www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Mgr Stepinac and the genocide agains Orthodox Christians

I read that currently in the Roman Catholic Church there's a proccess in order to approve the canonization of the Croat Bishop Alojzje Stepinac, who was the Archbishop of Zagreb dring the Ustase regime before and during WW-II. After the request of the Croatian Bishops and the support of the nationalists, Pope John Paul II beatified Stepinac in 1998. The probable canonization appears in a moment when most Croatians have the "duce" Ante Pavelic, as well as Archbishop Stepinac as national heros.

The attitude of the some prelates of the Roman Church, specially Pope Pius XII, during WW-II has been in the discussions in the medias recently. I have always defended the figure of Pope Pius XII, as most people who blame him for the silence of the Papacy regarding the Holocaust and the genocides, do not know that at that time, the information did not travel as fast as it does now, and that the Pope had been misinformed about many things. I also understand that he was in a very difficult possition, and that an open condemnation of the Nazi regime would have caused a persecution against Catholics, it is probable that he took that possition in order to guarantee the protection of his flock.

But I doubt that it is possible to justify the conduct of the Croatian hierarchy in its coperation with the Ustase regime in the forcible conversion and genocide against Orthodox Christians. This is specially painful because it's not about Jews or Romas, but about Orthodox Catholics who John Paul II himself call "sister Churches, sharing our same faith". It was publicly known that since the Ustase racist and ultra-nationalist wanted the creation of a pure-Roman Catholic State, and that the hierarchy in 1941 gave canonical sanction to the forcible conversion of Serbs to the Latin Church. Conversions of Serbs where performed in Djakovo and many other villages, and Serbs were re-baptized in the Latin Rite (it's ironic to know that the Catholic Church forbides re-baptism) and priests killed in a very cruel manner, thousands of Serbs were murdered. The sad thing here is that even Catholics from the Eastern Rite were killed along with the Serbs, and that a Latin Bishop Janko Simrak was sent to the Eparchy of Krizevci to make the eparchy a Latin one, and he was appointed by Rome. The attitude of Bishop Stepinac was highly questionable as he had been informed about every massive conversion that took place. I don't think that the murder or forcible conversion of brothers is justifiable.
Are there any versions of this history of the Ustase that deny that this happened? Even if there are clear proofs stating that some prelates and priests actively colaborated with the Ustase in the conversion and assesination of Serbs?

I think that this probable canonization will hurt a lot of people, not only Orthodox. I suppose that also many Catholics who have nothing to do with nationalism, genocide and who are worried about this. I hope that His Holliness Pope John Paul II, who is known for his love and charity toward the Orthodox Church, and the Eastern Church doesn't approve this canonization.

Remie, I wouldn't hold my breath. As an Orthodox Christian, I'm really not interested in or affected by whom the Roman Church chooses to number among its saints. But if Rome is sincere in continuing its dialogue with the Orthodox, its proposed canonization of Cardinal Stepinac, whose complicity with the Croatian Ustashe and material gain therefrom I have read much about, would be ten centuries backwards in this dialogue.

OrthodoxEast

In one way, Remie, I can definitely see your point. Canonized saints are those who Catholics look to and try to model themselves after. Certainly we wouldn't want Catholics modeling their behavior after some of the Cardinal's actions.

Por otro lado, the strict definition of saint (other than living saints) are those who have gained entrance into Heaven. We have no reason to suppose that the Cardinal didn't get into Heaven (or is on his way to getting there, for us of purgatorial inclinations) and consequently no reason to deny him sainthood.

But, overall, it seems a condoning of his actions. Really, I can see both viewpoints. Just my four cents (twice as valuable as your average two).

ChristTeen287

No, not really.

To be canonized in the Catholic Church is not too different from those so honored in the Orthodox Church.

In East and West, it doesn't mean that the individual was not a sinner, or that he or she did even do terrible things. Look for example at the passion bearer and Tsar Nicholas. Hardly a heroic figure, or someone you would want to imitate. He and his government did terrible things (today we might call them human rights violations!). His terrible rule brought untold suffering upon his people during his reign, and he is also somewhat responsible for its collapse and aftermath. Yet now, he is venerated in the Orthodox Church. But the lives of the Saints are full of stories of heroic and notable sinners, who were not shut out from the kingdom.

Even some great saints were once 'great' sinners. Christ our God was always sinless. We worship him for his great glory. Saints however are not gods, nor do we worship them. They have no glory of their own. But they are glorified as Christ lives in them.

If they did not lead perfect and flawless lives, (who has?) they can still be saints.

Saints are honored by God (the Church only 'recognizes' what God has accomplished in them, and is accomplishing in them). It is the signs of miracles and proof of their intercession, that indicates that (whatever about their earthly life), they now live with Christ and share his heavenly life. And at their prayers, our Church is being sanctified and blessed.

I find it a great comfort that sinners, and people who have made wrong decisions, executed wrong judgements, and fallen from grace through their own fault, can someday be saints. Otherwise there would be no hope for me. In the saints we exult only God's mercy and love. It is my hope.

I've never read the life of this bishop. I hope I will find a 'life' and read it. But I know that if he is canonized it will not be because of his accomplishments (the work of man is vain), but because of what wonders God has done in him.

Remie,

Since you seem to be familiar (and comfortable) with both Catholicism and Orthodoxy maybe you would know if it is common for both churches to canonize persons such as Tsar Nicholas and Cardinal Stepanic? Is it common to canonize persons who share similar personal histories, such as Nicholas Romanov and the Cardinal? Violent and genocidal histories?

I am not comfortable with the practice, for moral and ethical reasons. Muslims have a nasty habit of honoring "saints" who seem to share the same amoral characteristics of the "saints" described in this conversation.

Abdur

Remie:

As I suggested to you before, it's not particularly easy sorting through the facts and attendant spin in this case. You report that "canonical sanction" was given in 1941 for forced conversions. Other sources report that:

"In November 1941 the bishops solemnly insisted that conversions under duress must not be accepted. At the same time the archbishop also circulated other pastoral instructions, characterized by their realism and humanity.

'When people of the Jewish and Orthodox religions come to you and, finding themselves in danger of death, want to convert to Catholicism, receive them to save their lives. Do not ask for any special religious instruction, for the Orthodox are Christians like us, and the Jewish religion is that from which Christianity draws its origins. The role and the duty of Christians are in the first place to save people. When this era of savagery and madness has passed, those who are converted by conviction will remain in our Church, while the others, when the danger is passed, will return to theirs.' "

I suppose you could read this as "sanctioning" the conversions, but it would be wicked spin.

Here's a few sites with information - from various perspectives - on Cardinal Stepinac.
http://www.hic.hr/books/stepinac/english/first.htm
http://www.petersnet.net/browse/513.htm
http://www.pavelicpapers.com/features/essays/psg.html
http://www.pavelicpapers.com/documents/stepinac/index.html
http://www.pope.hr/english/stepinac/index.html
http://www.archipelago.org/vol5-1/agee2.htm
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/9811/ZE981112.html

Dear Christeen827,

I do not agree with your definition of holyness ("the strict definition of saint (other than living saints) are those who have gained entrance into Heaven'). Our Lord Jesus Christ said that some will be the first and other will be the last in the Kingdom of Heavens. The members of the heavenly Church do not enjoy the same glory. The Apostle Paul says that some will enter the heaven like "through the fire'. When the Church proclaims some one "saint' she gives the Christian people a model of Christian life to follow and an intercessor before our Lord in behalf of the whole Church. Certainly the life of certain Church men is not a model to follow, although, as you have said, the Christian charity drives us to think that God in his great mercy has forgotten their sins and granted them the entrance to his Kingdom, in the hope that He will do the same with us in the time of our death. When I hear the name of some of them I fell like saying "Lord, have mercy of him and of all of us the sinners' rather than saying "Saint X. pray for us'. The Bible says that the memory (the good one) of the just will be eternal. When we talk about them we use expressions like "of blessed memory' "of eternal memory'. When the memory of certain Christians is not so blessed but rather sick or does create discrepancies among Christians (I am talking now about the judgment of the history or their judgment like historical personalities, the other judgment is only in the hands and the mercy of the Lord) that means that the Church should not propose then to the Christian people like models of Christian life and intercessors.

Dear Friends,

There are many saints in the calendar with controversial backgrounds.

"Controversial" because there is more than one view on their personal history and biography.

While I understand Father Elias' take on the history of Christians, there is no one, absolute and definitive historical judgement on the person of Tsar St Nicholas or Bl. Cardinal Stepanic.

There was a time when I absolutely hated the memory of Nicholas II.

My own reading of other points of view led me to repent of that hatred. I personally now have no doubt as to the great sanctity, sincerity and love for Christ of the Russian Royal Family, martyred by the Bolsheviks.

Yes, the Tsarist regime was oppressive. And so was the Papal government in the Middle Ages, the wars that Popes waged, the secular ruination they caused etc. We should never be selective in our reading of history.

The secular popes who did what an Alexander VI did in his lifetime are not the objects of canonization processes. There are other popes who are.

But even the Beatification of someone as gentle and loveable as Pope John XXIII was held in abeyance, and this despite more than 300 miracles formally ascribed to his intercession and recognized by the Vatican, because there were people around who "suffered" under him as his assistants and who were lobbying against his formal beatification!

I wrote an article not too long ago about the martyr beatified by the Pope, Bl. Nikita Budka who worked in Canada before World War I.

I received angry e-mails from those whose grandparents, Orthodox converts from Ukrainian Catholicism, suffered from Budka's legal actions against them, so against their conversion to Orthodoxy was he.

What I'm suggesting is that things aren't necessarily as they appear to be. This isn't about theology but about historiography.

Historical persons get reputations that are ideologically and popularly motivated. But the issue of the actual complicity of these persons in the actions they are said to have been involved with - that is something that is never clear and always needs fresh, unbiased study.

If I, as a Ukrainian Catholic, can study the life of Tsar Nicholas II and come to the independent conclusion of being convinced of his sanctity to the point of honouring his icon etc., then I think Serbian Orthodox can review Cardinal Stepanic's life, perhaps on the basis of historical research written by a non-Slav, and perhaps come to a more irenical conclusion as well.

The conflict between Serbia and Croatia has precious little to do with Christianity per se and there are no saints there at all.

Only martyrs . . .

Alex

Good comment, Alex. If you look over the links I posted above, this point is readily seen. One of the more interesting examples is the manner in which Cardinal Stepinac's support of the Ustashe's strict anti-abortion law (a captial crime) colors the opinions of certain wrtiers.

Remie,

You repeat on another thread the technical issue of "re-baptism":

Among the links I posted on the Stepinac thread is a transcript of statements he made at his trial. On the the point of "re-baptism", he says:

But certainly , Alex, if there is clear evidence that Stepinac blessed Ante Pavelic's horrible regime in it's massacres (and forced conversions) of the Jews, Serbs, Gypsies etc), then he cannot possible be considered a candidate for Sainthood, can he? Couldn't this be one of the most terrible examples of nationalism's use of religion for it's own sickening ends??

I certainly greatly agree with you that the study of history should always keep us open to changing our minds. But when evidence is pretty clear on one side, one cannot flinch from proclaiming that an individual was far from a saint to be held up as a model for other Christians.

Dear Brian,

Happily, there are historians studying Stepanic's life already!

And he is ALREADY acknowledged by Rome as a local saint, "Blessed" and is so liturgically honoured.

If you have irrefutable evidence as you relate, never mind sharing it with me, get it to the Vatican as soon as possible!!

They need to know about the error of their ways ASAP!

Feel free to throw in any other objective info you might also have about Catholicism's other supposed errors etc.

You just might be responsible for bringing Rome to its knees, Big Guy!

Alex

Alex,
There is no need for that tone. I certainly did not mean to give that idea that the researchers in the Vatican did not do their job. But rather that this is an inopportune to glorify someone who was quite close to such a TERRIBLE regime that was involved in the oppression of others. Especially considering the recent history in the former Yugoslavia.
My post may have been short and maybe, glib but I don't think it deserved that tone. I will withdraw from furthur posting on this subject.

Yours in Our Lord,
Brian

Even with all the rhetoric about East-West reconciliation, I don't believe you will find a great deal of sympathy for the Serb, Jewish, or Roma victims of the Fascist Croat regime, in Rome or among Catholics in general. And I don't believe you will find many Orthodox who sympathize with the victims of Tsar Nicholas, or Muslims who sympathize with the Armenian victims of Turkish nationalism, etc.

Unfortunately, Brian, most people aren't as decent and civilized as you are. They never have been and they never will be.

I certainly admire you and wish I could be more like you. Swimming against the current takes courage and integrity.

Abdur

Dear Brian,

I apologise profusely, Sir, for my silly tone.

You don't deserve it and I ask you to forgive me AND apply an appropriate penance as you see fit.

My point is that we should not draw conclusions about Cardinal Stepanic at the outset.

Even if we have our views on him, there are others who don't share them and who, indeed, venerate him as a saint already.

My silliness is rooted in previous discussions I've had with some of our priests about Orthodox saints that these felt should never have been canonized.

To me, and if I'm mistaken, I apologise for that too, it seemed as if you had already come to your conclusion.

And simply because Stepanic was "close" to something, doesn't make him guilty either.

There were many Orthodox Bishops who were "close" to the Soviet regime, even open collaborators, including the current Moscow Patriarch. There were Catholic bishops who supported Nazi plans to destroy Soviet Russia too.

Almost all Orthodox I've met and discussed Stepanic with ASSUME that Stepanic was the monster some think him to be.

If you know Orthodox who don't, let me know immediately.

So if my tone was offensive, that was why.

There was nothing in your previous posts to indicate you were going to say differently from what I've consistently heard from Orthodox on this complex, painful matter.

And if I've offended you to the point that you don't want to know me, - then that is truly a tragedy for which I am sorry as well.

This just goes to show you how emotion-packed an issue this is.

Normally, I'm the one to say I'm going away.

When Diak took offense at my perfectly reasonable views on the UGCC Patriarchate , he suggested I was bordering on treason etc. And I went away - for a while.

When another told me I was being disrespectful to Ruthenians and should clam up - I went away . . .for a while.

When . . .

Don't be afraid to tell me off, Brian, I know I deserve it . . . at times, sniff . . .

Alex

The old saying: "Haste makes waste" would appear to apply here. Things are being rushed in terms of 'canonizations'; we do it at our own risk.

In the past, canonizations generally took centuries to accomplish - at least officially. Ste. Therese of Lisieux's canonization "broke the mold". (I believe that the process only took about 25 years or so.) With a VERY young, cloistered Carmelite nun, dead of consumption, there could not have been much investigation necessary about her sanctity.

Why the rush with all these latter-day candidates? Is their holiness going to go away if we don't do something now? (Same principle for our Orthodox brethren.) The whole shootin' match is being turned into something political (and in some ways: nationalistic) and that stinks. Big time.

Blessings!