THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SERBIAN REFUGEES

AIM ZAGREB, 9 December, 1997

The Catholic Church in Croatia emphasizes its opposition to ethnic cleansing and support of everybody's right to a home. We should take it at its word, i.e. wait for the actions! One evidence of the (lack of) success of peaceful reintegration will also be how often will the Catholic and Orthodox priests meet - in the beginning undoubtedly unwillingly, for formal reasons only. Media did not give much space to the conference "The Refugees and NGOs" which late last month gathered representatives of the Yugoslav, Bosnian-Herzegovinian, Croatian and international non-governmental organizations trying to help the so called displaced persons in this region. But, what can be interesting for the mass media and their consumers in the stories which are nothing but variations of misery, sorrow and sufferings?

In view of the logic of the majority of media - always on the lookout for sensations which sell the papers (which, nevertheless, require certain events, i.e. news) - it is quite understandable that refugees are on the margins of their interest, i.e. "written off", same as in politics. However, it is impossible to understand, and even less justify, the fact that churches - which are not only of this world, but should bring celestial values into it - do not see any inspiration, not to mention sensation, in the sufferings of the refugees! The relation of Christian communities towards refugees should be a must for them if only because of the Commandments of Jesus Christ to love precisely those "most humble", in other words those in greatest need, even when they are not of "suitable" national or religious affiliation.

In this context, it is indicative that the National Board for the Implementation of the Programme for the Establishment of Confidence, Accelerated Return and Normalization of Life in the War Affected Areas of the Republic of Croatia does not include any members of either the Catholic or the Serbian Orthodox church. True, the Board also does not have any members from human rights associations which have actively supported peaceful reintegration. But, while the Organization for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights protested, the official church organizations did not react to this "oversight" in the composition of the "supreme" reintegration authority.

For a long time the Catholic church considered only the restriction of the rights of its representatives and communities violation of human rights and freedoms. Being a major feudalist, the Church lagged behind the development of civil society so that it did not find its place in the proclamation of human rights. However, after the Second Vatican Council (1962 - 1965) in particular, the Church has been trying to become a specific - authorized by God himself, i.e. inspired by God-man (Jesus Christ) - champion of the protection and promotion of human rights. As Professor Anton Stres, Chairman of the Commission "Justice and Peace" with the Slovene Bishops' Conference, has put it, it was gradually recognized that the protection of human rights was not dependent on our good will, but rather a Christian duty. Namely, human rights are now interpreted as

• God given.

The practice already deeply rooted in Western parts of Roman Catholic world, as well as in the Protestant parts (reformed Christianity), is but a fragile embryo in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. Had the Belgrade gathering been held in Basel, Bologna, Bordeaux or Bremen, at least one third of the participants would have surely been members of the clergy, if nothing else then as observers. But, at the Belgrade Conference dealing with ways in which non-governmental organizations could assist in the overcoming of refugee problems, only Marko Orsolic, a Bosnian Franciscan well-known for his support of multiculturalism, was present.

Places of worship of the Croatian Catholic Church suffered much damage during the war so that hundreds of thousands of believers had to be "dislocated". Even in regions which were spared war operations, specifically in the region of Banjaluka Bishopric, the pressure was so strong that the very survival of the bishopric was called into question. Generally, in B&H the Catholic Church is much more in favour of all people returning to their homes, than the Croatian Church. This in no way means that the Catholic Church in Croatia is against the return, more precisely of the Serbs, but that this is only an agreement in principle, which can be differently interpreted "in the field". Judging by some statements of the Croatian bishops, as well as frequent gatherings devoted to forgiveness and reconciliation, the Church is now "theoretically" getting ready for a large-scale return of the Serbian refugees, i.e. joint life under new conditions.

It seems that the Catholic Church knows full well what is to be done. A part of an editorial from "Glas Koncila" (The Voice of the Council), a semi-official weekly of the Zagreb, Split, Vrh Bosnia (Sarajevo), Rijeka and Zadar Bishoprics, might serve as a good illustration: "The Croatian state may undertake to agree to the return of all Serbian refugees, those who with the right of residence in the Republic of Croatia, to re-build their demolished homes and churches - no matter who and under what circumstances pulled them down - to guarantee them legal equality, including citizenship. But, the state on its own can do little for the weary and embittered Croats to accept this and to avoid any illegal taking of revenge on the people as well as property. This lays great obligation on those factors who create public opinion, among which the Church ranks high. Indeed, the Catholic Church can exert the greatest influence on the Croatian people with a view to changing the mentality, achieving reconciliation and abandoning any thought of revenge".

The mentioned commentary was written in September 1994, after the Pope John Paul II spoke in Zageb about forgiveness, reconciliation and joint life. However, a year later, after the "Storm", the Croatian Catholic top emphasized its satisfaction with the fact that the Croatian soldiers "have shared bread with those who are not our friends" and that "not a single Serb can claim to have been driven out by force or that any of his property had been taken away from him". Speaking of taking away, institutions of the Catholic Church - which has a highly developed internal cannon laws and considers itself a collective legal expert - did not react appropriately to the "post-Storm" Law on Temporary Taking Over and Management of Specific Property (certain provisions of which were recently revoked by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia). At that euphoric time, when it seemed that the Serbs would never return, the state officials promised that "somebody's/nobody's" abandoned property, after several years of temporary use, would become the property of Croatian settlers in "regions of special state interest".

In its October issue of 1995 "Glas Koncila" wrote that "everyone resettled by force, either because he was expelled or because he fled from violence, will retain his unalienable right to return to his home and the right to his property he left behind". But, nothing concrete resulted from this. This principle was not applied to any specific situation which would necessarily result in the criticism of the Law. Justification for not mentioning the Serbian people was found in the claim that, allegedly, no one had expelled the Serbs, but that they had chosen self-banishment, and that by running away they have de facto renounced their Croatian citizenship, i.e. all rights as Croatian citizens.

Not only have the clerical officials shut their eyes to mass plunder, individual or legalized alike, but the (semi) official formulation was that after the "Storm" "certain crimes, arson and plunder had unfortunately been committed, motivated by hate and revenge". The Church remained rather uncommitted as regards these "certain", in other words, petty (un)defined crimes - even after, for example, it learned from the Croatian Helsinki Board about the murder of hundreds of old men and women. It seemed as if the Church cared more for the reputation of Croatia and keeping its "dirty linen" from the public as it "could be used by the enemy", than for the truth about painful facts which could have been prevented or, at least, partially "washed" by (counter)facts, including, among other things, condemnation of the Church.

In the return of refugees, religious communities play insignificant role, because this is, after all, a process regulated and organized by states and (the so called) international community. However, it would be unfair to lose sight of the fact that, for example, already during the war the Catholic side invited Serbian episcopes and priests to return to Croatia - although the officials of the Serbian Orthodox Church were among the first to arrive to the "RSK" (the Republic of Serbian Krajina) and in 1995, distanced themselves even more from their eparchies and parishes. Although neither the Catholic nor the Serbian Orthodox Church can bring the refugees back, they can play a significant role in, e.g., easing the tension between Croats who have fled the Republic of Srpska and Serbs who are returning to their homes in Lika and the Dalmatian hinterland.

Actually this is "petit point" in which the majority clergymen have the duty to prevent various forms of revenge seeking, ease the tension and stop the spiral of misfortunes. One evidence of the (lack of) success of reintegration will also be how often will the Catholic and Orthodox priests meet in the field, in villages and towns - in the beginning undoubtedly unwillingly, for the sake of form. Important in that sense is the meeting held in June, before the visit of President Franjo Tudjman to Vukovar, between Marin Srakic, Bishop of the Cakovac-Sirmium district, and the Episcope Lukijan of the Osijek-Baranja region. On the other hand, two months later, it was impossible to avoid the Croatian - Serbian, i.e. Catholic - Orthodox "clinch" in Drnis, which, after all, ended without serious consequences.

The Catholic Church in Croatia insists on its opposition to ethnic cleansing and the so called "human re-settlement", and support of the recognition of the right to a home for everyone. We should take it at its word, i.e. wait for the actions! In other words, it is time for peaceful reintegration, and not only in Vukovar or Baranja, to practically get the full support of the Church, which is by definition the champion of peace and love. The Church has many wounds: dozens of thousands of Catholics (Croats) are far from their homes, hundreds of places of worship have been desecrated, the religious life is improvised...But, the path of the Church - especially of that which emphasizes its ecumenism, as well as a special place in Christianity - is a "paradox", if not "absurdity". Just like the love of Jesus for everyone, including the (until recent) enemies - from whom friends are made by this "paradoxal" practice of understanding, forgiveness and neighbourliness.

MIRKO VID MLAKAR