VZCZCXRO5605
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHDG #2053/01 2431203
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 311203Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY SANTO DOMINGO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9114
INFO RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHPU/AMEMBASSY PORT AU PRINCE PRIORITY 4681
RUEHROV/AMEMBASSY VATICAN PRIORITY

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