Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac
nex...@ac.dal.ca
On April 6, 1941 Nazi German forces attacked Yugoslavia. On April 15
Dr. Ante Pavelic, the leader of the fascist Ustashe in exile made his
triumphal entry into Zagreb, the capitol of the newly established
Independent State of Croatia (NDH). One of the first men to pay his respects
to the Poglavnik (leader) as he was called was Monsignor Stepinac, the
Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb and Metropolitan of Croatia. On April 28 his
pastoral letter was published in the newspapers Nedjelja and Katolicki List
in which he formally called upon the clergy to render loyal service to the
new regime:
"Honourable brethern, there is not one among you who did not recently
witness the most significant event in the life of the Croatian people among
whom we act as herald of Christ's word. These are events that fulfilled the
long dreamed of and desired ideal of our people ... You should therefore
readily answer my call to do elevated work for the safeguarding and
progress of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) ... Prove yourselves,
honourable brethern, and fulfil now your duty toward the young Independent
State of Croatia."
On meeting Pavelic and being photographed with him and other
Catholic bishops on June 28 Stepinac gave him his benediction by saying:
"And while we greet you cordially as head of the Independent State of
Croatia, we implore the Lord of the Stars to give his divine blessings to the
leader of our people."
Stepinac not only welcomed the creation of the Ustashe State but he
shared some of its agenda, namely that of 'Catholicization' of the Serbs.
Robert Kaplan (in "The Clairvoyance of Rebecca West" in "The National
Interest", Winter 91/92 issue, pg: 63-70) quotes him as saying:
RThe most ideal thing would be for the Serbs to return to the faith of
their fathers (Catholicism) ... Then we could at last breathe in this part of
Europe, for Byzantium has played a frightful role ... in connection with the
Turks.S
Just before the Ustashe takeover Stepinac wrote:
"The Schismatics (meaning the Orthodox faith) are the curse of Europe
-- almost worse than the Protestants."
To be fair to Stepinac he was far from the only one to welcome the
establishment of the Ustashe State. Other Catholic official were even more
effusive in their praise such as Archbishop Ivan Saric of Sarajevo who
wrote a number of ecstatic odes praising the Poglavnik and who later
complained that the forcible conversions which the Ustashe were carrying
out were not going fast enough. One enthusiastic parish priest wrote:
"Until now we have worked for the Catholic faith with missal and
crucifix. Now the time has come for us to go to work with rifle and
revolver." (Novi List, July 24, 1941)
Dr. Vladko Macek, the leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, read a
statement over Zagreb radio shortly after the establishment of the NDH
calling on his followers to cooperate loyally with the new Ustashe regime.
Stepinac carries a special burden of responsibility since by the weight of
his office and position the statements he made and the actions he took gave
this new fascist regime credibility. According to historian Wayne Vucinich
(Contemporary Yugoslavia, 1969, U. of Cal. Press):
"By these actions both of these men (Stepinac and Macek) greatly
facilitated the power takeover by the Ustashe in Croatia."
The creation of the NDH was judged by the Nurnberg Tribunal to have
been a major war crime.
I believe that Stepinac's initial complicity with the Ustashe state is
beyond dispute.
What Branimir Pejcinovic (in his reply of Feb. 12, 1992) forgets is
that what transpires here is neither a trial nor even a script for L.A. Law.
History (and hence historians) and people (and hence public opinion) judge
and assess people and events differently than a legal forum. Richard Nixon
may have resigned to avoid impeachment (and was saved from legal
prosecution by an act of his successor) but history will not assess him as
innocent of the Watergate coverup and will judge his political career and
performance accordingly.
The word (and concept) which is notably absent from Mr. Pejcinovic's
entire defense of Archbishop Stepinac (posted on Feb. 7, 1992 and continued
on Feb. 12) is *responsibility.* Political office carries the price of
responsibility. Politicians are sometimes compelled to resign because of
even the *appearance* of impropriety -- they are *responsible.*
In some respects religious leaders bear an even heavier responsibility
because although people entrust a politician with temporal authority,
religious leaders are entrusted with spiritual authority. We don't
necessarily expect a politician to instruct us and be an example of morality
and ethics, but we do expect this of a religious leader. Abrogation of that
responsibility is a particularly serious act of misconduct. Archbishop
Alojzije Stepinac was not an ordinary person, but rather the metropolitan of
his entire country. Despite Mr. Pejcinovic's protestations to the contrary, in
the case of persons in high office, knowledge is clearly tied to
responsibility and if misused results in complicity.
Pejcinovic writes: "If Stepinac knew about all the atrocities and did
not try and do anything about it, that tells us something about his
personality and character, not about his war crimes," entirely missing the
point that for an *Archbishop of Croatia* to have known about atrocities
and not done anything would be a fantastic dereliction of responsibility.
To his great credit Albert Speer (himself a convicted war criminal
and Hitler's personal architect) while on trial in Nurnberg broke from his
fellow defendants, who were all trying to worm their way out of
responsibility of the conduct of the Third Reich by shifting it all onto the
shoulders of Adolf Hitler, and declared himself culpable and responsible
(even though he had not personally killed any Jews and claimed *not* to
have known of the details of the 'Final Solution'). Why? Because he *ought*
to have known. Because the higher echelon of leaders must be held
responsible. Mr. Pejcinovic writes: "Let me also make it clear that we are
not discussing Stepinac's ***political views*** ..." Says who?
As Robert Kaplan makes clear, the court which convicted Stepinac as
a war criminal was a bona fide Stalinist kangaroo court. Probably all
interested parties can agree on this. If we believe that the judgements of
such an institution are not worthy of observance then formally Stepinac's
"conviction" as a war criminal is a sham. So what? This is a condemnation
of Tito and his Stalinist methods, not an exoneration of Stepinac.
Mr. Pejcinovic laments the "blurring" of "Croat" with "Catholic" with
"Ustashe" which emerges from Mr. Milosavljevic's original posting on this
subject. If this is so it is because life and history itself conspired to blurr
these distinctions. When Croatian fascists were throwing women and
children off cliffs was this an political act, the consequence of a struggle
between fascist and communist ideologies? Was it an ethnic act of
Croatians seeking vengeance against Serbs, redressing ancient disputes and
grievances? Was it a religious act of Catholics vs. Orthodox in bloody
pursuit of Archbishop Stepinac's vision of a "Catholic Serbia in twenty
years"? Of course there is blurring. For it to have been otherwise Archbishop
Stepinac would have had to have declared right at the start that any
Catholic who took part in such persecutions or atrocities would face
excommunication. *Then* there would have been no blurring. In the early
part of his tenure in office Archbishop Stepinac said nothing of the sort, in
fact he said much in support of the Ustashe vision.
Mr. Pejcinovic makes some excellent points in relation to Mr.
Milosavlejic's erroneous conculusions particularly in relation to his
extremely one-sided view of Stepinac and his tendency to drop the entire
Ustashe record of barbarity at his feet. Mr. Milosavlejic can respond, if he so
chooses. I'm afraid , however, that I regard some of Mr. Pejcinovic's defense
of Archbishop Stepinac as simple sophistry.
Where Milosavljevic writes:
"He (Stepinac) sat with ten other clerics in the Ustasha-Parliament."
Pejcinovic replies:
"I do not believe for one moment (unless proven otherwise) that their
presence was anything more than ceremonial."
Where Kaplan quotes Stepinac's belief that given the proper
circumstances Serbia would be Catholic in twenty years Pejcinovic replies:
"... where is he saying he will do it by force?"
Perhaps he thought he would do it entirely with the peaceful
cooperation of the Serbs who have been orthodox for nigh on a thousand
years ...?
Where Milosavljevic, drawing on Deschner, writes:
"Hundreds of photos show this head of State (Pavelic) ..., who, as
bishop Stepinac emphasized, gave the Church "full freedom for action",
among bishops, priests, monks and nuns.
Pejcinovic replies: "Correct me if I am wrong, but is the implication
here that because Stepinac allowed himself to be pictured with Ante Pavelic
he was endorsing, encouraging, blessing etc, his actions? Guilt by
association, maybe?"
Maybe. Or perhaps by allowing himself to be publicly photographed
with the head of a fascist state he was simply collecting pictures for a
family photo album?
I leave it to readers to consider whether it is credible to imagine a
world of such political innocence in the Balkans in the middle of World War
II.
It worth reiterating here again that Mr. Milosavljevic's posting (of Feb
5, 1992), drawing extensively on Karlheinz Deschner's book, "Die beleidigte
Kirche, oder: Wer stoert den oeffentlichen Frieden?" does a great disservice
to the truth by trying to saddle Stepinac with the entirety of responsibility
for the countless Ustashe atrocities and the collusion of many Catholic
clerics, particularly of the lower ranks, with these barbarities. It
completely ignores his later conduct and the courageous way in which he
began to denounce the Ustashe -- so much so that his sermons began to be
broadcast by the anti-fascist resistance!
The fascinating and instructive lesson which emerges from Stepinac's
story is, as Robert Kaplan details, how when "confronted his own self (he)
went on to fight evil. I don't know why Stepinac changed his views. I suspect
that when the Ustashe began their fantastically brutal and bloody
persecution of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and others at the end of June, 1941
Stepinac saw the horrific implications of the ideas he had been advocating.
All during the summer of 1941 received reports of the barbarous cruelties
which were being perpetrated in the name of his church. The Bishop of
Mostar, for example, wrote:
"(The Ustashe officials) have abused their position, exploiting the
worst instincts of the crowd and playing on the weaker side of human
nature. The results have been horrifying. Human beings have been hunted
down and caught like animals; they have been slaughtered; they have been
thrown alive over precipices."
and, presciently,
"While the new converts (those forcibly converted to Catholicism) are
in church attending Mass, they seize them, young and old, men and women,
drag them outside and ... send them to eternity in droves. That sort of thing
does no good to the holy cause of Catholicism nor to that of Croatia. In a few
years time everyone will condemn these thoughtless actions."
The Bishop of Banjaluka wrote about "bestial cruelties and of
"indescribable acts of ferocity."
The Bishop of Kotor expressed the fear that the use of force for
religious ends might "react unfavourably on the reputation of the Catholic
Church."
In any event, after a conference of the Catholic hierarchy in late
November, 1941 Stepinac wrote to the Poglavnik in diplomatic terms telling
him that questions appertaining to conversions to Catholicism were a
matter for decision by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and no one else, and
that it was impossible to deny that horrible acts of cruelty and violence had
been committed. He wrote:
"It is essential to take a strictly realistic view. Even the orthodox
Church has its genuine adherents, who cannot automatically change their
views or their nature overnight. A purely mechanical procedure is, for this
reason, apt to have unfortunate results."
Stepinac was careful not to blame the Government and Pavelic for
what had happened, portraying it rather as the work of irresponsible
elements who did not realize how much harm they were doing. He continued
to show formal support for the regime and in the spring of 1942 accepted an
appointment as Supreme Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi army. In the
background, however, he began to petition the Poglavnik to spare the lives of
hostages; to put a stop to mass executions; criticising his new racial laws
and asking him to grant special exemptions to Serbs and Jews who had
entered the Catholic Church.
In some measure Stepinac's tragedy stems from the fact that while
growing increasingly disaffected with the Ustashe regime and working
behind the scenes to mitigate its actions, he continued to lend it his
outward support. It was not until later in 1942 that he started to preach
pointed sermons against:
"those who, while glorying in being Catholics or even possessing a
spiritual vocation, nevertheless abandon themselves to passion and hatred
and forget the essential Christian rule of love and charity."
By the end of October of 1942 he was saying:
"All nations and all races, as reflected in the world today, have the
right to lead a life worthy of men and to be treated with the dignity with
which one treats a man. All of them without exception, whether they belong
to the race of Gypsies or to another, whether they are Negroes or civilized
Europeans, whether they are detested Jews or proud Aryans, have the same
right to say, "Our father, who art in heaven" (Matt. 6:9) ... That is why the
Catholic Church has always condemned, and condemns today as well, every
injustice and every violence committed in the name of the theories of class,
race or nationality ... One cannot extinguish from the face of the earth
Gypsies or Jews because one considers them inferior races."
I think that if one wishes to seek for evidence of Stepinac's
wrongdoing, which Mr. Pejcinovic so stalwartly tries to deny there is
evidence for, one need look no further than Archbishop Stepinac himself
who, to his great credit, recognized his own errors and responsibilities,
turned over a new leaf, and even after the demise of the Ustashe regime,
went on to confront a new tyranny and set of tyrants. This is why (in my
view) it is worth discussing Stepinac at all.
Although there are those who enjoy sifting through historical minutae
in and of themselves, in these troubled times in the Balkans, when people of
good faith are seeking to understand the origins of the conflict and hence
ways beyond the current morass, the story of Alojzije Stepinac has a
valuable lesson to teach. In regions like the Balkans, the Caucuses, the
middle East and elsewhere there is a long history of barbarities perpetrated
by one group against another. Revenge follows upon revenge. Political, ethnic
and religious conflicts are layered upon one another. Vendetta follows
vendetta. Sadly rare are people like Alojzije Stepinac who acknowledge the
error of their ways. Who realize their own complicity and responsibility in
perpetrating this cycle of violence and who try, however little, however
late, to make amends. Many strike the Faustian bargain -- few repudiate it
and try to renegotiate.
Sadly Stepinac's attempt to atone for his past was poisoned by Tito
for as Kaplan points out: "Had he (Stepinac) been given a fair trial, the air
between the Croats and Serbs after the war might have been partially
cleared. Instead Tito's show trial polarized the issue, making Stepinac into
a martyr -- a "beloved saint" -- for the Croats and a war criminal for the
Serbs, "the priest who baptized with one hand and slaughtered with the
other"."
The communists continued to slander Stepinac and fabricate vast
conspiracies implicating him in the collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia,
collusion with the Nazis', a leading role in Ustashe regime and conspiring
against the Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. (The Case of Archbishop
Stepinac, 1947, U.S. Embassy of Yugoslavia)
Meanwhile Croatian fascists in exile in Argentina praised him as:
"The Primate of Croatia, Cardinal Dr. Aloysius Stepinac, this great
man, who is admired by the entire Christian world and anjoys (sic) the
respect also of all who love justice and freedom, as a heroic son of the
martyr (sic) Croatian people ..." (Croatian Struggle For Freedom & Statehood,
1953, Dr. Stephan Hefer).
To return to the very beginning of this debate, namely the Croatian
Parliament's plans to nullify Stepinac's 1946 trial (reported in January of
this year); one would hope that the Stepinac that Croatia is planning to
rehabilitate is the later one who spoke out against the Ustashe crimes he
saw and refused to be intimidated or cowed by Tito, and not the earlier one
who helped legitimize the Ustashe regime. Such distinctions are,
unfortunately, all too easily lost. For this reason it is worth remembering
Stepinac's legacy in the hope that we may yet learn from his mistakes and
be inspired by his courage.
Christopher Majka
nex...@ac.dal.ca
BLAZIC Joseph R
> It worth reiterating here again that Mr. Milosavljevic's posting (of Feb
>5, 1992), drawing extensively on Karlheinz Deschner's book, "Die beleidigte
>Kirche, oder: Wer stoert den oeffentlichen Frieden?" does a great disservice
>to the truth by trying to saddle Stepinac with the entirety of responsibility
>for the countless Ustashe atrocities and the collusion of many Catholic
>clerics, particularly of the lower ranks, with these barbarities. It
>completely ignores his later conduct and the courageous way in which he
>began to denounce the Ustashe -- so much so that his sermons began to be
>broadcast by the anti-fascist resistance!
(....)
> To return to the very beginning of this debate, namely the Croatian
>Parliament's plans to nullify Stepinac's 1946 trial (reported in January of
>this year); one would hope that the Stepinac that Croatia is planning to
>rehabilitate is the later one who spoke out against the Ustashe crimes he
>saw and refused to be intimidated or cowed by Tito, and not the earlier one
>who helped legitimize the Ustashe regime. Such distinctions are,
>unfortunately, all too easily lost. For this reason it is worth remembering
>Stepinac's legacy in the hope that we may yet learn from his mistakes and
>be inspired by his courage.
>
> Christopher Majka
> nex...@ac.dal.ca
Unfortunately, it appears that the only reason it was brought up by
Mr. Mirosaljevic was to incite hate and perhaps use the crimes of 50 years
ago to justify the crimes of today. There was nothing constructive in the
agenda of his original message.
Joe Blazic
bla...@ecf.toronto.edu