This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 05 November 2014, At: 22:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Religion in CommunistLandsPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crss19

DocumentsMiklós Haraszti & Marton HartaiPublished online: 02 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Miklós Haraszti & Marton Hartai (1983)Documents, Religion in Communist Lands, 11:1, 95-108, DOI:10.1080/09637498308431066

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09637498308431066

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever

caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Turning the Other Cheek

The two documents below give some back-ground to a controversy which has beensimmering in the Hungarian Catholic Churchsince autumn 1981. It is connected with the so-called "basis communities", small communi-ties of Catholics seeking an intensification oftheir spiritual life, led by Father GyorgyBuldnyi, a member of the Piarist order now inhis seventies. The communities have been amatter of growing concern for the Bench ofBishops and the Church's primate, CardinalLdszlo, Lekai. The bishops first discussed thebasis communities in December 1976 andMarch 1977, and this was reported in theofficial Catholic weekly Uj Ember (NewMan). The bishops concluded that the basisgroups were very useful provided that theyremained within the regular organisations ofthe Church, respected the bishops' teachingfunctions and enriched church life with theirreligious fervour. However, the bishops'doubts grew, especially over two issues:Bulanyi's attitude to the Church's teaching andto the hierarchy, and his pacifist stance. Thepacifist theme was taken up by other priests,and at least one openly objected to compulsorymilitary service. This alarmed Cardinal Lekai(who is aware that conscientious objectors fallfoul of the Hungarian Constitution and areliable to criminal prosecution). After a sermonpreached by this priest, Father Ldszlo Kovacs,at a Pilgrimage of Youth in Hajos on 22August 1981, Cardinal Lekai suspended himfor six months. Shortly afterwards, FatherAndrds Gromon was suspended by BishopImre Kisberk of Szekesfehervdr for sermonswhich allegedly "threatened the unity of theChurch". On 6 September the Cardinalpreached a sermon condemning the spreadingof pacifist ideas.

The two documents below, both writtenpseudonymously and apparently towards theend of 1981, reflect the situation at that time.The first, "Turning the Other Cheek",describes the suspension of Father Kovacs andthe strong reaction against it by church

members. The second, "An Open Letter toHungarian Catholic Dissidents", a moregeneral survey of the state of the HungarianCatholic Church, maintains that the Churchhas become far more closely, albeit subtly,subservient to the State than is generallyrealised. Relatively few unofficially producedand circulated documents such as these havereached the West from Hungary until now.However, according to the document below,it has become "almost customary forbelievers to present one another at festiveoccasions with carefully typed and neatlybound volumes o/samizdat literature.. .".InDecember 1982, however, the Hungarianauthorities moved decisively againstproducers of unofficial literature.

The conflict between Fr Buldnyi and thechurch hierarchy has intensified since thesedocuments were written. Fr Buldnyi had twohearings with Cardinal Lekai, following whichan analysis of his views was discussed by theBench of Bishops on 9-10 March. They thenadopted a harder line, and called the basiscommunities a "grave subersive movement".Their view of Fr Bulanyi's "errors" was pub-lished in Uj Ember. These complex theologi-cal issues cannot be summarised adequatelyhere. The chief point at issue, however, wasBulanyi's attitude to the Church and itshierarchy: the bishops believed that he wasencouraging Catholics to emphasise subjectivereligious experience and personal response tothe revelation of the Holy Spirit in a way thatmight undermine the authority of the Churchand the bishops. At its summer conference on8-9 June, the Bench of Bishops voted to passhis case to the Congregation for the Doctrine ofthe Faith at the Vatican for a final decision.Until then, Fr Buldnyi was suspended adivinis, that is, he is not allowed to celebrateMass in public, preach or administer thesacraments.

The issue of pacifism, on which Fr Buldnyialso differs with the hierarchy, is central to theaffair, particularly as the Hungarian govern-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

96 Documents

ment cannot be indifferent to it. It is thoughtthat at least one reason why the bishops haveproceeded so decisively against Fr Buldnyimay be that pressure was put upon them byImre Miklos, the Chairman of the State Officefor Religious Affairs. On 20 February 1982 hegave an important interview in Nepszabadsag(People's Freedom; daily Party paper) inwhich he spoke on the whole favourably of thegovernment's relations with the CatholicChurch, but also stated unambiguously thatthe State "cannot tolerate the use of religiousdebates as a pretext for camouflaging politicalefforts and violating the laws of the State. . .".Although Miklos did not refer specifically tothe Catholic Church and the basis groups, itwas nonetheless a clear warning that theChurch could not afford to ignore, and it

One can read quite often in the Hungarianpress about Latin-American or European"progressive priests". Strangely enough,hardly any public attention is devoted to theferment in the Hungarian Catholic church —in particular, to the case of Laszlo Kovacs.Not only the daily press but even theecclesiastical press has remained curiouslysilent about him.

Laszlo Kovacs, the curate of the Domini-can church in Budapest, appealed to theVatican against a ruling made against him byLaszlo Lekai, the Cardinal Primate ofHungary, "exiling" him to a country parish(next door to the notorious prison atMarianosztra). At the same time, Kovacshumbly complied with the Cardinal's order.

Within a short time, the case has generateda great deal of literature, often very out-spoken: many members of Kovacs's flock, aswell as a good number of his fellow-priests,have written to the Primate protesting againsthis banishment. Lekai himself felt compelledto mention the case on several occasions, forinstance in the basilica of Esztergom, on 6September 1981, and also during his visitsabroad. He further reacted by suspendingone of the letter-writers, Andras Gromon,the priest of a country parish near the capital.

In the end, Kovacs himself wrote to theCardinal, demanding that Lekai should con-sult his own conscience. This letter, togetherwith the text of the order, the appeal, the con-demned sermons of Kovacs and his farewellspeech to a gathering of young people, have— together or separately — enjoyed a widedistribution in unofficial Catholic circles.

My summary of the events and of theirdocumentation is that of a layman, so I ask

seems that the harder line adopted at the springbishops' conference reflects this. Clearly theHungarian government is likely to be pleasedrather than otherwise at the spectacle of dissen-sion within the Church and has no reason todiscourage it. However, widespread attemptsto refuse military service would be a differentmatter as they would involve breaching thelaw. No doubt the government is also con-cerned lest the pacifist movement should passbeyond the bounds of the Church to Hun-garian young people in general, stimulatedperhaps by reports of similar movements in theGDR and Western Europe.

(For further details, see Radio Free EuropeResearch, Situation Reports on Hungary,Nos. 16, 29.10.81;5, 31.3.82; 10, 23.7.82.)

forgiveness from those who may put theemphasis differently. The story of LaszloKovacs is not just an internal matter for theChurch. His condemned sermons urged thatthe right of conscientious objectors to refusemilitary service be recognised. The homilywhich the Cardinal delivered at Esztergomwas even less a purely ecclesiastical matter. Inthis sermon, he clearly stated the Church'sobligation to defer to the State in the case ofarmed action. The various letters of protestdemand the genuine separation of State andChurch (as well as Party and Church); theycall upon the ecclesiastical hierarchy to standup for freedom of conscience, not to throttleit.

Radical Catholics

The new radicalism emerging within theChurch is in many ways a fundamentalistmovement. It wants to strip away from theChurch and its teaching two thousand years'symbiotic accumulation of cosy relations withthe secular power. It demands a return to theattitude of Jesus and of primitive Christianity,brooking no compromise with the State; itsaim is to become the support of the oppres-sed, the poor, the minorities, of voluntarycommunities, against the secular power of theday. A very important feature of this newmovement, distinguishing it from similargroupings elsewhere — for instance, in LatinAmerica — is its strong emphasis on non-violence. Like Gandhi's original teachings, orthose of Martin Luther King, it is firmlyagainst any kind of violence, be it individualor institutional, even if it is in self-defence orin national defence, and whether it is "just"or "unjust" in its motives.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents 97

This fundamentalism is expressed in ademand for the principles of the Gospel to beunited with daily life. The fact that Christian-ity has ceased to be the state religion is con-sidered to be a favourable development. Itstrongly rejects the excuse that the Churchmust be subjected to the powers-that-be, andthat spiritual rights must be voluntarilycurbed for the sake of safeguarding the exis-tence of the Church. In the view of theseradicals, the existence of an atheist statepower — a similar situation to that of primi-tive Christians two thousand years ago —offers a marvellous opportunity to theChurch: it could attract ever-increasing num-bers of people, instilling in them the trueideals of Jesus — solidarity of the faithful,patience towards the "enemy", if need be,self-sacrificing humanism. An essential con-dition of all this is, of course, that the Churchshould support, and not punish, those de-voted Christians who are willing to work inthe spirit of Jesus Christ. The Church cannotserve two masters, they believe.

Contrary to the movement of the "peace-priests", supported by state subsidies, theseradicals suggest a new attitude to the dangersof war, especially those of nuclear war. TheChurch (the Hungarian Catholic Church inparticular) must draw its conclusions from thebankruptcy it suffered during the SecondWorld War, when it failed to stand up againstNazism. It must withdraw its support fromevery kind of military action, and it must fightfor the right of conscientious objection.

The spokesmen of this new attitude remindus that the Vatican itself — and quite a fewstate constitutions — recognise the right ofconscientious objection, the right of refusal tokill or to take up arms. Objectors should beallowed to spend a period (not exceeding thatof statutory military service) doing usefulsocial work, in conditions safeguarding theirhuman dignity. There is an example for thiseven in Hungary: towards the end of the1970s, the Nazarene sect made a bargain onthese lines with the State (only after a longseries of prison sentences, it is true).

Our radical Catholics, however, are settingtheir sights higher than that. Quoting thevarious pronouncements of Pope John PaulII, they insist that only by rejecting every kindof militarism, including all ideologies of self-defence, can mankind break out from thediabolical circle that is holding humanitycaptive: the possession of weapons capable ofdestroying the world, and the division ofcountries into two hostile camps.

This pacifist movement within the CatholicChurch is linked to the teaching of GyorgyBulanyi, the Piarist theology professor. Hisfollowers call their movement the "Basis"movement — that is, one based on small,close communities. These communities workat creating linkages between the faithfuland ecclesiastical office-holders, in a non-hierarchical manner, but without upsettingthe accepted framework of religious obser-vances. During the terror regime of Rakosi inthe 'fifties, Bulanyi and many other small-community leaders were imprisoned. TheState — and the "peace-priests" — still dis-approve of their activities today.

The precepts of Bulanyi set out in greatdetail the ideas of a "religion of love", dis-carding the remnants of medievalism inreligion and drawing up the desired shape of aChurch that would refuse to serve the secularpower and would reject all violence. Thereare about a hundred such small communitiesactive today, trying to put Bulanyi's teachingsinto practice. There are also many priests whoare in favour of Bulanyi's attitude. LaszloKovacs belongs to their number: in his appealto the Pope, he said that it was Bulanyi'sinfluence on him (about ten years ago) thatled him to an unequivocal interpretation ofthe Gospel and also to more effective pastoralwork.

Of course, the activities of Gyorgy Bulanyiare not the only source of the varied move-ments of Catholics criticising the officialChurch. Similar trends have been noticeablein Catholic public opinion for several yearspast. There is a growing literature of criticismspreading among Catholic believers, and notonly among the followers of Bulanyi.

It is, for instance, almost customary forbelievers to present one another at festiveoccasions with carefully typed and neatlybound volumes of samizdat literature; there isan unspoken duty to copy-type it and pass iton to others. Older or younger priests,novices and simple believers are practisingthis kind of thing, probably in greater num-bers than laymen would guess. (Lay samizdatliterature has until now dealt only with similaractivities in the Protestant churches.) Thecase of Kovacs has become a cause celebreprecisely because the State Office forReligious Affairs has become tired of this fer-ment and instructed the Catholic hierarchy tostamp it out.

The story actually began in 1979: a group ofCatholic priests and believers submitted apetition in that year to the Bench of Bishops,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

98 Documents

asking it to intervene — in the spirit of theSecond Vatican Council — in favour of theprinciple of unarmed service. Today —thanks, in no small measure, to the "peaceoffensive" of John Paul II — this demand isbetter known and more popular than ever.The demand has been reinforced by the im-prisonment of a number of Catholics for theirrefusal to do military service. This outrage hascreated a widespread solidarity with thevictims.

On the other side, the picture is simpler.The Office for Religious Affairs is deter-mined to destroy the pacifist movement, andtherefore puts pressure on the Primate to dis-miss and discipline the recalcitrant priests andto challenge a strong body within Catholicpublic opinion—as he has done in his sermonat Esztergom.

The Pilgrimage to Hajos

Hundreds of people were attracted to thechurch where Laszlo Kovacs usually offi-ciated, many coming from far beyond hisparish. His fame as a pastor to the youngspread throughout the country. Thus, in1981, he received an invitation to a Pilgrimageof Youth, to be held on 22 August in the vil-lage of Hajos. This was one of those eventsthat have been viewed with increasing suspi-cion by the Office for Religious Affairs — inparticular since they are increasing in fre-quency with time — and one of their officialshas always been present on these occasions.About twenty priests and five hundred youth-ful believers took part in this pilgrimage.

The sermon which Kovacs preached atHajos justifies his fame, even in the eyes ofnon-believers. He is preaching the completerenunciation of all and every kind of violence;the effect on his audience must have beenelectrifying. He does not mince his words ingiving his views, and his youthful, sometimeseven slangy, style must have made hismessage even more telling.

His sermon invites us on a dangerous ad-venture: to love our enemy. Jesus has no needfor hand-clapping, he is no high wire acrobat,said Kovacs. But his path is as narrow and asperilous as a single wire over the NiagaraFalls. The question for us is: do we dare to sitin Jesus's wheelbarrow, when he promises usto push us across safely? The dangers hespeaks of are only too real:

If we are Christians, we must not takethe oath that would compel us to kill.And if we refuse to kill, we must also re-

fuse military training for licensed mur-der. . . We must suffer blows, jail if needbe — and we must not hit back. We mustpreach to the violent, the way Jesusdid. . . For those who fail to bring uptheir children in this spirit, religion is —as Marx said — opium only, never mindhow many times they take communion.

The Cardinal's Judgement

The suspension of Kovacs was not entirelydue to his sermon; he and his fellow priestshave been declaring these principles for manyyears. But it probably precipitated his punish-ment, because the bishop in whose diocesethe village of Hajos is had been instructed bythe Office for Religious Affairs — two daysbefore the pilgrimage — to forbid Kovacs tospeak. Kovacs protested against this andopenly asked his audience whether he shouldspeak or not. The prohibition in fact camerather late, and Kovacs was told of it only onthe spot in Hajos; so the bishop told the localpriest to "find a solution". In the end thepriest allowed Kovacs to "comment" on thematter; so Kovacs openly told his audiencewhy he was not allowed to preach a propersermon. In this manner, although on the faceof it he only protested against outside inter-vention, he also pointed an accusing finger atthe higher clergy.

The Cardinal's judgement gives no reasonwhy Kovacs was not permitted to speak atHajos. Disregarding the agreement betweenthe parish priest and Kovacs, the judgementmentions only "refusal to obey" and "scan-dalous behaviour". Both accusations have infact been refuted by the reports of the parishpriest and of the diocesan Vicar-General:both can be read among the documents of thecase. The reports emphasise that the prohibi-tion caused "very great tension" among theaudience: that was the main reason why a"comment" by Kovacs was permitted, as onlyin this way could a peaceful conclusion to thepilgrimage be ensured.

In his appeal to the Vatican, Kovacs alsorefers to a point in ecclesiastical law, namelythat the Cardinal did not wait for his replies inrespect of the questions put to him in thecourse of disciplinary proceedings, althoughthe priest conducting them had given Kovacstwo weeks to prepare his replies in writing.Instead, on the basis of "ex conscientia infor-mata" ("in the certain knowledge o f . . . " ) hesummarily sentenced Kovacs to the suspen-sion of his priestly rights and duties, directinghim to reside in the parish of Marianosztra.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents 99

According to experts in canon law, the princi-ple of "ex conscientia informata" must beused only in cases of "secret sins". Thereforethe judgement of the Primate was not onlyiniquitous, it was also unlawful.

However, neither Kovacs nor his defendersbelieve — and in this they have been quiteoutspoken — that the Cardinal acted on thebasis of wrong information or unsound legaladvice only. There is only one sentence in thejudgement factually condemning the teach-ings of Kovacs:

I must also emphasise that he [Kovacs]publicly criticised the regulations pre-scribing military conscription accordingto the laws of the State. His views on thismatter may be interpreted in the sensethat military service is a matter for per-sonal conscience only.

This is the crux of the matter. Even a laymancan clearly see that the first half of the quotedsentence denies the right of free criticism — aright enshrined in the Constitution. Truebelievers in the Catholic creed are, on theother hand, voicing their despair, in so far asthe second half of the sentence denies one ofthe strongest commands of their religion.

Not so much "thou shalt not kill", butrather that no one should do anything againsthis own conscience. Whether one is amember of the Church or not, these words donot inspire trust, coming as they do from themouth of the highest dignitary of the CatholicChurch.

The Homily at Esztergom

The Cardinal himself did his best to ensurethat this disciplinary action should not seemto be a personal matter concerning onlyKovacs, nor indeed that it should be regardedas an internal matter for the Church. Threedays before the judgement was issued (sen-tencing Kovacs to the ecclesiastical equiva-lent of police surveillance and internal exile),in a widely reported speech, he strongly con-demned the spread of pacifism amongCatholic believers. He read a ceremonialHomily on 6 September 1981, commemorat-ing the 125th anniversary of the re-consecra-tion of the basilica in Esztergom—the seat ofthe Cardinal Primate of Hungary for manycenturies. His speech was published in theofficial Catholic journal on 20 September.The "severe punishment" meted out toKovacs by him on 9 September was alreadywidely known by then among manyCatholics.

First the Cardinal drew a parallel betweenthe day of the re-consecration in 1856 and ourown days. He paid homage to the threepatrons of the Church: St Stephen, theEmperor Franz Joseph (!) and . . . well, it isdifficult to say whether the Office forReligious Affairs or the Political Committeeof the Communist Party? . . .

The presence of King Franz Joseph atthe re-consecration of the new basilica inEsztergom proved that the King had thisholy day of the Hungarians — indeed,the whole Hungarian people — near tohis heart. This was the meaning of hisspeech, addressed to Cardinal Sci-tovszky, who received the King on hisarrival by boat from Vienna: "I am fol-lowing in the footsteps of the great king,St Stephen and, like him, I consider thehappiness of all my subjects as my princi-pal duty. I assure you, my Lord Cardi-nal, and all inhabitants of this country, ofmy imperial goodwill." The Church hasno other duty today than 125 years ago:to unite by the bonds of peace the wholecommunity, Church and State alike.

It might be conceded that the head of theCatholic Church might look at 1981 in thespirit of 1856 — that is, he might discern a his-torical moment similar to the antecedents ofthe great compromise of 1867, between thehouse of Hapsburg and the Hungariannation. But it is also proof — if proof beneeded — of his adherence to the loyalisttraditions of Hungarian Catholicism, and ofhis rejection of the Polish model; a precondi-tion of the position of the Polish CatholicChurch is the physical and spiritual indepen-dence of the Church, however precarious thatmay be.

Next, the Cardinal touched upon the dis-putes raging within the Church, saying: "AChurch at odds with itself cannot radiatepeace to the world outside". He cited St Paul,who had threatened with "dire punishment"all those who dared to criticise the hierarchy.

As to whom and what he was aiming at, thiswas clearly revealed in the historical exampleshe quoted. Without exception, he cited onlythose occasions — in words of praise andgratitude — on which the Hungarian Statehad been fighting wars or civil wars:

Here, before our basilica, stands thestatue of our king, Louis the Great, whofought many wars and conquered manylands.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

100 Documents

Then:

Can we, as Hungarians, condemn StStephen for protecting this countryagainst foreign invaders, for safeguard-ing the unity of our country against therevolt of the heathen tribal chieftains?

Finally, he put his finger on the sore spot:

I, the Primate of this country, am dis-turbed to see that certain extremistpriests and members of our flock are in-citing our youth to refuse their boundenduty of military service. What is worse,these people are doing this with refer-ence to the Bible and the teaching of ourChurch; they are goading our youngpeople to say "Nay" to military service,precisely because they are Catholics ofprofound faith. And my disturbanceturns to shock when I hear that there areyoung people who obey their siren song.

Quoting more historical parallels — St Ladis-las against the Cumans, John Hunyadi againstthe Turks — Cardinal Lekai clearly andopenly stated: "Self-defence is justified,strength is right". He avoided making theMarxist distinction between "just" and"unjust" wars, but did utter something suspi-ciously similar:

To avoid all wars, that would be the idealsolution. We must struggle for this.However, this requires organised force.The Church, far from condemning this,approves of it. We must stand up againstone thing only — and that is deliberateviolence.

His example for "justified force" was thatSt Ladislas vanquished the Cumans; for rejec-tion of deliberate violence, that St Ladislasdid not allow the massacre of Cuman prison-ers. Conclusion: the Cumans peacefullymerged into the Hungarian nation.

The Cardinal gave not a single instance ofan "unjust" war fought by the HungarianState. Nor did he mention that the CatholicChurch always gave its blessing to all wars —just or unjust — probably in words similar tothose of L6kai. Alas, all those living today canonly remember "unjust" wars or, at any rate,lost wars. The Cardinal did not even attemptto answer the call of Catholic pacifists. Henever mentioned the terrible heritage of thetwentieth century, nor did he speak aboutnuclear weapons, let alone the ancient Com-mandment: "Thou shalt not kill". . .

In another paraphrase of St Paul the Pri-mate stated: "There are a few amongst you

who are trying to confuse you, distorting themessage of Christ's Gospel" — meaning theturbulent pacifists. In the light of the flood ofletters arriving at his office, this statementcaused the greatest hurt. He went beyond thecommand: "Render under Caesar the thingsthat are Caesar's", and attributed the obliga-tion for military service to Jesus Christ him-self, thereby underlining the subservience ofhis Church to past and future belligerence.

Abandoned Martyrs

A simple layman cannot interpret the Cardi-nal's homily otherwise than as an open affir-mation of the feudal traditions of the CatholicChurch, even in the present-day context of anot too independent Hungary and a not toogod-fearing state power. There is, however,nothing new in this, so one needs an explana-tion: why has a not inconsiderable part ofCatholic public opinion reacted so angrily tothis homily?

Lekai calls all those who refuse the duty ofmilitary service the "misled" who, in hiswords, blindly and unfeelingly turn theirbacks on the lessons of national history. UjEmber (The New Man), the official journal ofthe Church, discussing the Primate's sermon,goes further and brands them as the enemiesof Church and people.

This is the first time since the early 'fiftiesthat the hierarchy has openly pilloried thosebelievers who have suffered punishment bythe State on account of their religious beliefs.It is only now that they give their blessing tomeasures leading to prison sentences,psychiatric "treatment" or punitive battal-ions. No doubt, in their view, all this comesunder the concept of "rightful, organisedforce". Let us examine a few examples.

The doyen of those "young folk" who arebound to do military service is the mathema-tician Dr Jozsef Merza — he is 49 years old.When he was 47 — in 1979 — he unexpec-tedly received his call-up papers; no doubt, toput to the proof his openly admitted pacifism.Following six months in prison, he was trans-ferred to a lunatic asylum, with the diagnosis"paranoid psychosis". Once released fromthe (so-called) psychiatric hospital afterhaving been "cured", he lost his job as a re-search scientist at the Institute of Mathema-tics; it was a mercy that he was allowed towork there as a librarian.

His son, also Jozsef Merza, is at present en-during a two-year prison sentence, for thesame reason that put his father into thepsychiatric hospital.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents 101

Imre Besze was sentenced to 30 months'imprisonment in 1981 by the military court atthe provincial town of Kaposvar. His"crime": he refused armed service.

Istvan Pinter, a mechanic in the city ofSzekesfehervar, is currently serving in thearmy. At first he refused to take the oath andpersisted in his refusal in the military prisonfor a considerable time. Finally — accordingto his family, under severe physical and men-tal pressure — he agreed to take the oath; inspite of this, he was subsequently sentencedto 33 months in a punitive battalion. Thosewho know this modern means of torture aresaying that he would have fared better bystaying in prison or in a psychiatric hospital.

All these people are Catholics — nowtreated even worse than the hated Nazarenes.

It is understandable that Lekai's "organisedforce", unaccustomed to refusal, is quite un-willing to excuse a sizeable part of the largestreligious group in the country from militaryservice. This would increase the attraction ofthe Church, not to speak of creating a prece-dent for those outside the Church. By thesame token, it is also understandable thatmany Catholics are indignant that their Pri-mate angrily denies those who are trying tolive up to their freedom of conscience and arewilling to suffer for it.

Letters of Protest

Hundreds of letters have arrived at the officeof the Primate; among others, one signed by114 believers from Laszlo Kovacs's parish inBudapest. Dozens of letters were composedby groups of friends spontaneously takingaction. Many priests, and more believers,have written individual letters. Many of theseletters have not reached "religious samizdat",so only the Cardinal knows what is in them.

Every single letter, even the most condem-natory, gives voice to an attachment to thefaith, to a sentiment of anguished love. Manyof the writers see only weakness or mis-guidedness in the sentence passed on Kovacs;but ever since the Homily became publicknowledge, increasing numbers accuse theCardinal of abandoning Christ and servingalien interests. Every single letter concludeswith the hope of more understanding withinthe Church, offering prayers for enlighten-ment — but every writer demands that thePrimate should consult his own conscience.

The mildest letter is the earliest one —from the 114 parish members — protestingonly against the removal of Kovacs.

Most Reverend Cardinal, our Primate

and Archbishop, We felt the profoun-dest shock when we heard that YourEminence had suspended LaszW Kovacsfrom his priestly functions, banished himfrom Budapest and ordered him to stayunder the supervision of the parish priestin Marianosztra. Laszlo Kovacs has beennot only our curate, our pastor, theleader of our small-community move-ment, but also our friend in Jesus Christ,a pioneer of the rejuvenation of ourChurch. We disagree with the accusa-tions brought against him and find hispunishment most unjust. We stronglybelieve that Laszlo Kovacs has alwaysbeen a priest most concerned with thecause of the Church, one whose greatestcare has been for the young, a manwilling to stand up for the sake of theteachings of Christ. Therefore, we mustprotest against his suspension and trans-fer. A copy of our protest has also beensent to the Holy See in Rome.

(114 signatures)

The following letter was signed by ninepeople:

We, the undersigned, do not belong tothe congregation cared for by Laszl6Kovacs, but we have attended SundayMass in his church, whenever possible.His clear and inspired sermons haveattracted more and more of the faithful;besides, the spirit of Christian com-munion enveloping his church is rarely tobe found in other congregations.

The parish priest of a small village writes:

I can only consider the "internment" ofFather Kovacs to be a fatal mistake. Thisman deserves the strongest recognitionby the Church, not a punishment. I havebeen a witness to his words. It is mydreadful suspicion that Your Eminencehas judged him not in the spirit of JesusChrist but at the prompting of Atheism.

An additional story is that of Andras Gro-mon, the country curate who not only wrote aletter to the Primate but, in his sermon,openly made common cause with the perse-cuted Kovacs. In his letter he emphasises thatthe message of the Gospel can have only onemeaning, then continues:

The official teaching of the Church, de-plorably though, allows the obligationfor military service. But the same tenetalso allows the refusal of military servicewhen it is a matter of individual consci-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

102 Documents

ence. Indeed — at least on paper — theChurch recommends that the laws of theState should take into account those whoare willing to choose this stony path, andin a humane manner. I have read YourEminence's Homily with great dismayand anguish. To see that the Head of ourCatholic Church is as good as glorifyingwar, through his historical parallels —today, when mankind is beingthreatened by the catastrophe of totalannihilation. . . I deeply regret, YourEminence, that I have to quote againstyou the lines of our great poet, MihalyBabits, from his review of the book LeTrahison des Clercs:

"There is no greater treason than theprostration of the Spirit before Facts. . .Christ always preached against War —therefore the priest who speaks of peaceand fraternity, and then goes and blessesthe arms, is a tragic spectacle. . . Buteven more demoralising for a Christian isthe priest who puts not only his acts butalso his words at the service of bruteforce and, instead of preaching peaceand fraternity, preaches war and de-struction. The first one may be a weakservant of God — the latter one is atraitor priest, a traitor cleric." Neverthe-less, I humbly hope, Your Eminence,that your actions are a sign of weaknessand error only.

Finally, Gromon assures the Cardinal of hislove for him in Christ and expresses his hopethat the Cardinal's reply will similarly proveto be that of fatherly love.

Shortly afterwards, Andras Gromon wasalso stripped of his priestly rights and dutiesby the Cardinal.

Another group of the faithful, in a countryparish, put the following questions to the Pri-mate:

Why should we not attribute to the influ-ence of the Holy Spirit the fact thatChrist's teaching of love for yourneighbour is interpreted differently bypeople of our age from those living in1456? Can we not differ from JohnHunyadi and St John Capistran, the de-fenders of Belgrade* against the Turk?Did not Jesus embrace the whole of hu-manity in his love?Why should it be disobedience againstthe disciplines of the Church, if someone

*At this time, Belgrade was a Hungarianfortress-town — Ed.

refuses to take the oath compelling himto kill? Is not the human conscience thatprefers to turn the other cheek the truerepository of Christ's spirit?Why should it be an impermissible ex-cess, if someone is so firm in his belief inJesus Christ that he is willing to sufferprison and punishment for his faith?Are not these people the ones whoshould be embraced by the PurpleRobe? Is not Your office that of the pro-tector of our Church, following God'swill?We implore you, our Father Arch-bishop, to help us with your understand-ing and love, instead of repudiating us.Those letters which deal with the case of

Kovacs and the Homily together, are usuallylonger and more argumentative. Here is onefrom a nun:

I am unwilling to assume that evenatheists of good will would sing thepraises of a distant past when dismem-berment and the stake were matters ofcourse. Our criterion is Jesus Christ andhis Gospel, not the attitudes of theMiddle Ages. "Force" and "Violence"are but two words for the same thing: letus not forget the Fifth Commandment,which does not admit of circumlocution.Is it not a sad failure of ours, that thedesire for power, in the course of cen-turies, has cast this Commandment intoabeyance, even among Christians?Our Lord Jesus Christ promised that thegates of Hell would have no power overhis Church — but he gave no guaranteefor the survival of the HungarianCatholic Church. This would require ourown contribution too.I know only too well what it means to livein a socialist state. I spent seven and ahalf years in prison. Therefore, I cannotcomprehend why it is that single persons,in their sixties or seventies, who havededicated their lives to the service ofGod, are still afraid? Of what? Whatcould happen to them? Nobody is castbefore lions nowadays . . . maybe noteven in prison. The worst that couldhappen would be a reasonably furnishedroom, with plenty of opportunity forcommuning with Our Father and HisHoly Son. Not to speak of the irreplace-able brotherly and sisterly love ofmillions, paying homage to a courageouswitness to God. Not to speak of therewards of a clear conscience, and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents 103

knowledge that the seed falling to theground would grow into a harvest ahundredfold.

A couple (parents of six children) write:What is the use of our Holy Fathermaking a pilgrimage to Hiroshima, whenthe Primate of our country glorifies mili-tary might? We are praying that ourchildren should not become soldiers butpeople living a life of creative love. It willbe difficult to beat swords intoploughshares if the smiths are to findthemselves up against the discipline ofthe Church.We know the blessed service given byour Father Kovacs. Why put a stop tothis? Will there be fewer Hungariansoldiers in consequence of his teachings?Five million soldiers died in the FirstWorld War — and how many more inthe Second? . . .

Mrs.J. B.:I have been deeply distressed by yourHomily, Your Eminence. Not only haveyou disregarded Christ's command tolove our enemies — you have also givena wholly anachronistic meaning to ourlove for the fatherland. All peace-lovingpeople have been deeply shocked byyour sermon.Owing to our lack of love, we in theCatholic Church have gradually lost themajority of workers and peasants. Weought to learn from this painful fact andrenew our lives in Christ, lest we maylose all peace-loving people. A leaderanointed by the Lord ought to know themind of his flock. He ought to knowabout the shock he has caused by hisHomily and by his unjust treatment ofLaszlo Kovacs. We must not sacrificeour best priests on the altar of secularpower. The danger is that not only ourunfortunate country but our Church toowould be split from top to bottom.

An elderly priest:Where does the Gospel tell us that weshould distinguish between "authorisedviolence" and any other kind of vio-lence? Hitler's army was an "organisedforce" — should the German CatholicChurch have praised it for this reason?A group using "revolutionary violence"may become, from one day to the other,the possessor of power, an "organisedforce"; perhaps, they only had betterweapons or were more skilful in the artof killing. What is the difference in kil-

ling, yesterday and today?Personally, I am ready to bear the crossof my vocation; I suffered six months inprison in 1953 and did a stretch of forcedlabour in the coalmines. Now it is just theconfiscation of my passport I have to suf-fer. Why the frequent transfers, why anew start almost every two years? I haveno rest, though the end of my road isnear.

A curate in Budapest:If it were not so tragic, one could findyour fine distinction between "War" and"Violence" quite amusing, Your Emi-nence. Is there murder without vio-lence? And what about the example ofOur Lord Jesus Christ who preferred todie rather than to defend himself?Should not his example stop all circum-locutions? The humble and the mightyshould become one in the Church ofChrist. But this is possible only if they areof one heart, of one belief, and both areprepared to reject service to two mas-ters. Look into your own conscience,Your Eminence, I implore you! . . .

Another country priest tries to analyse theHomily of Cardinal Lekai. He challenges thestatement that 1856 and 1981 are comparablefrom the point of view of the Church:

The regime today does distinguish inpractice between believers and unbeliev-ers. It tramples underfoot the basictenets of humanism day by day. There isno freedom of religion, there is no free-dom of conscience, in spite of their beingenshrined in the Helsinki Agreement.One unchanging goal of this regime is theelimination of religion.

On the question of the proper attitude to vio-lence, the writer refers to the various pro-nouncements coming from the Vatican:

Our problem today is not whether a waris "aggressive and unjust" or "defensiveand just". The problem today is the pro-tection of all mankind. Peace can only beone and indivisible: we must condemnevery kind of violence.There are some of us who prefer to befaithful to God and not to Moloch; whybanish them (one suspects) on secularinstructions? We ought to be in the fore-front of the struggle to achieve an honestaccord: if someone cannot square withhis own conscience the use of weapons,and the oath obliging him to kill hisfellow human beings, he should meetunderstanding and not prison; he should

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

104 Documents

be allowed to do some useful work forthe sake of the country. We findexamples of this in many other countries.In fact, we can point to an example evenin our own country — but not in respectof Catholics.I concede that the thoughts of Your Emi-nence are those of a realist; I, however,cannot accept and follow them. I do notdare to accept a shallower truth in theface of God's Truth.Preach us the Gospel, Your Eminence,in its purity. This will at once dissolve thetensions you mentioned, and make "oneshepherd, one flock" of our CatholicChurch again.

Observations of a Layman

Having tasted these letters, I find it difficult toswitch back into the style of an objectivechronicler.

If we look at these internal critics of theChurch, we can distinguish (perhaps some-what arbitrarily) two main streams amongthem. The first, larger, group does not urgestructural changes and does not deal with theinterpretation of the Gospel. Their concern isthe intrusion of state power into the everydaylife of the Church: the activities of the "peace-priests", the difficulties of religious tuition (inschools and seminaries alike); the veto powerof the Office for Religious Affairs regardingconsecrations and nominations. These criticsdemand more courage from the hierarchy,they urge the genuine separation of Churchand State, no matter how difficult. This groupis growing in numbers, swollen by successivegenerations of thoughtful novices.

The list of grievances is long, from the over-lordship of the State (based on ancient rightsof patronage) to the obstacle race simplebelievers must run in the practice of theirreligion. The main anxiety of the critics istheir conviction that the compliance of thehierarchy would actually weaken the influ-ence and attraction of the Church, notstrengthen it.

The other, somewhat smaller, group —whilst sharing the same concerns anddemands — cannot see how the Church couldregain its stature without a thorough struc-tural and spiritual rejuvenation. In their view,the lack of a dialogue between the hierarchyand the masses of the faithful can serve onlythe interests of the State. They demand a sim-pler, more popular, more inspiring interpre-tation of the Gospel. In essence, they want toscrape off the feudal barnacles of centuries

from the body of the Church.It follows from the nature of such criticism

that its spokesmen are also experimentingwith the creation of livelier, more intimatecommunities. The small communities actingin the spirit of Bulanyi, although numberingover a hundred, are only one element in thisradical movement.

Of course, we could divide the criticsaccording to their attitude to tradition. Manyof them — especially the older ones — drawtheir optimism from the thousand-year his-tory of Hungarian Catholicism. They thinkthat a more courageous Church could fulfil anational role, similar to that of the PolishChurch. Others, although respectful ofaccepted ecclesiastical rules, also want toreassess history. They point to the subservi-ence to Hapsburg rule always shown by theChurch and to its immense landholdings up tothe Second World War; in their view, boththe blessing of arms that helped Hitler and thepresent weak-kneed subordination to thecommunist power are a direct consequence ofthat past.

These critics, then, rely less on the nationalcharacter of the Church and tend to drawtheir arguments more from "universalist"sources: from the Gospels or from the generalhistory of mankind. Non-violence, forexample, has very shallow roots in HungarianCatholicism. This kind of radical pacifism, thecomplete refusal to serve in the army, has sofar been the attitude of tiny sects, usuallylooked upon with some contempt byCatholics (never mind ecumenism). For thisreason, the allies of the State within thehierarchy are trying to isolate the small com-munities by slandering them as "sectarian".

Of course, since all these people are mem-bers of the same flock, their differences arenever as profound as those of secular move-ments. The indignation caused by the Cardi-nal's Homily swept up not only the smallcommunities but a very large part of generalCatholic public opinion too — they all rejecthis arguments in favour of the State. Thesmall communities themselves are — need-less to say — no sectarians. They expect theChurch to become stronger by supporting thegroups and the outspoken priests, by uphold-ing freedom of conscience. The Cardinalaccuses them of wanting to disarm the nation.Their reply to him is that armaments are notonly against Christ, they are also against thenation. "Universalist" or "nationalist", bothtrends have the same direction.

It is not quite clear yet whether all Catholics

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents 105

desirous of renewal would actually embracepacifism. It is not impossible that the radicalsamong Catholics will remain the only onesdemanding the right of refusal to bear arms.Be that as it may, it is certain that theirexample, their stand taken in the spirit of age-old struggles for civil rights, will keep awakethe conscience of believers and laymen alike.

Laymen and believers, they must all stand upfor the defence of these rights, in the name ofdemocracy. And we could all learn a lessonfrom them: by their defiance, they may showus the way to peace with honour in a heavilyrearmed East-Central Europe.

MIKL6S HARASZTI

An Open Letter to Hungarian Catholic Dissidents"Jesus Christ promised that the gates of Hellwould not prevail against his Church . . . buthe did not promise that the HungarianCatholic Church would survive — thisdepends on us", said someone to me recently.Indeed, it seems that the Hungarian CatholicChurch is ceremonially proceeding towardscollapse. We all know that the numbers ofpriests are decreasing, as fewer and feweryoung people contemplate this career; still, Ido not believe that the shortage of priestsalone should mean the end of Catholicismhere. There is a much greater danger: theChurch is being successfully diverted from itsvocation. And, since this is taking place withpomp and circumstance, with smiling appear-ances on television, anyone who sounds thealarm is unlikely to command attention.Friends of the alarmist would soothe him, asthey did the blind beggar crying out to Jesus:"Son of David, have pity on me"; otherswould consider him a mischief-maker, onewho does not think realistically.

I trust I am not one of the latter, nor ahopelessly shouting blind beggar. I am just asimple believer. I believe in Jesus Christ. Ibelieve that He set out our tasks for all time,according to the age and to circumstances.But without appeasement! We must believein the whole Christ, we cannot narrow Himdown; and we must not allow others to distortHim. "Sober human considerations" mustnot be allowed to do this — not even for thesake of more effective pastoral care.

The crisis of the Hungarian CatholicChurch — in spite of its magnitude — is sosuccessfully covered up that the sheer fact ofsaying aloud: "There is a crisis", must havesome significance. I cannot do more than saythis at present.

I am writing this under a pen-name — butnot because I am doing something shamefulor criminal; I am confident that these lines arewell within the rules of the Constitution. It is

not my aim (in the short or in the long term) tooverturn the current regime; no Christianperson or group would want to do that. I donot intend to organise political action againstthe system. My calling is not in politics, onlyin the service of the Gospel. However, I feel Ihave to disguise my identity, because thecommunist state always tends to interpret thelaw according to its own interests. I mustavoid becoming an entry on some "blacklist".I do not want to be followed, spied upon, ex-posed to harassment, to be limited even morein my freedom of movement — all thesewould prevent me from pursuing my truevocation, that is, pastoral care.

Marxist Catholicism

According to Marx, religion is the conse-quence of alienation. In his "Critique ofHegel's Philosophy of Laws", he writes as fol-lows about capitalism:

This state, this society, producesreligion: a world view turned inside out.After all, capitalism is a world turnedinside out.

This statement is often swept under the carpetnowadays in the countries of so-called"socialism" — after all, the disappearance ofreligion is hardly likely in the near future. Atthe same time, it is only natural that those inpower should attempt to prove in practice thisimportant tenet of their ideology; they wouldlike to achieve the alienation of religion, itsrepresentation of a "world turned insideout". This is not a very difficult task: all theyhave to do is to ensure that leading posts inthe Church are filled by men who (willingly ornot, it is all the same) are prepared to servethe interests of the secular power. Having set-tled this, they can even proclaim the indepen-dence of the Church — at least as far asappearances go. Once this has been achieved,they have to interfere only infrequently in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

106 Documents

ecclesiastical matters — church leaders willfollow the rules of the game.

The cunning of worldly leaders is trulyadmirable: they can lay down the rules of thegame in ecclesiastical terms. For instance,they recognised that — in order to create a"world turned inside out" — the educationand training of priests can be entrusted topeople who are alien to the crying needs ofthe faith, who will teach a distorted view ofthe world to their pupils.

The fierce "peace-priests", the army ofthose tarred with a left-wing brush, are gradu-ally fading into the background — they weretoo openly and blatantly the mouthpiece ofstate direction and interventionism. The styleof state policies has become more refined: theleadership of the Church will gradually behanded over to people who are honest andsincere, who have proved their faith throughimprisonment; the only snag is that they arerigid traditionalists who have not learnt fromtheir own past. They would be most surprisedif told that their attitudes are doing harm tothe Church. Unfortunately, with their princi-ples, their value system, their educationalmethods, they simply cannot rise to the chal-lenge of the present; thereby they are hinder-ing those entrusted to their care. The novicestherefore cannot find their bearings in theworld, they will harbour all sorts of com-plexes, their capacity for establishing humanlinkages will wilt and decay. Once theybecome priests, they cannot properly assesstheir true tasks in pastoral care, they do notreally understand other people. It is to befeared that the education of priests maybecome the "opium for the people". Cer-tainly, it is opium for the priests themselves: adistorted personality and attitude induces akind of stupor that paralyses the will foraction, prevents the recognition of, andresistance to, disguised oppression. Is this notwhat we may call alienation?

The most dangerous area where thisstrategy operates is the manipulation of thepriest's vocation. The majority of those whowant to enter a seminary do not really have,strictly speaking, a priestly vocation; rather, itis that of a "prophet" or perhaps, "prophet-priest": to bring good tidings to the poor,release to prisoners, sight to the blind . . . orjust to proclaim the year of the Lord's grace(cf. Isaiah 61: 42 and Luke: 18-19). It is truethat in Hungary today there is hardly anylegal possibility for responding to this voca-tion outside the ranks of the priesthood; onthe other hand, throughout the history of the

Church, "charisma" has been gradually andincreasingly expropriated by the higherclergy. Therefore it would be more than dif-ficult to find a suitable frame for the vocationof "prophet-priest". The novice may speak ofhis priestly vocation, but really he means thecall to become a "prophet". His superiors arealso talking in terms of the priestly vocation,but they mean, on their part, an identificationwith priestly institutions, a formal loyalty tothe Church, nothing more. The novice slowlycompletes his five years' course and hardlynotices at the end that the "priestly vocation"he had been taught is far from his original"call". Everything is in aid of this formalism:from the daily routine, through lifelessideologies, to the virtual automation ofspiritual life. The novices are in no position tocontrol the shape of their vocation, they arelost in the jungle of ideology and dry-as-dusttheories. Unconsciously, they become alien-ated from their true vocation, and neverrealise that they are, in fact, serving theinterests of the rulers. Their manipulation isso subtle that they take it for liberty. (This isthe mechanism so aptly described by Marx inhis discussion of the "fetishist character ofgoods".) Vocation thus becomes priestlybureaucracy. I believe it is here that weshould look for the reasons why there is such alarge number of "embittered seminarists".

We do not really know the true relationshipbetween society and our own field of work.Internal criticism within the Church is neces-sary, but in our case we should dig deeper.Our problems are rooted in the political andsocial system in which we are living. Our taskis, therefore, to unmask the manipulativeactivities and the inherent alienation of thissystem itself; this is the only way to reachTruth and to enable us to devote ourselves toour Christianity, to Jesus Christ. This work ofdisclosure, analysis and evaluation wouldhave an enormous effect.

The Oppression of the Church

The State has complete control over allchurches and governs ecclesiastical life byindirect methods. We have lost every meansfor legally valid defence. The priest wouldturn in vain to his bishop, the novice to hissuperior, a parish member with a grievance tohis priest. In actual practice, every single insti-tution or office that ought to protect the free-dom of the Church acts against such protes-ters. Initiatives by individuals are suppressed,hopes of a community are dissipated, flocksare dispersed — all in all, the foundations of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents 107

the Catholic Church are in danger. There aremany who are tempted by the thought: let usleave this vicious circle!

There are some amongst us who do believethat the State is willing to enter into an honestdialogue with us, if only we were ready for it.The two-faced policy of the "peace-priests"has seduced many a priest of good will. Thesepeople do not realise that every new agree-ment between State and Church, trumpetedaround the world as a great new achievement,only gives back ridiculous crumbs of the rightsoriginally due to the Church of Christ and toall human beings. In exchange for these "con-cessions", they become the tools of totali-tarian state power; a power that has nevergiven up its aim to gag every kind of dissident.Their slogans are "compromise" and"realism". All right, but a compromise ismeaningful only if it is being kept by bothpartners. Let me quote from an essay by thePolish activist Adam Michnik:

Communist power has expunged theword "compromise" from its vocabu-lary. They accept it as a policy only if it isforced upon them. Otherwise compro-mise with them only leads to self-destruction. (New Evolutionism.)

He is speaking of the Polish religious group-ing "Znak", but his words apply with evengreater accuracy to our "peace movement".To continue quoting Michnik:

This group [Znak] consented, underpressure from the State, to replace itsmembers of parliament; this was the firststep on a road of compromise. Becauseof their concessions, the Znak-MPs havelost their authority, in the eyes of boththe State and society as a whole. In spiteof its powerlessness, our society doesvalue courage and steadfastness. Themembers of the Znak group stepped onto the slippery slope that leads from com-promise to becoming compromised.Hard words, maybe, but — alas — true.

And what about our own "peace-priests"?What is the use of a flood of marvellouslycourageous articles, when it can happen — asit has recently—that a bishop reports a priestof another diocese because he holds cate-chism classes at his presbytery? When police-men surround the pupils and take theirnames, in order to intimidate them and theirparents? When the State Office for ReligiousAffairs holds dozens of snapshots taken atreligious gatherings as material exhibitsagainst the participants? What about thoseecclesiastical office-holders who are using

similar underhand ways to remove"awkward" people? What should we believe?The rousing declarations about the freedomof the Church, or the statement by an officialat the Ministry of Home Affairs: "Everythingconcerns us, including whether you are achurchgoer or not. Everything is in ourhands, everything depends on us."

Another, even more dangerous, aspect ofthe opting-out process is that of becoming aninformer. Some people may be kept on astring, as a result of some moral peccadillo;they are forced to "grass" for the files of theOffice for Religious Affairs. Others turninformer simply because they cannot bear theconstant tension. These "supergrass" priestsare perhaps the most dangerous, as they areinside the Church. They are to be pitied most,too, as they are degrading both their ownmoral being and their vocation. And, ofcourse, they cannot opt out: on the contrary,they are locked in. They remain friendless,even among their new "friends", who alsodespise them. This is the road to tragic perdi-tion and moral depravity, not that of breakingout.

There is also the army of the inert, that of"loyalist" church members. They are realiststoo: they may reject the tragi-comic kowtow-ing of others, but they also avoid anythingthat may throw doubt upon their reliability.Gyorgy Konrad, the well-known "dissident",had these people in mind, when he said at the1977 Venice Biennale:

The concentration camps of Hitlerembodied the absolute Evil of our cen-tury. They were established not by madcriminals but by loyal — over-loyal —citizens. The epitome of the totalitarianstate is not the executioner but the modelbureaucrat: the man more loyal to theState than to his friends.Nevertheless, the majority of priests —

especially the younger ones — reject thesecrooked ways of "opting out". They arethrowing themselves into their work withenthusiasm, they visit the sick, help theneedy, look for new avenues of pastoral care,gather followers around themselves. Theiractivities are impressive and effective — butnot without their snags. In exchange for beingable to work relatively undisturbed, they maygive up another, equally important factor oftheir vocation: the creation of a confident andstrong consensus among the clergy, as a resultof the harmonisation of their daily work.Being convinced that they are doing theirduty in the proper manner, they do not realise

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

108 Documents

that their solidarity towards their fellow-priests will be lost along the way: their moralobligation to the Church will be subtly sub-verted by an obligation to the powers-that-be.

There are questions galore to be answered,my friends. We should throw ourselves intothe work of answering them, lest we, too,become adapted to the organic distortions ofthe system. "He who was born lame learns tolive with his lameness." The Church hasalways been the repository of the noblestprinciples. Our Catholic Church, however —burdened by a long and often dubious history— seems to accept the surrender to Caesar,the identification with the interest of therulers of the day. It considers that its situationcannot be changed, therefore it is not worthtrying to change it.

New Responsibilities and Social Obligations

Viewing the present state of the CatholicChurch, one has the impression that theHungarian State is pioneering new methodsof persecuting religion. Hungary may havesucceeded in acquiring a certain respectabroad, rare among so-called socialist states;our standard of living is relatively high, thereis freedom of religion, dissidents are notalways thrown into prison. It is certainly truethat the religious policies of our State are lesscrude than those of Czechoslovakia orRomania. Unfortunately, the essence re-mains hidden from the eyes of the innocentbystander. Maybe the Party is attempting toshape a new, national Church — a new his-torical phenomenon? In addition, it strives togain the blessing of the Vatican on its actions;the execution of its moves is usually entrustedto our religious notables. This is doublydangerous: not only may this shake the faithof many believers — it may also undermine 'our trust in Rome. The Hungarian method ofrefined religious persecution may become theparadigm for the next decade . . . or even forthe next century.

This state of affairs puts the burden of new,very hard, tasks on our shoulders, priests andlaymen alike. Before the Second VaticanCouncil, the faithful might have consideredthat Church and Hierarchy were one and thesame thing; the problems of the Church werenot quite their problems, they might havethought — so they retired into passivity. If,however, we follow the steps for renewal putforward by the Council, we cannot brushaside the problems of the Church. It is "ourChurch", in every sense of the word.

The Council has rejected every kind of inte-grationism and renounced intervention by theChurch in secular matters. Many peopleinterpret this as meaning that we must turnaway from the outside world and remainindifferent to social questions and neutraltowards the system of secular power — allthese have nothing to do with the mission ofthe Church.

Far from true! Renunciation of earthlypower does not mean that Christianity refusesto be present and active within social struc-tures, and of course, this works mostlythrough the behaviour of individuals. It can-not mean that we should stay neutral in thecause of the rule of God on earth: it must notmean that we refuse to fight those whodegrade God and Man.. .

"Thy will be done, on earth as it is inheaven," we say in the Lord's Prayer. Onearth: this means that we must accept thework and take on the responsibilities. Wecannot and must not renounce responsibleservice to our fellow men.

Will the Hungarian Catholic Church re-main faithful to the mission of Christ? Thiswill depend on us. I can only say with St Paul:"The gifts may be different but the spirit is thesame". We must shoulder our tasks to thebest of our capacity. I firmly believe that someof us are allotted the task of surveying freshground: that of social obligations.

We are in need of written testimony thatwould describe our situation without embel-lishment and would also point out our goals inthe future. The truth of our stance can beattested only by our frequent and sinceremeetings with Jesus Christ himself. He is thesource of Life and Truth. He is the measure ofthe breadth and depth of our vocation. Onlythrough Him can we recognise the true con-tent of our vocation. He is our example forevery obligation. He came — and He is send-ing us — to bear witness to Truth. Thereforewe must withdraw from the circle of lies andinfamy; we must expose all falsehood.

We are witnesses to the slow, deliberate de-basement of all religious and human values. Itis our duty to join those who dare to speak outin defence of our values, be they called "dissi-dents" or otherwise. We must take this deci-sive step, and the sooner the better. I cannotbelieve that the complete putrefaction of ourChurch may somehow result in a "morefavourable moment".

"MARTON HART ATSeptember 1980

Translated by Julian Schopflin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

32 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014