Südosteuropa 61 (2013), H. 3, S. 432-452

OPEN ISSUES OF DECENTRALISATION IN

ALEKSANDER ZDRAVKOVSKI

New Ecclesiastical (Dis)order: The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000

Abstract. The contemporary confl icts in the Balkans have brought about a genuine growth of religiosity among the people and increased the importance of spiritual organizations. The Serbian Orthodox Church and its leaders closely cooperated with the political parties and governments of both the left and the right. This article surveys the career of Bishop Filaret who is the head of the Mileševa see. It aims to provide evidence that this cleric was able to retain a powerful position in post–Milošević Serbia even though he had been very close to that regime during the 1990’s. Lastly, the analysis will illustrate the negative consequences of the fusion of politics and religion in this part of South-eastern Europe.

Ale ksander Zdravkovski is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Sociology and Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

Introduction

The end of the twentieth century was marked by a revitalization of religiosity among the peoples of the Balkans. In Serbia, nationalist ideology became preva- lent and was frequently accompanied by a zealous and aggressive manifestation of new political muscle by certain ecclesiastic hierarchs. The Serbian Orthodox Church1 (SPC) is an organization that is prone to corruption, controversies and perilous political manipulations. The activities of the ecclesiastic representatives have created obstacles to the process of building a civic and inclusive society in Serbia. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church is presently one of the most trusted institutions in Serbia. As a consequence, this issue is notable and important.2 The topic of the relations between religion and politics in the post-communist Yugoslav successor states has been widely discussed and researched. Most no-

1 Srpska Pravoslavna Crkva, henceforth: SPC. 2 Stefano Bianchini, The EU in the Values and Expectations of Serbia, in: Ola Listhaug / Sa- brina P. Ramet / Dragana Dulić (eds.), Civic and Uncivic Values: Serbia in the Post-Milošević Era. Budapest 2011, 77-112. The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 433 tably, the works of Sabrina P. Ramet, Milan Vukomanović and other scholars have examined the activities of the SPC and its ideology in great detail.3 This study is a scholarly att empt to contextualize the activities of the SPC hierarchy in the Southwestern part of Serbia, in the region usually called Raška by Serb historians, authors and intellectuals.4 The local Bosniaks that inhabit the region and form a relative majority there call this part of the country Sandžak. The author would like to underline that he does not claim that the case of Filaret, bishop of the Mileševa diocese, is a paradigmatic one, as this cleric is rather an untypical hierarch of the Church. However, as clerics of the SPC often embody the slogan “where the bishop is, there is the Church”,5 the bishops represent the Church and their conduct represents the policies of the SPC. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the fact that Filaret was a member of the Holy Synod of the SPC from 2006 to 2009. Consequently, it is not a mistake to claim that an analysis of the activities of bishop Filaret is appropriate when surveying the role of the SPC in the Raška region. This study will give additional substance to the claims that the SPC and its bishops have very close relations with Serbian politicians. In addition, the au- thor will give supplementary evidence that the SPC promoted uncivic values in a region that is well-known for its multi-ethnic character. Lastly, this study of the SPC will further the argument that bishops that have close ties to the political establishment are able to make more decisions autonomously and free of interference of the Holy Synod. As a consequence, these clerics could serve as tools for political parties and infl uential groupings. In this context, the author has conducted several semi-structured interviews in Serbia with politicians and experts on the SPC. The author has also relied on newspaper articles and scientifi c studies for additional research. The au- thor also tried to conduct interviews with the relevant hierarchs of the SPC, but unfortunately none of them was willing to participate. Consequently, this

3 See for example: Sabrina P. Ramet, Religija i politika u vremenu promene: Katolička i pravoslavne crkve u centralnoj i jugoistočnoj Evropi. Beograd 2006 (Centar za ženske studije i istraživanja roda); eadem, Nihil obstat: Religion, Politics, and Social Change in East-Central Europe and Russia. Durham/NC 1998; eadem, The Way We Were – and Should Be Again? European Orthodox Churches and the “Idyllic Past”, in: Timothy A. Byrnes / Peter J. Katzen- stein (eds.), Religion in an Expanding Europe. Cambridge 2006, 148-175; Milan Vukomanović, The Serbian Orthodox Church as a Political Actor in the Aftermath of October 5, 2000, Politics and Religion 1 (2008), no. 2, 237-269. 4 See for example: Slavenko Terzić, Raška oblast i sandžačko pitanje, symposium, Beograd, 27.10.2011. A video of his presentation at the symposium is available at . All Internet sources were last accessed on 13 September 2013. 5 See for example: Beseda Episkopa Gerasima, Episkopija Gornjokarlovačka, available at . This mantra is derived from the Latin saying “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” which means “where Peter is, there is the Church”. 434 Aleksander Zdravkovski study will utilize the communiqués and materials available at the offi cial web page of the SPC. Historically speaking, Raška is of great importance to the . In this part of the country, the medieval Serbian Kingdom was established by King Stefan the First-Crowned at the beginning of the thirteenth century.6 Following the Ott conquest of the Balkans, the Raška region was divided into a number of administrative units that have undergone a substantial evolution through time.7 Ultimately, Serbia and Montenegro managed to get hold of Raška after the First Balkan War (1912/13). During the twentieth century, this region witnessed the slow but steady emigration of the local Muslim population, primarily to Turkey.8 Many local Serbs have also emigrated abroad or to other parts of Serbia during the last hundred years, mainly due to economic reasons.9 The region is divided in two dioceses of the SPC. The diocese of Mileševa has its administrative center in the Mileševa monastery near Prijepolje. The diocese of Raška-Prizren and Kosovo-Metohija is based in Prizren.10 This study will not address the developments in the latt er eparchy.

The “Red Bishop”: Filaret’s Reign in the Diocese of Mileševa

The Serbian president Slobodan Milošević and his apparatus tried to wield control over the Serbian media and use them to spread propaganda against their enemies. Indeed, Serbian newspapers and TV stations frequently produced war-mongering reports with the aim of bolstering the “patriotic” feelings of the Serbs.11 Some hierarchs of the Church participated in this orchestrated propaganda. The SPC relationship with the regime of Slobodan Milošević was marked by mutual distrust that evolved from time to time into tactical cooperation.

6 Jovanka Kalić, Raška Kraljevina, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 41 (2004), 183-189. 7 Dragica Premović, Sandžak, administrativna jedinica u okupacjonom sistemu u Staroj Raškoj (Paper presented at the symposium Historical and Cultural Processes in Sandžak / Stara Raška, Bosniak Cultural Community, Prijepolje, 03./04.12.2010. 8 Safet BandŽović, Iseljavanje Bošnjaka u Tursku. Sarajevo 2006; idem, Balkanski muha- džirski pokreti u historiografskom kaleidoskopu, Almanah 35/36 (2006), 155-192, 182-191. 9 Interview by the author with Vojin “Voja” Vučićević, president of the management board of the humanitarian organization Stara Raška, , 13.06.2012. 10 An up-to-date map of the territorial units of the SPC is given in: R. Dragović, U Saboru više vladika, Večernje novosti, 11.10.2010, available at . 11 More information on this topic can be found in: Kemal Kurspahić, Prime Time Crime: Bal- kan Media in War and Peace. Washington/DC 2003, chapters 2, 3 and 4; Svetlana SlapŠak / Hari Štajner, Rat je počeo na Maksimiru, govor mržnje u medijima, analiza pisanja Politike i Borbe, 1987-1991. Beograd 1997. The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 435

The and self-declared leader of all Serbs was a former communist apparatchik and an ardent atheist. During the 1990s, he diligently tried to co-opt some of the left-leaning hierarchs of the SPC into his nationalist movement, which aimed to “unify the Serb lands”. He was to a certain extend successful in this regard. One of his closest collaborators in the SPC was Filaret (Jelenko) Mićević. Filaret Mićević was elected bishop of the diocese of Mileševa by the Holy Assembly of the SPC in May 1999. According to one of the most prominent Serbian experts on the SPC, Mirko Djordjević, Filaret did not have the ap- propriate education and background to be enthroned as head of the Mileševa diocese. Djordjević claims that the election was politically motivated and that the conservative faction within the SPC pushed for Filaret’s election to the prestigious post.12 To verify these assertions, it is necessary to detail the activities of the future bishop of Mileševa during fi rst part of the Milošević era. The fi rst reports on Filaret’s activities were published in the late 1980s, when Serbia was engulfed by a nationalist, Kosovo-centered hysteria. The myths re- garding the southern province became the very core of Serbian revisionism and played a pivotal role in the awakening of Serb chauvinism. In 1988, the journal Voice of the Church13 printed an article on the activities of the monk Filaret with the title “The tear of the hieromonk Filaret”. The story portrays the cleric as a noble and virtuous person who was gathering aid for the “aggrieved Serb nuns” in Kosovo. According to the report, the activities of the cleric were widely sup- ported by the Orthodox faithful in all parts of the country.14 This fl amboyant cleric of the Orthodox Church became widely known in 1991. In September of that year, he appeared on TV Novi Sad. The archpriest reported that Croatian forces had been killing Serb children. As proof, he presented a child’s skull and stated that: “The Ustašas have come to one Serb village here, near Kukurizari, and they have caught litt le Ilija and in front of his mother they have slain him and taken him like that. His mother is called Milica. This happened on his birthday on the second of August this year. His mother was running after him so at least she could have the dead child. They did not give [his body] to her. They have burned it.”15

12 Interview by the author with Mirko Djordjević, Šimanovci, 14.06.2012. 13 Glas crkve in Serbian. It was an offi cial journal of the SPC, “blessed” by the episcopate of Šabac. 14 Suza jeromonaha Filareta, Glas crkve, Christmas issue (1988), 69-71. 15 The relevant part of the report of TV Novi Sad is available at . 436 Aleksander Zdravkovski

No offi cial investigation or report has ever been conducted on this particular case. However, the explicit circumstances presented in this TV story undoubt- edly had the aim of stirring up nationalist passions among the audience. During the 1990s, Filaret was the custodian of the Monastery of Saint Archan- gel Gabriel in Zemun, Belgrade.16 Here, the fl amboyant priest was organizing manifestations att ended by some of Milošević’s closest associates. One of them was Dragan “Hadži” Antić, who in 1993 became the main editor and director of the daily Politika.17 The Serbian Radical Party18 and its chairman, Vojislav Šešelj, have nurtured good relations with the priest and with many other Serbian clergymen.19 Filaret and his nationalist and xenophobic rhetoric enticed the SRS to cooperate on the spreading of war-mongering propaganda. In addition to his post as the custodian of the monastery in Zemun, Filaret was managing the endowment of the SPC called Philanthropy.20 Most of the activities of this humanitarian organization were related to “fi eld work” in the batt legrounds in and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Filaret also provided the Serb militias with active “spiritual support” in many parts of these two countries. For example, in September 1991 he was present on the batt lefi elds in Central Croatia near the monastery of Komogovina. The cleric became very famous due to a picture taken of him in which he is holding a machine gun while standing next to a Serb armored vehicle.21 He kept close ties with the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadžić, whom he met in 1994. He was also present at the funeral of Ratko Mladić’s daughter Ana in Belgrade.22 Filaret met Mladić once more in February 1995.23 The diary of the Bosnian Serb general substantiates the claim that at that time the future bishop

16 Tihomir Ilić, Prilozi za biografi ju jednog vladike, Republika (2009), no. 454/455, available at ; Jovana Lazić, Manastir Svetog Arhangela Gavrila u Zemunu, Pravoslavlje (2007), no. 963, available at . 17 Zorica Vulić, Vladika Filaret, Glas Javnosti, 06.07.2000, available at ; at the beginning of the 1990s Dragan Antić was the editor of Pravoslavlje, the journal of the SPC. 18 Srpska Radikalna Stranka, henceforth: SRS. This nationalist political party has its head- quarters in Zemun, Belgrade. 19 Interview by the author with Zoran Krasić, deputy chairman of the SRS, Belgrade- Zemun, 12.06.2012. 20 “Čovekoljublje” – dobrotvorni fond Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, available at . 21 For the photo, see Mira Bićanić, Zločinci i duhovnici, Novosti, 10.06.2011, available at . 22 M. PeŠić, Ljubitelj vrlina pod sumnjom, Politika, 05.08.2007, available at . 23 A digitalized version of the relevant part of the diary of Ratko Mladić is available at . The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 437 of Mileševa had close contacts with senior political and army fi gures associated with the Serbian regime. Interestingly, the head of the SPC, Patriarch Pavle, and the highest executive body, the Holy Synod, did neither oppose nor endorse Filaret’s political activi- ties. One possible explanation for this lack of activity (or quiet support) of the endeavors of the future bishop of Mileševa might be the fact that the conservative wing in the SPC, headed by Artemije (Radosavljević), Amfi lohije (Radović) and Atanasije (Jevtić), was also actively participating in the propaganda machine against the “enemies of Serbdom”. This group wielded considerable power and infl uence within the institutions of the SPC. Very often, they were able to force their policies upon Patriarch Pavle himself.24 Filaret’s ideological cooperation with the Serbian regime continued through the second part of the dreadful 1990s and reached its peak in May 1999, when the cleric was elected bishop of Mileševa. On 7 July he was offi cially enthroned at a public ceremony in the Mileševa complex that was att ended by Patriarch Pavle and representatives of the Serbian regime.25 Subsequent to his election, Filaret was given a building by the local authorities of the municipality of Pri- jepolje to serve as his offi cial residence. This Serbian city was at that time tightly controlled by the Socialist Party of Serbia26 and its leader Slobodan Milošević. The Deputy , Vojislav Šešelj, also extended his support to the new bishop by donating a brand new SUV car.27 In 2000, Filaret was named assistant of the minister of religion in the government of Momir Bulatović, Milošević’s Montenegrin ally. This ministry was headed by Leposava Milićević, a distinguished member of the Yugoslav Left.28 Filaret’s activities in this ministry

24 For an extensive analysis of the political activities of the SPC and the power struggle within this institution cf. Milorad Tomanić, Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj. Medijska Knjižara Krug. Beograd 2001. 25 Vlado Mares, Rift in the Serbian Orthodox Church, IWPR. Balkans: Regional Reporting & Sustainable Training, 10.11.2005, available at ; Episkop mileševski FILARET (Mićević), SPCO Lucern, available at . 26 Socialistička Partija Srbije, henceforth: SPS. 27 B. Pejović, “Petooktobarska” episkopska rezidencija, Politika, 11.04.2010, available at ; Stanislav Živkov, Filaretova Mileševa kao Slobini kiosci, Tabloid, 11.11.2010, available at . 28 Dosije Filaret: Veze sa Arkanom i Legijom, podržavao Miloševića, fi nansirao Dve- ri, analitica, 10.05.2013; Jelena Jorgačević, Sličan sličnog odlikuje, Vreme, 13.10.2011, available at ; Leposava Milicevic ministar zdravlja, B92, 28.06.2000, available at . The party Jugoslovenska Levica (JUL) was headed by Mirjana Marković, the wife of Slobodan Milošević. 438 Aleksander Zdravkovski are shrouded in mystery and information regarding them is very scarce. One possible explanation for this reality is the turn of events in the autumn of 2000. At that time, the relations between the SPC and the regime in Belgrade were at an all-time low. The defeat of the Serbian government in its war against the NATO alliance and the consequent withdrawal of the Serbian police and army from Kosovo created a severe rift between the government in Belgrade and some of the hierarchs of the SPC. In July and August of 1999, Patriarch Pavle publicly lashed out at Milošević and asked for his resignation.29 Filaret’s election and subsequent consecration as bishop of the diocese of Mileševa caused an uproar among the Serbian public30 as well as in some circles of the Church. For example, his selection was heavily criticized in an article in the journal Sveti Knez Lazar. According to its author, the election of the bishop was unfortunate as he did not have the proper educational background to take this post.31 This journal is published by the neighboring diocese of Raška and Prizren. At that time, the bishop of this territorial unit of the SPC was Artemije (Radosavljević), who was a member of the hard line and anti-Milošević current within the SPC. The new, fl amboyant bishop Filaret was given an opportunity to return the favor to Milošević and his political establishment in September 2000. On the eve of the new presidential elections, the bishop of Mileševa very vocally endorsed the leader of the SPS in the upcoming elections: “I personally, as bishop of Mileševa, do not see another person for president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but Slobodan Milošević. I myself support him, congratulate him and wish him success in his work.32” The relations of the SPC and the Serbian president deteriorated throughout the 1990s. After the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords in late 1995 and the Ku- manovo agreement in June 1999, the SPC took an active stance against Milošević and his political establishment.33 On 19 September the Holy Synod of the SPC

29 Patrijarh Pavle: Milosevic nam nije odgovorijo, B92, 25.08.1999, available at ; Milošević nije hrišćanin, Glas Javnosti, 25.06.1999, available at . 30 Mirko Djordjević, Kišobran patrijarha Pavla, kritika palanačkog uma. Beograd 2010, 185, available at . 31 Miodrag M. Petrović, U raskoraku sa svetim Savom, Sveti Knez Lazar 26 (1999), no. 2, 25-32, 27, available at . 32 Zoran Majdin, Preduzetništvo i divlja gradnja, Vreme, 14.03.2002, available at . 33 Blaine Harden / Carlott a Gall, Crisis in the Balkans: The Serbian Orthodox Church of Milosevic’s Rise Now Sends Mixed Message, New York Times, 04.06.1999, available at

www.nytimes.com/1999/07/04/world/crisis-balkans-serbian-orthodox-church-milosevic-s- rise-now-sends-mixed-message.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm>. 34 Fr. Rade Merick, The Church’s Role in Serbia’s Peaceful Revolution, Life of the Orthodox Church, 20.10.2000, available at . 35 Nikola Vlahović / Milovan Brkić, Bitka za tron patrijarha, Tabloid, 20.03.2008, 16-19, available at . 36 Merick, The Church’s Role in Serbia’s Peaceful Revolution (above fn. 34). 37 Živkov, Filaretova Mileševa kao Slobini kiosci (above fn. 27). 38 PeŠić, Ljubitelj vrlina pod sumnjom (above fn. 22); Filaret se pokajao – Sabor prihvatio, B92, 03.11.2000, available at . 440 Aleksander Zdravkovski

The “Lover of Virtue” in the Post-Milošević Era

The change of the political establishment in Belgrade brought new challenges for the bishop of Mileševa. Although the SPS and Slobodan Milošević had lost power, Filaret continued to nurture ties with people connected to the former regime. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from building camaraderie with the new ruling political establishment. It is important to underline that, after the “bulldozer revolution”, Bishop Filaret tried to support and befriend Serbian politicians with nationalist leanings who have been a part of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia. He never showed any willingness to cooperate with secular, civic, multi-ethnic political parties such as Zoran Djindjić’s Democratic Party or Čedomir Jovanović’s Liberal Democratic Party. On the contrary, Filaret has always actively supported politicians who have had an ambivalent view on democracy, secularism and liberalism. At the same time, Bishop Filaret’s faithful have begun to rebel against his dictatorial style of governing the diocese of Mileševa. In April 2001, a group of believers sent an offi cial petition to the Holy Assembly of the SPC, demanding the removal of Filaret from his post in Prijepolje. Filaret was accused of political activities and misappropriation of church property.39 The pleas of the faithful fell on deaf ears. The SPC and its institutions did not take any action against the fl amboyant hierarch. In addition to this confl ict with his faithful, the tangible liberalization of the Serbian media after October 2000 led to the Serbian intel- ligentsia taking a more critical stance towards the activities of the “red bishop”. Feeling pressure from the public, Filaret focused on building robust ties with Serbian decision-makers. One such politician who has actively worked on building good relations with the SPC is Velimir “Velja” Ilić, who was a longtime opponent of Slobodan Milošević. In 1998, Ilić formed a political party called New Serbia,40 joined the opposition parties and subsequently played an important role in the toppling of the SPS regime. He was the long-serving mayor of Čačak and became a Minister of Capital Investments in the Koštunica government.41 Velja Ilić is a believer and he has good relations with all of the bishops of the SPC.42 Although the NS platform stipulates that the party “is advocating a secular state”, it also advocates for the state cooperating with the SPC and

39 Željka Jevtić, Vladika koji je voleo Slobu, Glas Javnosti, 13.05.2001, available at ; B. Kojadinoić, Vernici brane eparhiju od vladike Filareta, Blic, 02.04.2001, available at ; Zoran Majdin, Veliki transport, Vreme, 01.11.2001, available at , Dragan Todorović, Jesen “patrijarha”, Vreme 530, 01.03.2001, available at . 40 Nova Srbija, henceforth: NS. 41 O nama / istorijat, Nova Srbija, available at . 42 Interview by the author with Dubravka Filipovski, Belgrade, 15.06.2012. The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 441 providing it with “assistance”, religious classes in public schools, and a restora- tion of the Serbian monarchy under the scepter of the Karadjordjević dynasty.43 Needless to say, Velja Ilić found a partner in the bishop of Mileševa and vice versa. Filaret has worked diligently on nurturing the ties with the NS throughout the post-Milošević era. According to the party’s deputy chairperson, Dubravka Filipovski, Ilić has been cooperating with Filaret in many contexts. For exam- ple, when Ilić was Minister for Capital Investments, he began reconstructing old roads and building new ones in the Raška region. Furthermore, he helped Filaret in the reconstruction of the Mileševa monastery complex. The head of the diocese of Mileševa showed his ideological fl exibility in Sep- tember 2001 when a “monument to the victims of communist terror” was erected on the plateau near the monastery complex. The majority of these “victims” were in fact members of the collaborationist Chetnik44 movement who had been executed by Tito’s partisans. The memorial was built with the help of the NS political party. Filaret and Velja Ilić were present at the ceremony in Prijepolje.45 The following year, with the assistance of the NS party, Bishop Filaret began to build a fi sh pond within the monastery complex. The Yugoslav Army, under the orders of General Nebojša Pavković46 assisted in this enterprise. The rel- evant institutions reacted quickly and fi led a lawsuit against the bishop. Under pressure from the public, the SPC stated that it would inspect the construc- tion. The fi sh pond was legalized in 2004 and the lawsuit against the bishop was quashed.47According to some reports, bishop Filaret granted asylum to war crimes suspects within the premises of the Mileševa monastery complex. Although the Serbian police searched the site and did not fi nd any evidence to support these claims, in July 2003 Filaret was put on the EU’s black list.48 He denied these claims and stated that he had never provided any assistance to war

43 Program, Nova Srbija, 26.11.2005, available at . 44 The Chetniks committ ed gruesome massacres against the local Muslim-Bosniak popula- tion during World War II. 45 Z. Šaponjić, Pobijeni bez suda i zakona, Glas Javnosti, 24.09.2001, available at . 46 General Pavković was a “distinguished” commander of the Army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During the Milošević era, he kept close ties to the Serbian dictator. He was tried at the Hague Court of Justice and sentenced to 22 years imprisonment for war crimes in Kosovo: Daniel Sunter, Rise and Fall of Nebojsa Pavković, IWPR. International Justice, 17.11.2005, available at . 47 Idemo na lice mesta, Glas Javnosti, 09.03.2002, available at ; Industrijski ribnjak usred Mileševe, Glas Javnosti, 08.03.2002, available at ; Vladika Filaret gradi ribnjak, Glas Javnosti, 26.04.2004, available at ; Marko Omčikus, Filaret i ribnjak, Vreme, 28.12.2003, available at . 48 Office of the High Representative (OHR), BiH Media Round-up, 03.07.2003, available at . 442 Aleksander Zdravkovski crimes suspects.49 The following year, Milorad “Legija” Ulemek, who was the mastermind behind the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjić, admit- ted that he had frequently visited the Mileševa monastery to see his “friend”, Bishop Filaret.50 Additionally, after the “bulldozer revolution”, the “red bishop” continued nurturing his ties with Vojislav Šešelj’s SRS. Before the unsuccessful presidential elections of November 2003, the SRS candidate, Tomislav Nikolić, boasted that he and other members of his party had visited the monastery of Mileševa and had been given the endorsement of Bishop Filaret. Nikolić emphasized that the cleric has told him that “the SPC is with the SRS”.51 The Synod of the SPC never denied these claims. The noose around Filaret’s neck began to tighten in December 2003. The Ser- bian Ministry of Culture claimed that the bishop had commissioned the illegal reconstruction of the lodging house in the Mileševa monastery complex. The ministry asked the SPC to intervene against Filaret’s “reconstruction” activities,52 but it did not make an eff ort to put an end to Filaret’s damage to the monastery’s authenticity, nor did they sanction the “red bishop”. Bishop Filaret managed to grab the media’s att ention again in January 2005. According to some reports, a local Orthodox priest had been verbally att acked by a group of Muslim youths. The cleric was also pelted by snowballs. Bishop Filaret said that he had also been pelted with snowballs that same day. He re- ported this incident to the SPC headquarters and stated that “the Serbian people throughout the Raška district are visibly disturbed and they are gathering in Orthodox churches”.53 One of the most contentious issues in Serbia in the post-Milošević era has been the topic of the quisling Chetnik guerrillas that were active during World War II. The government, led by Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica skillfully utilized the majority in the Serbian parliament and adopted a law that equates

49 Dragoljub Gagričić, Vladika Filaret: Nisam jatak, Večernje novosti, 25.09.2007, available at . 50 Deputy PM “torched his own car”, B92, 17.06.2004, available at . 51 Tamara Skrozza, Predizborno hodočašče, Vreme, 28.12.2003, available at . 52 Ministarstvo kulture: Episkop Filaret uništava Mileševu, B92, 16.12.2003, avail- able at ; At that time, the Minister of Culture was Branislav Lečić, one of the founders of the Liberal Democratic Party in 2005. 53 Serbian Orthodox Church Priest Att acked, Information Service of the Serbian Orthodox Church, 28.01.2005, available at ; D. Gagričić, Uvrede i grudve uznemirenja, Večernje novosti, 29.01.2005, available at . The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 443 the Chetnik movement and the partisan resistance as equally anti-Fascist.54 The SPC did not endorse this bill openly. However, during a meeting in May 2005, the Holy Assembly, the legislative organ of the SPC, adopted an offi cial deci- sion to canonize two Chetnik clerics who had been executed by the Communist resistance during World War II. Slobodan Šiljak and Milorad Vukojičić were SPC priests in the Mileševa diocese who actively participated in the Chetnik move- ment and committ ed atrocities against innocent civilians. The Holy Assembly of the SPC has declared those two priests “holy clerico-martyrs”.55 Although Bishop Filaret learned about the brutality of these Chetnik priests from the daughter of one of their victims, he supported the controversial canonization. One of the cleric’s assistants briefl y stated that this is “an internal issue of the church”.56 The SPC’s active participation in the political rehabilitation of the Chetniks and their ideology was ominous. The adoption of the law regarding the Chetniks provoked a number of dis- putes and confl icts between the ruling coalitions in Serbia and Montenegro regarding the Chetnik movement and ideology. The left-leaning political party of the Prime Minister of Montenegro, Milo Djukanović, distanced itself from the decisions of the predominantly right-wing Serbian parliament and govern- ment.57 The SPC’s participation in the Serbian cabinet’s orchestrated propaganda about the Chetniks only added oil to the fi re. No information is available about whether the bishop of Mileševa informed the Holy Assembly of the lett er which he had received from the daughter of one of the victims. Neither did the SPC Synod make any eff ort to explain why it had decided to consecrate two members of the Chetnik guerrillas. Once more, the SPC failed to build bridges between nations and actively collaborated in an endeavor that heralded the death of the state union between Serbia and Montenegro. As relations between Serbia and Montenegro began to deteriorate, Bishop Filaret saw an opportunity to utilize the confl ict for his own purposes. As one

54 The full text of the bill is available at ; Četnicima isto što i partizanima, B92, 21.12.2004, available at . 55 Saopštenje za javnost sa redovnog zasedanja Svetog Arhierejskog Sabora – maj 2005. godine, Srpska Pravoslavna Crkva, 26.05.2005, available at . 56 M. Jelić, Popovi činili nedjela, Pobjeda, 25.08.2005, available at ; Tamara Kaliterna, Dva gospodara, Monitor, 23.03.2012, available at ; Irina Studenkova, Sveti Koljači, available at . 57 Četnici “personae non gratae”, B92, 17.05.2005, available at . 444 Aleksander Zdravkovski would expect, he was assisted by nationalist-leaning Serbian politicians who wanted to acquire political capital on the basis of their cooperation with the eccentric cleric. In 2005, the Montenegrin authorities accused Bishop Filaret of “breaking the law on the protection of cultural monuments”. According to the prosecutors, the bishop of Mileševa had commissioned an illegal renovation of the façade of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Pljevlja that destroyed the authenticity of the monument.58 As one would expect, the “red bishop” lashed out at the prosecutors and characterized the charges as a “witch hunt”. He added that he feels “sorry for everybody, for the nation and for the state when bishops are taken to court”.59 Yet again, the demands of the ministry remained unanswered by the SPC and its hierarchs. In March 2006, when Slobodan Milošević passed away in his prison cell at the Court of Justice in The Hague, a memorial service was organized in his home town of Požarevac. Among many former SPS apparatchiks, Filaret represented the SPC at the funeral and led the requiem mass for the former president.60 Al- though Milošević’s family fi rst opposed the religious ceremony, they ultimately gave their approval after the deputy chairman of the SRS, Tomislav Nikolić, managed to change their mind. During the summer and autumn of 2007, Bishop Filaret started a hunger strike at the Serbian-Montenegrin border crossing after he had been barred from entering Montenegro due to his inclusion on the EU black list of collaborators of war crimes fugitives. This rather extraordinary case drew the att ention of the political elite of Serbia and Montenegro and caused a serious rift between those two republics. Patriarch Pavle wrote a lett er to the president of Montene- gro, Filip Vujanović, asking that the controversial bishop be allowed to enter Montenegro. Vujanović replied that Filaret would be admitt ed entry once he was removed from the black list.61 In connection with this incident, Serbia’s Minister of Religions, Radomir Naumov, visited the bishop of Mileševa. After the meeting he stated that he “totally supported” the cleric and suggested that Filaret be granted Montenegrin citizenship. Rasim Ljajić, who at that time was the president of the council for cooperation with the Hague tribunal, said that he had been notifi ed that Filaret

58 Vladika Filaret na sudu zbog freski, Kurir, 24.11.2005, available at . 59 Hajka na sveštenstvo, Kurir, 29.11.2005, available at . 60 Tamara Skrozza, Miting pod lipom, Vreme, 23.03.2006, available at . 61 Filaret, Crna Gora i Hag, B92, 20.08.2007, available at . The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 445 would not be removed from the black list.62 In addition, the Montenegrin Minis- ter of Interior, Jusuf Kalamperović, stated that, according to the law, Filaret did not meet the criteria for Montenegrin citizenship, which further escalated the situation. In response, the SRS and its Deputy Chairman Nikolić announced that they would organize a blockade of the border crossing in cooperation with the Serbian National Party of Montenegro.63 The SRS mission, headed by Aleksandar Vučić, visited the protesters and decided to scrap the plan after he and his party were not granted permission by Bishop Filaret to set up the blockade.64 Prime Minister Koštunica sent a lett er to the EU authorities and asked them to help with Filaret’s case.65 Some pro-Serb Montenegrin political parties de- clared their support for the cleric’s demands.66 The Serbian Minister of Interior, Dragan Jocić, who was a high ranking member of Koštunica’s party, also criti- cized the actions of the Montenegrin government and demanded that Filaret be allowed to enter the country.67 Koštunica’s legal advisor, Aleksandar Simić, a high-ranking member of the Democratic Party of Serbia, labeled the problem as a “self-willed quasi-state made on the wave of separatism which thinks it can put right its quasi-statehood by being strict”. This statement further widened the rift between the coalition partners in the Serbian government.68 The most vocal support for the fl amboyant cleric came from Velja Ilić, at that time the Serbian Minister of Infrastructure in the Koštunica cabinet. Ilić cancelled a scheduled trip to Podgorica after visiting the bishop at the border crossing.

62 Naumov posetio Filareta, B92, 29.08.2007, available at ; M. Đurić / M. MaleŠić, Vladika Filaret počo štrajk glađu, Politika, 29.08.2007, available at . 63 Filaret ne ispunjava uslove za crnogorsko državjanstvo, Studio B, 31.08.2007, available at . 64 Radikali odustali od blokade puta ka Crnoj Gori, Mondo, 04.09.2007, available at ; Filaret Case: Montenegro Will Prevent Road Blocks, B92, 01.09.2007, available at ; Vujanović: Filaret treba da razume Crnu Goru, Danas, 05.09.2007, available at . 65 Koštunica zatražio od Brisela da pomogne Filaretu, Press Online Media, 06.09.2007, available at . 66 Nekoliko stranka najavilo podršku Filaretu, Press Online Media, 27.08.2007, available at . 67 Dragan Jočić: Neodrživa i štetna odluka vlasti Crne Gore, Glas Amerike, 01.09.2007, avail- able at . 68 Marko Albunović, Vlada raspravlja o izjavama Ilića i Simića, Politika, 06.09.2007, available at ; Đelić apologizes to Montenegro, B92, 06.09.2007, available at . 446 Aleksander Zdravkovski

Following the meeting with Filaret, Ilić stated that if “a Serbian bishop cannot go to Montenegro, a Serbian minister doesn’t have to go there either”. Ilić also announced that he would ask the Serbian government to discuss the “Filaret case” during the next session and make an eff ort to fi nd a joint solution with the Montenegrin authorities.69 Lastly, he stated, the whole case was politicized by the authorities in Podgorica and that it was an att ack on the SPC and its clergy.70 In the context of Filaret’s hunger strike, Serbian and Montenegrin politicians began to trade accusations. As the bishop’s health began to deteriorate,71 the SPC asked Filaret to end his protest.72 The Bishop of Vranje-Pahomije was the only hierarch of the SPC to visit Filaret. He gave explicit support to his colleague.73 During the hunger strike, Filaret stated that he received a phone call from the leader of the SRS, Vojislav Šešelj, who gave him advice on how to deal with the situation. Filaret blamed Serbia’s former minister of foreign aff airs, Goran Svilanović, at that time the chairman of the Civic Alliance of Serbia,74 for his denial of entrance into Montenegro. It is important to point out that during 2007 relations between the Koštunica government and the left-wing opposition parties were marred by tensions and confl icts. Velja Ilić continued to support the “red bishop” and declared that his political party would donate 10,000 € for the erection of a church at the place where Filaret was protesting. Further assistance came from some minor pro-Serb political parties in Montenegro, which organized rallies in support of the cleric. Some of the participants of these gatherings were carry- ing signs with the slogan “Montenegro and Serbia: together again”.75 Velja Ilić spoke at one of these gatherings and enthusiastically defended the “red bishop”: “See how many people are gathered today! What do you think, how many would have come if they did not grant entrance to the bishop? Thank God that he sent us

69 Tražiću danas da vlada Srbije reaguje, Nova Srbija, 07.09.2007, available at . 70 Ujdurma oko Filareta ima političku pozadinu, Nova Srbija, 08.09.2007, available at . 71 Ilic Visits Filaret, Cancels Montenegro Trip, B92, 05.09.2007, available at . 72 Crnogorska vlast je pokazala svoje pravo lice u slučaju vladike Filareta, Nova Srbija, 15.09.2007, available at ; Filaret Says Will “Radicalize Protest”, B92, 07.09.2007, available at ; Sinod traži od zvaničnika Srbije i Crne Gore da zaštite Filareta, Studio B, 01./02.09.2007, available at . 73 Vladika zaplakao pred narodom, Glas Javnosti, 03.09.2007, available at . 74 Ko sve savetuje Filareta u štrajku, B92, 02.09.2007, available at . 75 “Narodni skup” podrške Filaretu, B92, 10.09.2007, available at . The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 447

Bishop Filaret in this place so he can gather us and show us how to fi ght for faith and nation.”76 Under pressure from the public, the Serbian parliament also discussed the “Filaret case”. During a session in September 2007, the liberals accused the cleric of political activities, while the MPs from the SRS defended his undertaking. SRS MP Nataša Jovanović stated that the “separatist Montenegrin government has att acked Serbia”.77 In the end, the whole issue was solved due to the good relationship between Serbian president Boris Tadić and Montenegrin president Filip Vujanović. The authorities in Podgorica decided to grant entrance to the bishop of Mileševa under the condition that he would be “supervised” by the appropriate institutions.78 On 4 May 2008, exactly one week before the parlia- mentary elections in Serbia, the church on the border crossing was consecrated by bishop Filaret.79 Presidential elections took place in Serbia in January and February 2008. The NS party nominated its chairman, Velja Ilić, for president of the country. He chose a rather unusual place to start his campaign – the Mileševa monastery. The opening ceremony at the shrine was att ended by Bishop Filaret, who “blessed” the candidate. Subsequently, Ilić organized a meeting with the citizens of Pri- jepolje, where Filaret was present to endorse Ilić.80 However, during the same presidential elections, Filaret also gave his support to the candidate of the SPS, Milutin Mrkonjić.81 The campaign continued through many other Serbian cities and fi nished in Belgrade, where the concluding rally took place on 17 January 2008. Among the many distinguished guests and speakers at the rally, Bishop Filaret was the most vocal in his endorsement of the NS candidate. He was the fi rst speaker and used the opportunity to “bless” the gathering. He further stated: “Velimir Ilić has all the virtues that beautify an Orthodox believer and follower of Saint Sava. Our future president has entered the election campaign with belief in God and with the blessing of Saint Sava and he is not a pumpkin without roots but he is rather a person from a noble family. The time has come that a person from

76 Vladika Filaret je primer kako se treba žrtvovati za crkvu i svoj narod, Nova Srbija, 10.09.2007, available at . 77 Poslanici oprečno o Filaretu, B92, 10.09.2007, available at . 78 Filaret to Enter Montenegro Supervised, B92, 08.09.2007, available at . 79 Podignuta crkva na mestu štrajka, B92, 02.05.2008, available at . 80 Predsednički kandidat Nove Srbije Velimir Ilić počeo je kampanju iz manastira Mileševa, Nova Srbija, 02.01.2008, available at ; Vladika mnogo kadi, Večernje novosti, 04.01.2008, available at . 81 Vladika mnogo kadi (above fn. 80). 448 Aleksander Zdravkovski

Šumadija governs Serbia and leads the country on the way that it was led by our ancestors. That man who fears God and shies from people, and to whom the Church is not alien, he will, God willing, lead Serbia.”82 Bishop Filaret additionally stated that Velja Ilić would continue building the infrastructure in all regions of the country and create bridges between various ethnicities. He said that the Church would be content with the new president be- cause a good believer can do good things. According to the bishop, “the Church and the state are one tissue, one being”, and Ilić would “reconcile” those two entities. Furthermore, he thanked Prime Minister Koštunica for his endorsement of the NS candidate. He emphasized that Koštunica and Ilić would keep Kosovo part of Serbia. Last but not least, he asked the att endees to pray for Ilić and the prime minister. Bishop Filaret followed his speech with the Lord’s Prayer.83 On the same day, the information service of the SPC released an offi cial state- ment titled “What Is of God, to God, What Is of the King, to the King”. In this declaration, the SPC declared its disapproval of political engagement of “the deacons, the priests and the bishops”.84 The statement did not explicitly mention Bishop Filaret and his political agitation for the NS candidate. Interestingly, Ilić also obtained the endorsement of Vojislav Koštunica and his party. The presidential candidate of the SRS, Tomislav Nikolić, expressed his content with Koštunica’s decision not to endorse the DS candidate, Boris Tadić, who was his main rival in the elections. Nikolić stated that he agreed with Ilić “on many topics regarding his statements on Boris Tadić”.85 The NS candidate placed third in the fi rst round of the elections, with 7.43 % of the votes cast.86 Ilić’s lack of success in the elections and the SPC’s timid pressure on its hier- archs regarding political engagement did not break the bishop of Mileševa’s ties to political parties. However, the controversies forced the cleric to tone down his political engagement. In December 2008, Bishop Grigorije of Zahumlje and Herzegovina sent an emotional lett er to all of the territorial units of the SPC in which he pinpointed all the diffi culties in the SPC that demanded att ention. The lett er stated that one of the problems within this organization is the “very educated Bishop Filaret”.

82 Završna konvencija predsedničkog kandidata Nove Srbije Velimira Ilića na Trgu republike u Beogradu, Nova Srbija, 17.01.2008, available at . 83 The full video of the speech delivered by bishop Filaret is available at and at . 84 What Is of God, to God, What Is of the King, to the King …, Serbian Orthodox Church, 17.01.2008, available at . 85 DSS podržao Ilića, Tadić se uzda u građane, Politika, 03.01.2008, available at . 86 Izveštaj, Republička izborna komisija, 23.01.2008, available at . The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 449

According to Grigorije, Filaret’s protest in 2007 was used for “daily-political purposes”.87 In September 2010, Filaret caused an additional hullabaloo. In the village of Štitkovo near Nova Varoš, a monument to the senior Chetnik offi cer Vuk Kalaitović was built. This commander of the quisling guerrillas had committ ed appalling atrocities during World War II. The bishop of Mileševa was present at the opening ceremony. He and his assistants “blessed” the memorial on the “Feast of the Nativity of Mary” holiday that is widely celebrated in Serbia88. Yet again, the offi cial organs of the SPC did not comment on this event. In October 2011, a brand-new, nine-ton church bell was consecrated in the monastery of Mileševa. As one would expect, the diocese organized an att ention- grabbing ceremony that was headed by Irinej, the new patriarch of the SPC. It is interesting to note that clerics from the Russian Orthodox Church and the ambassador of Russia were also present at the ceremony. The chairman of the SPS and then-minister of interior, Ivica Dačić, was given the “White Angel”89 award by the “red bishop”. During the ceremony, the Serbian patriarch de- livered a speech in which he expressed his gratitude to “Mother Russia” and stated that the biggest friends of the Serbs were the “Russian people” and the “Russian Orthodox Church”. Furthermore, the head of the SPC called for the preservation of Kosovo as part of Serbia. The patriarch said that “there is no land more hallowed than Kosovo”. Irinej said that he had hopes for “the ones that represent Russia, and thank God, the best sons of Russia represent that nation”. Lastly, he said that they would do “what God and the Serb people expect them to do”.90 It is interesting to note that one of the reasons Dačić was given the award was the fact that he had decided to ban a gay pride-parade that had been scheduled in Belgrade the previous week. In this regard, Bishop Filaret delivered a speech in which he stated: “Minister, brother Ivica, thank you for everything that you have done for your party, thank you for the fact that these days you were brightening the honor of

87 Pismo Vladike Grigorija Arhijerejima SPC, Glas Srpske, 09.12.2008, available at . 88 Sandžak, podignut spomenik četniku Kalaitu, Vesti online, 22.09.2010, available at ; R. Popović, Spomenik Vuku Kalaitoviću, Danas, 23.09.2010, available at . 89 Every year, the Eparchy of Mileševa gives this reward to people from various back- grounds (politicians, artists, intellectuals). No information is available on the criteria for the selections. 90 Sveti kral Vladislav, Slava eparhije Mileševske, Serbian Orthodox Church, 07.10.2011, avail- able at ; The biggest bell in Milesevo, Ser- bian Orthodox Church, 07.10.2011, available at . 450 Aleksander Zdravkovski

Serbia, when some democrats tried […] to fasten Serbia to the wall of shame, when they tried to have Serb blood spilt in Belgrade and maybe beyond, you had the masculinity and courage to say ‘enough’.”91 Some Serbian journalists believe that the gay pride-parade was cancelled not for security reasons but rather for political ones. Namely, the ruling coalition wanted to appeal to the more conservative electorate in the upcoming elections.92 The controversy regarding this event did not stop there. The bishop of Mileševa additionally gave the “White Angel” award to Bishop Pahomije of Vranje, who was tried for the alleged sexual molestation of teenagers in his diocese. The SPC patriarch declined to comment on this issue.93 This award caused uproar among the left-wing political parties in Serbia. Most notably, the commissar for human rights of the Liberal Democratic Party, Marko Karadžić, called Filaret a “pillar of shame”.94 In early 2012, more than 4,000 orthodox faithful from the diocese of Mileševa signed a petition for the removal of Bishop Filaret from his post. Some media outlets speculated that Filaret would be retired by the Holy Assembly scheduled for May of that year. According to one report, the younger bishops of the SPC wanted to remove some of the old and incompetent hierarchs, one of whom was the bishop of Mileševa.95 Additional pressure on Filaret came from the clergy in his own diocese. According to some of the local priests, Filaret had been governing the eparchy in an authoritarian manner. The besieged bishop immediately reacted to these accusations and sought assistance from the SPS chairman, Ivica Dačić, whom he had decorated the year before.96 Two days after this news aired, the spokesman of the SPC, Bishop Irinej, gave an interview in which he said that there is no legal way to force a hierarch of the SPC to retire. Only when a “canonical violation” is established

91 Uručen orden Beli Anđeo Pahomiju, B92, 07.10.2011, available at . 92 “Elections Played Role in Cancelling of Gay Parade”, B92, 10.10.2011, available at . 93 Vesna Marić-Brajković, Patrijarh bez komentara o ordenu Pahomija, Blic, 08.10.2011, available at . 94 Vi ste stub srama, Blic, 08.10.2011, available at . 95 Željka Jevtić, Mlađe vladike žele da pošalju Filareta i Pahomija u penziju, Blic, 22.02.2012, available at . 96 Eadem, Filaret od Dačica traži podršku da ga ne smene, Blic, 22.02.2012, available at ; Milena D. Milikić, Sveštenici zabrinuti, građani ne odustaju, Danas, 15.03.2012, avail- able at . The Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia’s Raška after 2000 451 by the Holy Assembly can a bishop lose his right to govern a diocese.97 It is unknown whether the SPC decided that the reports and controversies regarding Bishop Filaret did not require an inquiry to establish if there was any “canoni- cal violation”. On 15 May 2012, the Holy Assembly of the SPC convened in Belgrade. Con- trary to reports from the previous months, no reshuffl ing of the hierarchs took place. According to Bishop Irinej, the assembly took place “in the spirit of broth- erly love and mutual confi dence of the bishops”. He further added that “there was no possibility or need to choose new bishops”.98 The Holy Assembly of the SPC issued an offi cial communiqué on the topics that were discussed during the congregation. No mention of the “Filaret case” was present in the document.99 In November 2012, 35 hectares of land in the vicinity of Priboj was restored to the diocese of Mileševa. Bishop Filaret announced that he and his bishopric will build a four star hotel with 350 employees on that location, causing fear among the staff of a local spa center.100 No further information is available on the development of this project.

Conclusion

This study has shed light on the relations between the centers of political and spiritual power in Serbia. The Serbian government and the political elite have diligently tried to wield as much infl uence on the SPC as possible. It is important to note that, generally, it is the right-wing parties that have advocated this approach. Nevertheless, the SPS and the JUL are proof that there are also parties on the left that have worked to the detriment of the secular character of the country. Secondly, the SPC was and still is struggling with phyletist currents. This study has also suggested that some SPC hierarchs have repeatedly and consciously encroached on political terrain. The canonization of Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović, the ideological architect of modern Serb clerico-nationalism, is further proof that the Serbian Church has no capacity or willingness to turn a new page and embrace secular ideology and values.

97 J. Čalija, Nema penzionisanja arhijereja, Politika, 24.02.2012, available at . 98 Završen Sabor SPC, B92, 23.05.2012, available at . 99 Communiqué of the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, 30.05.2012, available at . 100 S. Bjelić, Filaret traži investiture, Danas, 08.11.2012, available at . 452 Aleksander Zdravkovski

Lastly, this analysis of the SPC has provided further evidence for the argu- ment that the infl uence of political actors can have a detrimental impact on the Church’s internal stability. Bishops who have the support of politicians are often engaged in activities that further blur the border between politics and religion. This predicament could have a deleterious impact on the Church and the faithful.