Religion
The best way to describe the split in the Croatian Catholic Church is to talk about Bishop Josip Strossmayer and Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac. (I am stealing this device blatantly from Robert Kaplan).
But first:
A bit of theology.
During the rule of the Habsburgs, Croatian Catholic theologians were increasingly looking for ways to promote Christian unity among the Slavic people. Remember, Croats were Roman Catholics, living in the Balkans, an Orthodox Christian place, a Muslim place. But these Croat theologians wanted to look beyond the schism of Rome and Constantinople way back in the Middle Ages in 1054, and find what they may have in common with their Orthodox Christian brethren. To do this, they looked to the 9th century, to Cyril and Methodius, the two apostles who converted the Slavs to Christianity. Basically, Croat theologians were looking to a time when the “Yugo” (South) Slavs were one. Cyril and Methodius were representative of unity between Catholic and Orthodox churches.
But then the schism in 1054 between Rome and Constantinople screwed up any unity Cyril and Methodius may have been hoping for, and most of their converts had become members of the Orthodox church, so Croatians are pretty much the ONLY Catholics in the world who revere Cyril and Methodius with such passion.
The passion for Cyril and Methodius started coming alive in the 19th century, due to one man: Bishop Josip Strossmayer.
A quote from Robert Kaplan about this remarkable man:
Strossmayer — Croatian patriat, philanthropist, founder of the University of Zagreb, accomplished linguist and gardener, breeder of Lippizaner horses, wine connoisseur, and raconteur. As a Croatian Catholic intellectual, Strossmayer accepted in full the equality and legitimacy of the Serbian Orthodox church. When he sent a letter of congratulations to Orthodox bishops on the millennium of Methodius’ birth, he was denouced by his fellow Catholics in Austria-Hungary and the Vatican. The Habsburg emperor, Franz Joseph, insulted Strossmayer to his face. Strossmayer, in response, warned the Habsburgs that continued misrule in Bosnia-Hercegovina — the province south and east of Croatia, where many Croats lived among Serbs and local Muslims — would lead to the collapse of their empire, which is exactly what happened. Dame Rebecca West lauded Strossmayer as a “fearless denunciator of Austro-Hungarian tyranny.” She writes that Strossmayer, who battled both anti-Semitism and anti-Serb racism, was hated by the 19th century Vatican because, in its eyes, he was “lamentably deficient in bigotry.”
Okay, so you get the picture. The man was a renegade. Ahead of his time. His view of Christianity was a healing and inclusive one. How incredible would it have been if Croatia had followed his legacy. But life never seems to work out that way.
In the 1930s another Catholic figure arose to lead and speak for the Croats. This was the archbishop Alojzije Stepinac. He was more of a pious rabble-rouser, and Croats were swept away by him. He incited nationalist pride, ethnic pride, religious pride. (Again: a dangerous mix!) He’s a very confusing elusive guy. You want to judge him, you do judge him, then he does something which makes you re-think the judgment.
Kaplan on Stepinac:
The young Stepinac had found his companions in the Catholic student association insufficiently religious. … Upon taking over the post of archibishop-coadjutor in 1934, Stepinac had himself mantled with the girdle and scapular of the Franciscans, in order to be publicly identified with the ideal of poverty. He soon organized special masses and processions against swearing and the sins of the flesh. His railings, especially against sunbathing and mixed swimming, lent a Cromwellian air to his leadership. According to Stepinac’s own diary, he believed that Catholic ideals of purity should extend to Orthodox Serbia too. “If there were more freedom … Serbia would be Catholic in 20 years,” wrote Stepinac. His dogmatism caused him to think of the Orthodox as apostates. “The most ideal thing would be for the Serbs to return to the faith of their fathers … then we could at last breathe in this part of Europe … ”
In 1941, Germany and Italy invaded. Stepinac found himself trying to play both sides. But he was naive, and not all that bright about what was actually going on. His dread of Communism and of the East, in general, blinded him to the horrors of fascism and the Nazis. He ended up seeing the forest for the trees later on, but by then it was too late. The newspaper of the Croatian Catholic Church began an op-ed campaign, smearing Jews and Marxists. This is nothing new, clearly; nothing specific to Croatia.
But what is interesting about this whole story is the differences between these two archbishops, and how those differences are still in conflict today in Croatia.
Kaplan again:
Strossmayer was a South Slav nationalist struggling against the Austrians and the Vatican, while Stepinac was a purely Croat nationalist who embraced the Vatican and the Austrians in a struggle against his fellow South Slavs, the Serbs. From his early youth, Stepinac was, in Archbishop Bauer’s own words, “excessively pious,” unlike Strossmayer, who loved wine, horses, and the good life.
In 1941, the Croatian fascist group Ustashe proclaimed the “Independent State of Croatia”, which was Stepinac’s dream. He aligned himself with Ustashe (who, basically, were fascist terrorists). Under the Ustashe, Croatia became nothing more than a puppet state divided between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Stepinac was too naive at the time to see what was going on, to see the larger picture. The state, like many other states, began to put into place organized brutality against Orthodox Serbs and Jews.
The reality of this was more than Stepinac bargained for. (See? The man was totally naive.) People took him at his word, and then when he saw them acting on his word, he tried to take it all back. As World War II dragged on, and the pogroms and brutality continued, and Stepinac began to see the light, began to see exactly what this “independent state of Croatia” led by Ustashe meant, he began to publicly confront Ustashe. He tried to stop what was happening. But this would be like Milosevic trying to stop the slaughter in Bosnia, saying softly: “Uhm … hold on a second … this wasn’t REALLY what I was talking about when I mentioned creating a Greater Serbia … sorry for any misunderstanding … uhm …hello? Hello? Is anybody listening?”
The Catholic Church in Croatia stimulted Croats to anti-Serb feeling. Well, I suppose the anti-Serb feeling was always THERE, but the Church encouraged Croats to express their feelings. The Church preferred Croats to be under the rule of fellow-Catholic Austrians and Hungarians than to be outnumbered in a state dominated by Eastern Orthodox Serbs (who were psychologically aligned with Bolshevik Russia.)
It occurs to me that I am writing about this in a very confusing way. Is everybody following me?
The concept of modern nationalism came together at the same time that fascism was rising in Europe. Because of the fight against fascism and Communism, Croatia found itself aligned with Nazism (many countries had to make these choices). Croatia refuses to apologize for this to this day.
There was a mass murder of Orthodox Serbs by Catholics (instigated by the Ustashe) at a Croatian death camp called Jesenovac. This is that whole “arguing about numbers” phenomenon which I brought up yesterday. People are still arguing about what happened at Jesenovac, and how many people were killed. “Oh, come on, only 70,000 people were killed…” ONLY 70,000? Death camps were erected by the Ustashe, at the instigation of the Nazis, and Ustashe herded the Jewish and the Serbian populations into the death camps to be killed. The Ustashe, in Bosnia, threw Serbian Orthodox women and children off of cliffs. Stepinac’s meek speeches about the “sixth commandment being Thou shalt not kill” had no effect at all.
Stepinac’s tunnel vision and ethnic blindness made him feel that Croatians were the most brutalized of all people by World War II. What happened throughout the rest of Europe, and the rest of Yugoslavia, to Poles, Jews, Serbs, Gypsies, Muslims, Czechs … had no reality for him. He didn’t “get it”. He also didn’t get the long-term impact of aligning himself with the Nazi-puppet Ustashe.
World War II ended, leaving Croatia part of the brand-new Communist state of Yugoslavia. Which was the Croats’ (and Stepinac’s) worst fears realized. Being under the yoke of the dreaded East, being led by the awful atheistic Bolsheviks.
In 1946, Tito, the leader of Yugoslavia, put Stepinac on trial for “war crimes”. But what it was really about was that Tito recognized that Stepinac would be a challenge to his leadership, that somehow Tito had to crush the Catholic Church in Croatia, in order to be an effective dictator. He met with Stepinac a couple of times, before charging him with anything, trying to persuade him to break free of the Vatican, and create a “free Church of Croatia”. The other churches in Yugoslavia had already done so, which meant that the churches were subservient to the Communist regime. Stepinac refused. He refused to break with the Vatican. Not only did he refuse to break with the Vatican, but he continued to denounce Communism publicly. He knew that he had screwed up by being part of the murderous Ustashe. He knew that Tito knew of his involvement with Ustashe. But he had seen the error of his ways, and he refused to budge.
So Tito arranged a show trial, accusing him of being a “war criminal” and Stepinac was convicted. Officially, he is still persona non grata in Croatia. But by martyring him in 1946, Tito created a monster. Ever since then, the Yugoslave “state” apparatus had next to no legitimacy in the eyes of the Catholic Church in Croatia.
He is buried in the Zagreb Cathedral, and a long line of people come to see him and pray at his tomb every day. For years and years, Pope John Paul II had wanted to come and kneel at Stepinac’s tomb, but the authorities in Belgrade had long denied him permission. Of course. I actually don’t know if the Pope ever has visited Croatia, since the crack-up of Yugoslavia. It would be interesting to get a little epilogue to this whole story. I do know that Pope John Paul II made Stepinac a cardinal, in the 1950s, acknowledging what he saw to be his greatness and his commitment to the faith.
So the Vatican sees Stepinac as a hero against Communism. Others see Stepinac as a brutal butcher, who allowed and made possible the executions of thousands of Serbs and Jews. Stories about Stepinac’s behavior abound: he would perform forced mass conversions of Orthodox Serbs, right before they all were executed. So they would be able to “go to heaven” once killed.
Kaplan, traveling through Croatia in 1989, talked to everybody he met (college professors, waitresses, nuns, people on trains) about Stepinac. Here are a random selection of the quotes he gathered, just to show what a hot and divisive issue it continues to be:
Ethnic Serb on the train: “The Croatian fascists did not have gas chambers at Jesenovac. They had only knives and mallets with which to commit mass murder … The slaughter was chaotic, nobody bothered to keep count.”
An old woman at Stepinac’s tomb in Zagreb, clung to Kaplan’s arm: “Write well of him. He was our hero, not a war criminal.”
A government official: “The judgment for us is final: Stepinac was a quisling butcher — the priest who baptized with one hand and slaughtered with another.”
A monsignor in the Croatian Catholic Church: “Stepinac is a great ecclesiastical figure of Europe; we will not let them drag him down. We will defend him … War is half-criminal anyway. Why single out Stepinac? We can’t deny everything. What happened at Jesenovac was tragic; maybe 60,000 were killed, maybe a little more, certainly not 700,000.”
A Croatian Catholic politician: “The young [Catholic] priests are now uneducated. Only when educated young men are attracted to the priesthood can pressure mount from below for the Church to look seriously at its own past and at Stepinac.”
And finally: here is an interesting analysis by Kaplan, of the character of the Catholic Church in Croatia:
“The Church, like so much of Zagreb, was for decades a wounded being. Since 1945, the Church’s raison d’etre, its all-consuming responsibility to its flock, was its own physical survival. Communism had backed the Church against a wall, as the last sovereign remnant of the Croat nation — hunted, oppressed, attracting only the uneducated poor to its clerical ranks. In contrast, the Orthodox churches were accustomed to this kind of oppression. Under the Ottoman Turks, they had learned the art of survival: how to deal with rulers whose malevolence was presumed as an ordinary, uncontrollable force of nature, like wind or sleet, in order to preserve what was most important.
But the Croatian Church, with no comparable experience under the Catholic Habsburgs and, furthermore, emboldened by an external protector, the Holy See in Rome, was unwilling to concede an inch of disputed historical ground, defending even what need not and should not have been defended…
In Zagreb, I learned that the struggle for bare survival leaves little room for renewal or for creation. While Ukrainians and others openly apologized for their actions against Jews during the Holocaust, Croatian groups only issued denials. The statistics on mass murder in Croatia were exaggerated, I was told. Weren’t the Serbs also guilty of atrocities in World War II? And weren’t the remaining Jews in Croatia being treated well? Undoubtedly, these arguments had a certain validity.
What troubled me, however, was the Croats’ evident need to hide behind them, as if a simple apology without qualifiers might delegitimate them as a nation … A brave and unambiguous appraisal of the past is necessary to untangle these threads.
Why did the Ukrainians act one way and the Croats another? Because the Ukrainians, in 1991 and 1992, were not having their cities bombed and their people brutalized in an unprovoked war of aggression. The war in Yugoslavia — the struggle for survival — has postponed the self-examination of Holocaust history in Croatia. But come it must.”
