carry out a just obligation of one’s own religion, without harming others and in full compliance with the law, in no way can be configured as an encroachment on politics. In this case, neither we nor our social institutions can be accused of “political interference”, just as we cannot be accused of having exceeded the limits of our rights or of having committed acts of partisanship, ethnic-religious discrimination or favoritism, in our services among the population. The persons who, in one way or another, attend the contexts in which we operate and serve, will be able to witness to this without fear of denial.

·         Moreover, does the fact that a State pursues a secular political line imply the right to impede, on its part, the works of charity that are carried out on the basis of one’s religious belief? If there is a new definition of secularity, we would be really happy to know about it! Otherwise, what is the point of trumpeting the full respect of religious freedom while, at the same time, the State binds hands and feet (figuratively!) to those who, for a free personal choice, have dedicated their lives to the service of others, especially the neediest?

·      More was said about the clinics in question: it was stated that their closure would not have a significant (negative) impact on the NHS, and even if such an impact existed, it wouldn’t make any difference... There’s no need to discuss the matter! It would suffice that a third and autonomous party goes to the sites and checks the situation personally, or that it inspects the records of the Ministry of Health, which monthly collected reports on the activities carried out by our Clinics: it would have seen firsthand that the patients making daily use of such clinics are in the hundreds, while the annual figures amounted to more than 200.000 patients. These numbers are enough to highlight the total untenability of the aforementioned statements.

3. There are many States in the world, among which some of the countries not far from Eritrea, that follow the so-called “lay” or “secular” political line. Nonetheless, they have not banned the charitable and social works of the Church or confiscated the means and structures that the Church owns and uses to carry on such works. In those countries, the Church has always operated, and it still operates, without problems and without hindrance. Unfortunately, here with us, this pseudo-argument is becoming a pretext or a cover-up for an embezzlement of Church’s assets and for an unjust proscription of its social activities.

4. Finally, it must be taken note of , fortunately isolated, defamation campaign against the staff employed in the health Centers of the Catholic Church: innocent staff, who in this way is struck with impunity in its honorability. The creator of this muck-machine is a certain Edoardo Calcagno, journalist of the “Good Morning News” website . Having compiled information completely bereft of sources and evidence, the journalist carried out an irresponsible act, devoid of the most basic sense of professional ethics. Who’s behind it? What interests are at stake? Whatever the possible answers to these questions, the fact is that the reporter has presented the employees of our clinics in the guise of a corrupt gang, responsible for diverting the money destined for activities of the Centers. The recent government nationalization of the Clinics, always in his opinion, is to be regarded as a response to such misdeeds!

·         The very fact that someone like Calcagno, who has the blessing of living in a free and democratic country, has chosen to make such infamous judgments without having listened to the opinion of both sides involved, is in itself an indication of the non-transparent purpose of his work and of his questionable credibility.

·         Secondly, the charities that finance the activities of our Centers and regularly review the accounts are geographically not far from where he works; and it would not have been a superhuman undertaking for him to scroll through the regular reports that our offices submit to them semi-annually and annually.

·         Finally, the fact that the government officials charged with nationalizing the Clinics or, as they say, with “taking them under their care” have not made the slightest mention of corruption, financial mismanagement, incompetence, discrimination of any kind, doesn’t this say anything to the aforementioned journalist? If anything, the suspicion that comes to us is another: will it not have been the very efficiency and administrative cleanliness of our Centers that made them the victim of the measures that we now have to regret?

It is therefore clear that Mr. Calcagno’s charges do not find confirmation in the same bodies for which he has chosen to spend his generous advocacy!