DOMINICAN CHURCH VIA MFA REJECTS ALLEGATIONS OF

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SANTO DOMINGO 002053

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR WHA, WHA/CAR NORMAN. DRL, G/TIP

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PGOV SMIG PHUM HA DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN CHURCH VIA MFA REJECTS ALLEGATIONS OF
MIGRANT MISTREATMENT



1. (SBU) In a letter sent by the Dominican MFA to all
ambassadors resident, but personally delivered to Embassy's
Charge d'Affaires, a.i. on August 30, as well as ambassadors
from Canada, France, and the United Kingdom, Bishop Francisco
Ozoria Acosta of the Diocese of San Pedro de Macoris revisits
the December 2006 removal of Haitian-rights activist Fr.
Christopher Hartley from his parish of San Jose de Los
Llanos. By declaring Hartley to have been removed for
"serious errors committed in detriment to his pastoral work,"
the Church implicitly discredits Hartley's allegations of
serious mistreatment of undocumented Haitian workers on
Dominican sugar cane plantations (bateys). The Church also
directly refutes media claims that Hartley's departure was a
result of pressure from Dominican "big sugar." Embassy views
the timing of this latest letter and the method of delivery
as part of a larger Dominican effort to secure support for a
UN Security Council seat.


2. (U) A copy of the original letter will be forwarded to
WHA/CAR. Embassy translation follows. Begin text:

Monsignor Francisco Ozoria Acosta
Bishop of San Pedro de Macoris
No. 23/07
10 August 2007

Distinguished Ambassador:

Recently I wrote the congregation of the Diocese of San Pedro
de Macoris (on December 21, 2006) regarding the decision we
took to conclude the parochial work of Father Christopher
Hartley Sartorius as we could no longer accept (incardinar)
him in our diocese on grounds that are exclusively inherent
to our priestly ministry.

Not withstanding this decision, the press, national as much
as international, has published inexact and false versions of
the reasons that moved us to take this decision.

This communication may serve to clarify for you and for the
authorities which you represent, that Father Hartley ended
his work in the Parish of San Jose de Los Llanos because of
serious errors committed in detriment to his pastoral work
that were committed during his residence in this diocese. I
must also say that much good was done by Father Hartley in
the Parish of Los Llanos while in the diocese.

Consequently, I wish to clarify that whichever version that
affirms, insinuates, or suggests that our decision was in
service of or in response to pressures imposed by sugar
producers that operate in our diocese is false.

I would like to take this occasion to add that, with the
departure of Father Christopher, we have not abandoned
evangelical work in the Parish of Los Llanos, whose
responsibility is now that of the Paulist Fathers. They,
with tremendous charity and Christian self-denial, serve in a
disinterested manner all of the population of that parish. I
add that there have always been and that there still are
other priests and pastoral agents working directly, but
discretely, in favor of the defense of the rights of the poor
be they Haitians or Dominicans.

I trust that this clarification will be sufficient to correct
any misinterpretation on the part of your government and the
international public regarding this incident. We hope that
one piece of misinformation neither drags down the image of
the Dominican Republic, a county with such interest in giving
aid and assistance to the Haitian population in the county;
nor the Church, which has always taken seriously its pastoral
work.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

I extend my blessings.

End text.



3. (U) Embassy translated excerpts from the Pastoral letter
of December 21, 2006, follow, as much as they directly touch
on the issue. Full Spanish-language text of this letter will
be forwarded to WHA/CAR. Begin text.

In other news, I want to give some information that will be
useful for the entire diocese: Fathers Christopher (Hartley)
and Antonio have left the diocese.

SANTO DOMI 00002053 002 OF 002



Father Antonio was already here when this diocese was
established and remained for 11 years, working with love and
a missionary spirit. We can see the spiritual, human, and
material transformation that he brought about as head of the
Parish of San Antonio de Padua de El Puerto. We remember
with gratitude all of Father Antonio's support of the diocese
and the parish.

When we began to elaborate our Pastoral Plan, Father Antonio
was not in complete agreement with what was decided. He
expressed this disagreement on various occasions, including
on a spiritual retreat with Father Christopher and in a
letter directed to me questioning the plan in relation to
Church doctrine.

As I didn't respond to the this letter in order to not
polarize the situation, in a second letter I was again
invited to reply. Allow me to quote a paragraph:

Perhaps the reason that you have not given me a response to
my letter is that I am not in your complete confidence. If
this is the case, this would be a personal, priestly, and
ecclesiastical situation for me . . . Without your
express confidence, I don't believe I could continue in this
diocese further. . . .

(The Bishop now details the dismissal of Antonio through
non-renewal of his contract.)

In this situation now enters Father Christopher wishing to
defend his great friend Antonio. Father Christopher came to
this Diocese motivated and recommended by Father Antonio.

Received by and serving the Archdiocese of New York, he came
here to give assistance as a missionary for one year. After
that year passed, he was renewed for a second year and later,
as all was progressing well, for another four years. At the
completion of those four years, and without previously
consulting me, he asked the Archbishop of New York to remove
him from that Archdiocese. I happened to speak to the
Cardinal Archbishop of New York, he asked me if I was
disposed to accept Father Hartley for service in the Diocese
of San Pedro de Macoris. I responded to Cardinal Egan that,
as I had never heard of this issue before, I would be open to
the possibility of beginning the process of formal
acceptance, which takes three years. In January 2006 (one
year and seven months later) I responded to the Father and
sent a copy to the Cardinal, that I could not welcome him
into the Diocese of San Pedro de Macoris. With this
communication the process was terminated. The Father
remained past this time, I expected the Cardinal or the
Father to take the decision (to order departure or depart),
but it did not end up this way.

Though I remained with this hope, Father Christopher
intervened in a disloyal and anti-ecclesiastcal manner,
through the commission of very serious acts. All of this I
can prove. Luckily, a recorder came into my possession that
contains proof of the crime (delito). (Father Hartley had
said that he had lost this recorder.)

Father Hartley did not leave this Diocese for the good he had
done. We asked Father Hartley to leave this diocese for
grave crimes which we will not discuss. . . .

End text.
BULLEN