Zagreb, (IKA) – The Archdiocesan Curia of Zagreb responded to statements by Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Irinej published on May 4 as part of an interview in the Belgrade newspaper Večernje novosti. The Patriarch was quoted as saying the following:

“In today’s Republic of Croatia, which has one foot in the European Union, even some religious leaders are encouraging the violation of the elementary human rights of their fellow citizens, Orthodox Serbs, such as their right to return and live in safety, equality in employment, restitution of their confiscated houses, apartments and other property, the right to their names, language and alphabet. … In connection with the aforementioned, what can be said about the public statements issued by one of the most distinguished and influential persons in the Roman Catholic Episcopate, by which he provides support to the outrageous demands of chauvinistic groups to ban Serbian Cyrillic on signs in Vukovar, a city in which many Serbs live today? Who, for God’s sake, can claim a monopoly on suffering and the sacrosanct status of victim? Really, unbelievable! Our Roman Catholic brothers in Serbia have all the rights that we do. We support this unrelentingly.”

The statement issued by the Archdiocesan Curia of Zagreb says that although not explicitly specified, it is evident that the Patriarch in the second part of his remarks was referring to a homily delivered by the Archbishop of Zagreb, Cardinal Josip Bozanić, at a Mass celebrated in Vukovar on April 29, 2013, during a pilgrimage by the priests of the Archdiocese of Zagreb to Vukovar.
The statement cautions that this short excerpt contains much that is confusing and raises serious questions. While in the first part, it is not specified who the “individual religious leaders” are that encourage the violation of elementary human rights, the path is opened for the creation of a generalized impression. Since these are very strong words, it would be responsible to mention the names of these individuals.
In the second part, an individual is clearly singled out whose words provoke outrage. It is claimed that Cardinal Bozanić “provides support to the outrageous demands of chauvinistic groups to ban Serbian Cyrillic on signs in Vukovar” and thereby “claims a monopoly on suffering and the sacrosanct status of victim.” We shall not enter the debate regarding what kind of rights Roman Catholics have in Serbia but we shall openly and sincerely ask what the cardinal actually said.
To clarify the situation and limit ourselves to what was said, it is useful to quote the cardinal’s words:

“We have come to Vukovar, at a moment when the Croatian society is again flooded with attempts to deny Vukovar’s specific nature, to denigrate that which is the most valuable in the tissue of the nation, so as not to build on the truth. Thus, there are attempts to create the impression that this is a place like any other, that nothing irregular happened here, that Vukovar should be treated with the same lifeless and cold regularity as other places. However, we know that for Croatia there are many people here carrying compelling memories that exude human and Christian spirituality. In Vukovar, those who were destroying it are not in the first place but rather those who protected and built it. Anyone who tries to create insignificant ordinariness from this singularity and gift of love is still attempting to destroy, cause turmoil, open wounds and spread insensitivity that leads to conflicts.
“And while it seems indisputable that Vukovar is one of the clearest symbols of Croatian freedom, unreasonable attitudes, distanced from reality, contribute to creating a sense that some people do not care about this. Have we not already been sufficiently convinced in Croatia that lack of respect for or elimination of genuine symbols does not lead to good? […]
“Everything that introduces a lie, everything that with silence obliterates sensitivity to the person harms this city and the Croatian homeland. Therefore, it should be clearly stated that the question of an alphabet is a summation of many other unanswered questions. These burning questions still resonate and seek answers. Therefore, Vukovar merits particular sensitivity, which should also be expressed through a special framework of applicable legislation on the regulation of certain issues. Political wisdom is characterized by sensitivity to reality and does not resort to assaulting the sentiments of citizens in order to achieve its agenda, recognizes exceptions and waits patiently for the time to be ripe. Here, it is first necessary to learn the truth, promote the desire for encounters and fellowship, and spread coexistence and reconciliation.”

The statement issued by the Archdiocesan Curia of Zagreb asks where in the cardinal’s words is there any support for chauvinism or prohibition of signs using the Cyrillic alphabet in Vukovar, from what can a tendency toward “a monopoly on the status of victim” be inferred, and what would this generally signify regarding a brutally destroyed Croatian city and the evil that spoke on the soil of Croatia with the most destructive force.
“It could be concluded that the Patriarch neither listened to nor read what the Cardinal said in Vukovar. If he had, would he be able to deny the specific nature of the situation in Vukovar and the need for sensitivity regarding all issues, that it is necessary to build upon the truth, that turmoil and conflict should not be introduced, that the wounds of people who have suffered unspeakably and are still suffering should not be reopened; that reality should not be neglected; that people should not remain silent about that which can bring good; that light should be shed on the truth about those killed and missing in the recent warfare? Perhaps the sentence that it is “first of all necessary to learn the truth, promote the desire for encounters and fellowship, and spread coexistence and reconciliation” gives offense. We regret that the Patriarch did not pay greater attention to what was actually said. Instead, he attributed to the Cardinal something that was neither said during the homily nor in the printed text of the sermon, something that cannot be inferred without entering the realm of untruth. We are aware that we are part of a culture that it attempting to build itself upon opinions and interpretations, without providing a factual foundation. This is fertile soil for politicization and conflict of interests. Without attempting to provide a true picture of reality, people are encouraged to take sides, “for” or “against.” Therefore, by presenting the facts, this statement is intended to contribute to shedding light on the truth, which liberates and makes sincere dialogue possible,” reads the Statement issued by the Press Office of the Archdiocese of Zagreb on May 9.