Dalibor Renić S.J.1

Attitudes Towards the Science-Religion Relations in the Catholic Church in

Published: Renić, Dalibor, “Attitudes Towards Science-Religion Relations in the Catholic Church in Croatia,” in Science and Christian Faith in Post-Cold War Europe: A Comparative Analysis 25 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, eds. Giandomenico Boffi and Marijan Sunjić (Vatican City: Lateran University Press, 2015), 37-52.

The intention of this article is to offer a synthesis and a comment on the attitudes of the Catholics in Croatia in regard to the recent debates on the relationship between faith and science, and on the so–called New Atheism, which alleges to be founded on scientific arguments. When I say Catholics in Croatia, that includes both the positions of the bishops and clergy, and the attitudes of the laity. In order to ensure that my opinions are not simply personal or arbitrary, I chose to support them by my own analysis of the contents of the leading Catholic weekly paper in Croatia called Glas Koncila (Voice of the Council). The focus of the analysis was precisely how that paper reacted, and reported on the aforementioned debates on faith, science, and atheism during the peak years of the New Atheism controversy. In that sense, this article is also a case study.

1. Catholic Church in Croatia

According to the last official census the population of Croatia was 4,284,889 (2011). By religious affiliation, the population was 84,28% Catholic; 4,44% Orthodox; 1,47% Muslim; 0,34% Protestant; 3,81% Atheist; 0,76% Agnostic. Although an extensive campaign was led prior to the census by secularist associations in order to persuade the citizens to “come out” as religiously non–affiliated, or at least not to declare their religion, very few citizens of Croatia (2,17%) did not disclose their religion, less than at previous census in 2001 (2,95%).

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010, 69% of those surveyed in Croatia responded "I believe there is a God," 22% responded "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force," and 7% said "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force."2 In a 2009 Gallup poll, 70% answered yes to the question "Is religion an important part of your

1 Dalibor Renić S.J., PhD, is a Senior Lecturer of Philosophy at the Philosophical Faculty of the in . E–mail: [email protected]. 2 See European Commission, "Special Eurobarometer: Biotechnology,” 2010 (PDF), p. 381, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf (retrieved November 26, 2014).

1 daily life?"3 Croatia belongs to the group of the European countries with a high degree of religious affiliation, and a relatively high degree of religiosity. Regarding the latter point we must say, however, that most statistics show that (only) one fifth of the Catholics in Croatia regularly frequent Sunday liturgy. There is a notable discrepancy between the traditional religious affiliation and the religious practice.

What are the tendencies regarding the religious situation in Croatia? In comparison to the 2001 census, the percentage of Catholics dropped from 87,97% to 86,28% till 2011. The percentage of atheists increased in the same period from 2,22% to 3,81%. The number of Protestants and Muslims also increased, while the number of the Orthodox decreased. That change can be seen as a consequence of the general tendencies in demographics, secularization, and post–secularization of the European societies. We should mention—and the previous figures confirm it—that the trend of secularization is somewhat belated and apparently slower in Croatia, and one can also detect signs of the opposite leanings. The demographical decline is, however, undeniable, severe, and unrelenting.

2. Intellectual Life of the Church in Croatia

The Catholic Church in Croatia has had a long, established, and lively intellectual culture, also during the isolation and harassment by the Communist dictatorship, when the Catholic theological and philosophical faculties, as well as high schools, were excluded from the public educational system. Since the early 1970’s, however, many clergy were allowed to study abroad. Thus they were able to appropriate and disseminate contemporary theological and philosophical ideas in their homeland, including the revival of the dialogue between theology and science. Today there are four Catholic faculties of theology in Croatia (all of them members of their local state universities), one philosophical faculty, three minor theological institutes, twelve Catholic high schools, and four elementary schools. Croatian Catholic University was founded in Zagreb in 2010. Catholic dioceses and orders in Croatia (and among the Croats in the neighbouring countries) send a considerable number of their clergy abroad for their post–graduate studies. Traditional places are—in order of recurrence—the pontifical universities in Rome, German speaking countries, and sometimes French speaking countries. It is only a recent phenomenon that some priests obtain their post–graduate degrees from English speaking countries.

3 See "Gallup Global Reports," http://www.gallup.com/poll/128210/gallup-global-reports.aspx (retrieved October 7, 2013).

2 There are numerous active Catholic publishing houses, several academic periodicals in the field of theology, spirituality, and philosophy, many popular monthly magazines, and established web–portals. Croatian Catholic Radio has been broadcasting at the national level since 1997 and dedicates notable spaces to intellectual themes. Some smaller radio stations have local concessions. There is no fully active Catholic television yet.

It is interesting to notice that seven of the current Catholic bishops in Croatia worked as theology lecturers before assuming the episcopal office, six were parish priests, three canon lawyers, one was psychologist, and one is still a philosophy professor.4 There were more ex– parish priests among the bishops in the previous decades. That will partially explain the conspicuous priority the Croatian episcopate gives to the social and political issues in the public square.

Organized Catholic lay activism in public life was forbidden and politically persecuted during the Communist period in Croatia. Hence the strongly clerical Church had to invest a lot of energy to recover the institutions and platforms for lay activism during the 1990’s, and that process is still going on. In the meanwhile, of course, the situation has improved. More and more lay persons who got their degrees at Catholic faculties, as well as those who were formed through religious education at school and various Catholic associations, promote Christian world–view in an organized way. That fact is especially relevant for the dialogue between faith and science.

3. Glas Koncila

Glas Koncila (Voice of the Council) is the largest by circulation and the most influential Catholic paper in Croatia. It has been weekly published by the Archdiocese of Zagreb since 1962. Its first goal was to inform the faithful about the dynamics and the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council, but it soon exceeded that purpose. Before the democratization in 1990 it was the only paper in Croatia that was not under the total control of the Communist Party. Naturally, it has lost some of the importance it had as the oppositional paper, but it is still a relevant factor in the media milieu. As they say for themselves, Glas Koncila today “informs about the events in the Croatian–speaking parts of the Church and in the universal Church, and observes other important events from a Christian standpoint, especially in the light of ethics, Christian morals, and Catholic social teaching. … It represents faithfully the

4 See Croatian Bishops’ Conference, “Members,” http://www.hbk.hr/?type=lista&ID=2 (accessed November 26, 2014).

3 official positions of the Catholic Church among the Croats and non–offically comments on current issues in the ecclesiastical, national, and public life with an ecclesiastical and historical inspiration.”5

When reading Glas Koncila one will find shorter versions of the official messages of the Croatian Catholic bishops, fairly detailed information about the activities of the Holy See, three editorials, lots of news about religious events in Croatia, scriptural meditations, letters of the readers, books and arts reviews, etc. Its editorials illustrate that Glas Koncila is primarily interested in social issues (politics, media, history, family, education, bioethics). It paid, nevertheless, a particular attention to the intellectual debates with atheism in the Communist period, and still keeps informing the faithful about the global and local intellectual trends. The intellectual side of the Weekly manifests through its excellent choice of interviews with specialists from different areas, as well as through series of popularly written essays on current issues.

Glas Koncila represents well the positions of the bishops and the interests of the Catholic clergy. Being written mostly by lay people, it is a good illustration about the questions and the life of the laity too. Thus it offers a good general picture about the state of the mind of the Catholics in Croatia, which is the reason why I chose it for my purpose in this paper. We must keep in mind, though, that Glas Koncila avoids intra–catholic controversies. It avoids debates and deals only indirectly with the plurality of opinions in the Church in Croatia. Being a semi–official publication of the bishops, it refrains from the criticism of their official positions.

4. Content Analysis

In my analysis of the content of Glas Koncila I was focused on the topics of the relationship between faith, reason, and natural science. It was not always easy to disentangle these themes from the ethical and political debates on bioethics and education, for example, or from the purely descriptive presentations of the developments in medicine, pharmaceutics, agriculture, ecology. My rule of thumb was to follow which position Glas Koncila gives to the science and how it evaluates the words like “science,” “scientist,” “reason,” especially in the context of the recent debates. The commemorations of historical events and persons through various anniversaries were less important.

5 Glas Koncila Online, “About Us,” http://www.glas-koncila.hr/index.php?option=com_content&view =article&id=78&Itemid=74 (accessed November 26, 2014).

4 I chose to analyse the period when the debate on the New Atheism was most intense (2006 to 2010), and one year earlier (2003) and after (2011) as a comparison. I think that span of years was sufficient for my purpose here, which is primarily illustrative. Why beginning with 2006? Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion was published 2006 in English, and 2007 in Croatian. At the same time, more or less, were written and translated the books of Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation, English edition 2006, Croatian 2007), Christoper Hitchens (God is Not Great, English 2007, Croatian 2008), and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell, English 2006, Croatian 2008). Soon other books, more favorable towards religion and its dialogue with science, were translated into, or originaly written in Croatian as a response to these four anti–religious authors.

The debate on the New Atheism was preceded and possibly prepared by the public debates on creationism and the Intelligent Design theory. The latter reached the Catholic circles in 2005 and involved some prominent theologians, such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna and Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory.6 These debates were not as heated and wide-ranging as the one on the New Atheism. Nonetheless, they might have been the reason why the main annual event for the continuing education of the Croatian clergy, the Theological Pastoral Week in Zagreb, chose precisely the relation between theology and science as its topic in January 2006.

Let us now have a look at the charts that represent the frequency and the distribution of the articles on faith and science in Glas Koncila during the aforementioned period:

Articles on science–faith relation in Glas Koncila

2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

13 26 32 35 26 35 14

Distribution of the articles on science and faith in GK by type and section

2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

International news (mostly Holy See) 3 7 9 8 5 10 6

6 See Christoph Schönborn, "Finding Design in Nature", New York Times, July 7, 2005; George Coyne, "God's Chance Creation," The Tablet, August 6, 2005.

5 Local news (conferences, symposia etc.) 1 2 4 10 4 12 3

Interviews 1 5 3 6 6 3 0

Readers’ letters 0 2 2 2 3 4 2

Editorials, Comments 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

General articles/essays 5 6 12 5 5 5 2

Book Reviews 3 3 0 5 1 3 1

First, what do the figures say? Glas Koncila has always paid attention to the relationship between faith and science, but there is a noticeable increase in that matter between 2006 and 2010. We see that the increase began in the section on international news, which indicates that the debate started earlier at the international level, and so did the reaction of the Catholic intellectual world, prominently the reaction of the Holy See. We know that pope Benedict XVI had a particular sensitivity for the relationship between faith and reason, and referred to it in several discourses.

We notice subsequently an increased incidence of the topics science and reason in the sections with interviews and essays. These sections are regularly written by specialists, i.e. scientists and theologians. They are acquainted about the state of the discipline at the global level, so we can infer that they were first affected by, and reacted to the debate on the New Atheism. What follows is an increase in the section with local news, which informs mostly about the lectures and meetings in parishes and associations, as well as about the conferences and symposia at the higher educational level. That was a sign that the debate has reached the wider public and the Catholic thinkers had to reply to the questions that were asked from the basis. Finally, we have an increase in the section of readers’ letters: the wider public started sharing their response. Although not precise, and more an indication rather than a proof, the figures illustrate the path of the debate from the reaction of specialists (essays), its transfer to institutions (conferences) and parishes (lectures), to the response of the public.

The editorials mentioned the faith–science topic only two times in the analysed period, and that was briefly. Glas Koncila has only two regular commentators. Their comments reflect their personal interests in specific areas, as well as the interests of the Church leadership. Rev. I. Miklenić writes much on the politics, ethics, social issues, and history, while Ms. Đ. Ivanišević–Lieb writes mostly on culture, arts, society, and ecology. So they let specialists write on faith and science.

6 Glas Koncila has a regular rubric with the title Scientific Objection (Prigovor znanosti) which is dedicated to science and nature in their various aspects. That section brings some myth–busting in science, some criticism of the reduction of science to profit (especially in the pharmaceutical industry and agriculture), promotes ecology, and criticizes alternative medicine, but does not criticize the mainstream science as science. On the contrary, it sometimes reports from scientific conferences and shares interviews with scientists.

The relative absence of the science–faith topic from the review section in Glas Koncila should not deceive us. The largest Catholic publishing house, Kršćanska sadašnjost, owned by the Archdiocese of Zagreb, published ten books on faith and science between 2006 and 2014. By comparison, they published only three books on that issue in the previous two decades (1986 to 2005). That is in itself an indication of the rise of the interest in the topic among the Croatian Catholics.

There is one important section of Glas Koncila that does not appear in the charts above. The first two or three pages of the paper are regularly reserved for the messages of the bishops and the episcopal committees. I did not mention that section in the chart because I did not find any official reaction of the Croatian Bishops’ Conference at the phenomenon of the New Atheism and its echoes in Croatia, except one sentence in the Message to the Faithful Regarding the Census 2011. The bishops mention there that “lately there are various attempts to dissuade the members of the Catholic Church from declaring they are Catholic, obscure the view, and create a picture about the Croatian society that is different from its civilizational and cultural reality.”7 Single bishops have certainly mentioned faith–reason and faith–science issues in some homilies, probably for the occasion of Veni Sancte or Te Deum masses at universities, but they do not appear among the headlines, nor in the bishops’ section of Glas Koncila.

Now, let us draw some conclusions about the tone of the aforementioned articles. Generally, they respect the position of the Papal documents on the relation between faith and science, and faith and reason, which is the affirmation of dialogue and mutual complementarity. The word “science” regularly has positive connotations in Glas Koncila. Its main message is that there is no real conflict between faith and science. The controversial issues are either distorted, exaggerated, or simply waiting for a satisfactory solution. There are respected scientists who are religious, and there are (or there can be) well founded

7 Hrvatska biskupska konferencija, “Poruka biskupa HBK u povodu popisivanja stanovništva Republike Hrvatske,” March 31, 2011, http://www.hbk.hr/?type=vijest&ID=349 (accessed November 28, 2014).

7 explanations for the controversial intersections between scientific theories and the Christian doctrine.

What about the dissent from that official position of the Church? Even the letters of readers in Glas Koncila are orthodox. There is, however, one section, called Our Conversations (Naši razgovori), where the paper responds to some doubts of its readers. A few of the questions are about the theological problems stemming from the Darwinian theory of evolution, and about the real or alleged deficiencies of that theory. They indicate that there are unresolved questions among the general Catholic population, or some uncertainties and confusion. The answers to the questions represent, again, the mainstream theological view. Generally, fundamentalist creationism is rejected by Glas Koncila. That does not mean it is absent from the life of the Church in Croatia, as we shall soon see.

5. Response to the New Atheism in Croatia

Croatian intellectuals, including the clergy, have actively participated in the cultural mileu of the Central Europe in the previous century. So the Catholic Church in Croatia has paid attention to the relationship between faith and science in more or less the same measure and the same way like the Church in other Central European countries. Science became even more important for theology and pastoral work during the Communist dictatorship, which claimed to be based on so–called scientific atheism. In the first decade after the fall of the Communist regime the issue has lost some of its urgency, but did not disappear from the public arena.

The books of the New Atheists were quickly translated into Croatian and given a considerable attention in the secular media. The subsequent debate was, however, specific for the Croatian historical, social and cultural context. Seen as a discussion between scientific theories and religious doctrines, the debate was less heated than in the English–speaking countries. I could observe that fact personally while I was working on my Ph.D. thesis in Ireland at that time (2005–2009). Seen as a aspect of the progress of social secularism, the debate on the New Atheism in Croatia can be better characterized as a sector in a polarized cultural battlefield. Namely, almost each year in that period there was a major argument between the secularist and the Catholic side of the Croatian society. We have had fierce arguments on religious education at schools, on Sunday work, on the state financing for religious communities, on in vitro fertilization, on sexual education, and same–sex marriage. Besides, there are many unresolved issues stemming from the crimes of the Communist

8 regime against the human rights of the Catholics, and against the institutional rights of the Catholic Church.

We must keep in mind that there is a certain continuity of the old Communist mentality, and even of their structures of collaboration and mutual protection almost everywhere in the Croatian public life: in the world of politics, economy, media, culture, and non–governmental associations. As Lennart Meri, the late president of Estonia, used to say, “Everybody says Communism is dead but no one has shown me its corpse.”8 For a long time now these post–communist networks have successfully blocked Catholic social activism in Croatia, both from the political left and the right wing. In such a context, scientific and theological controversies were used merely as an instrument.

Although I have offered an analysis of a newspaper here, because it gives a more accurate trans–generational and trans–cultural picture, the most dynamic development of the debate on the relationship between science and religion has happened in the Internet. Much of the stuff at forums and blogs is rubbish. During the last decade, however, there have appeared some very interesting sites and blogs in Croatian, with quality contributions, dedicated specifically to the dialogue between faith and science (see e.g. Katolik s dna kace, Croatian Chestertonians, Bitno.net, Katolik.hr).

I have already mentioned that almost all Catholic institutions of higher education organized scientific conferences on natural science and theology, and similar topics, often inviting speakers from abroad—scientists, philosophers, theologians. Even more lectures and debates were organized by the Catholic and ecumenical lay–associations and parishes. Quite a few professional scientists readily speak to wider audiences on the dialogue with religion. The existing programs, like the “Limes of Cosmos” of the Croatian Catholic Radio (emitted from 1998), have gained more relevance.

A group of scientists felt the need to organize themselves formally in 2006 into the association called Study Group Science and Spirituality, based in Zagreb. The Study Group “brings together physicists, philosophers, biologists and historians of science, local church dignitaries and theologians (Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim) and other scientific professionals with the intention of promoting its own research, group work and new trans–disciplinary

8 See Jüri Luik, “Lennart Meri, diplomat,” Diplomaatia, March 31, 2006, http://www.diplomaatia.ee/en/ article/lennart-meri-diplomat/ (accessed on November 3, 2014).

9 approach in the field of the relation between science and spirituality.”9 Since that time the Study Group has organized numerous meetings and conferences.

Regarding the reaction of the Catholic clergy, some of them are, of course, theologians and philosophers who spoke and wrote on the dialogue between faith and science. For majority of the parish clergy I would say they are not very interested in these debates, or not informed enough to enter them. I think their typical response to a seeker would be that of complementarity between faith and science. Probably it would be difficult for many of them to explain that statement, or to reconcile some scientific theories (such as the theory of evolution) with religious beliefs, but they would at least go in the direction of dialogue, rather than conflict.

The textbooks for Catholic religious education in elementary and high schools follow the attitude of dialogue and complementarity with science. Scientists themselves sometimes point at the need for a larger involvement of scientists in writing these textbooks, in order to avoid some existing ambiguities and imprecisions. There also remains the problem of reconciling the conflicting biblical and scientific vocabularies that are often used side–by–side without explanations, which can create confusion in the minds of school–children.

Is there a significant influence of the creationism among the Croatian Catholics? I am not talking about the creationism as a philosophical and theological idea that the Universe and living organisms originate from God. I understand creationism here as the position which rejects any explanation of the Universe and life which contradicts the literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture. Obviously, there are creationist beliefs among the Catholics in Croatia that stem from the lack of information about science and about the official Church teaching. There are also people who affirm the teaching of the recent popes about the complementarity of faith and science, but that does not mean they are firmly persuaded by it, again because of lack of knowledge. There are also Protestant communities that circulate creationist literature in Croatian language, which reaches the Catholics too. These groups are not our focus here. What is relevant for us, is that there are also active Catholic creationist circles that explicitly reject, for example, the theory of evolution for biblical reasons. The latter circles are, however, a sort of a sub–culture, present in the Catholic apocalyptic movement, among the Lefebrian traditionalists, and among some members of the Charismatic Renewal. The last ones are well organized and promote creationist ideas through their popular media (magazines

9 Study Group Science and Spirituality, “About Us,” http://sgss.phy.pmf.unizg.hr/SGSS_o%20nama.htm (accessed November 27, 2014).

10 Book and Nacija; sections of the web–portal Dnevno.hr). Creationism does not have any noteworthy influence in the Catholic institutions in Croatia, but its low–profile presence in the basis should not be underestimated. Most of the previously mentioned groups and media that support the dialogue between faith and science among Croatian Catholics make efforts to remind that fundamentalist creationism is against the doctrine of the Church on faith and reason.

6. Corollaries

I have mentioned earlier that there was an increase of the percentage of atheists in Croatia from 2,22 in 2001, to 3,81 in 2011. That increase is not dramatic, but the aggressive presence of the New Atheists in the media in that period could have contributed to that increase, and to the further polarization of the already politically and ideologically polarized Croatian society. On the other hand, the debate on the New Atheism has made the Catholics more active too, and I hope more informed about the stance of the Church on the relationship between faith and science and reason. Croatian Catholics, both lay and clerical, especially the younger generation, now show more interest in philosophy and apologetics in general, in comparison to the preceding decade. Also, a cultural shift is taking place towards the Anglo–Saxon culture (which is true for the whole society, for several reasons), and towards the Anglo–Saxon Catholic thought. More and more British and American Christian authors and philosophers are studied and their books are translated (e.g. by the Verbum publishers), which is a novelty in Croatia.

The whole controversy with the New Atheism was harmful, if for no other reason then at least because it gave a distorted picture about religious beliefs and filled the Internet with disinformation. Those who previously did not have affinity for the Church have got more stimulus to reject her completely. From the Catholic point of view, the controversy has made the outreach to those at the margins of the faith more difficult, but it has also brought some positive results. Yes, the faithful have to defend and deepen their challenged faith more urgently, but the controversy has provided them with a lot of helpful information for that purpose. From the social point of view, many professionals in science and philosophy in Croatia now seem to reject the New Atheism as exaggerated (if not fully wrong), even among those who are atheist. Hardly anyone would quote Dawkins or the others from that group in a serious public debate, although their influence still exists at the secularist grassroot level.

11 Actually, if we have a look at who speaks in the name of science in the media, we will see that quite a few of the most publicized Croatian natural scientists promote some sort of dialogue with religion. The loudest Croatian atheists and secularists do not come from the area of natural science. That does not mean the influence of scientism and secularism in the professional scientific circles is not strong—it is still the Christian world–view that has to keep low profile, not the atheist one.

One would expect that university students would have more difficulties with the challenge of scientism and the New Atheism than working youths, being more exposed to the world–view of scientism and their writings than the latter. They all have difficulties indeed, but from my own experience of working in a university chaplaincy in Zagreb (2009–2013), I realized that it is easier for us to communicate the Christian message to university students than to working youths. One of the reasons could be that the students are better informed and better equipped to resist the secularist pressure than the young workers. It is, however, true that the majority in both groups do not consider faith–science questions as the key issue of their Christian identity. In my survey from March 2010 among the Catholic university students, faith–science questions resulted important for them personally, but as the fourth in the order of topics they wanted to discuss, after the topics of practical devotion, morality, and spirituality, but significantly before politics and social issues.

Generally the reputation of the education in Catholic schools in Croatia is growing, as well as the attendance of the Catholic catechesis in elementary and high schools. Despite low demographics and the negative campaign in the media, in Zagreb alone fifty more groups of school catechesis were established in 2014.10 I would conclude that the process of secularization goes on in Croatia, with secularist groups being still influential and aggressive, but there is also a lively resistance coming from different types of religious activism. The same conclusion can be drawn about the promotion of the dialogue between science and religion: science is (ab)used for the promotion of atheism and secularism, but not without active opposition.

Can we do more? First, it is the role of theology to interpret the contents of faith in the view of the contemporary cultural matrix. Science is extending and strengthening its role of the predominant framework of the social and cultural discourse. In that framework, the

10 See Darko Pavičić, “U zagrebačkim srednjim školama 50 razreda za vjeronauk više nego lani,” Večernji list, October 1, 2004, http://www.vecernji.hr/hrvatska/u-zagrebackim-srednjim-skolama-50-razreda-za- vjeronauk-vise-nego-lani-964358 (accessed December 8, 2014).

12 ideologies of scientism and secularism are becoming our cultural paradigm. Croatia is not isolated from that global trend. My impression is that theological research and the Catholic theological education are rather slow and languid in their structural adjustment to that challenge. Yes, there is a positive dynamism happening with the arrival of the new generations and the way how they frame their questions about the faith and the world. Good teachers adapt the traditional answers to these new questions. Still, the curriculum of theological studies proper has yet to be adjusted, not only to the challenges of scientism, but also to the authentic development of the scientific image of the world.

Second, there is a conspicuous absence of an institutional platform for the science– faith dialogue at the institutional level of the Catholic Church in Croatia. Some neighbouring countries and the Holy See have discovered successful models of the promotion of the science–faith dialogue in the context of the broadly coordinated dialogue between faith and culture. Croatian Bishops’ Conference has different committees for various areas of public life,11 and their task is to coordinate the initiatives in their respective fields. Strangely, there is no committee for new evangelization, which would be a natural environment for the dialogue with the world of culture and science. Neither the Archdiocese of Zagreb, the largest one in Croatia, has one. I have pointed out earlier that even during the climax of the controversy with the New Atheism there were no important official interventions of the episcopate nor their committees. In a way, that is understandable. Croatia has had different urgent problems and we have passed through several heated controversies. The importance of the dialogue between faith and science cannot be compared with cultural and legal battles for the dignity of human person, the rights of family, and social justice, just to mention a few. Having said that, it remains that we need such an institutional platform in the Church in Croatia where the promotion of the dialogue between faith and science would get the publicity and efficacy it needs and deserves. In the course of time they will indirectly determine the outcome of our ethical and social efforts.

11 There are councils of the Croatian Bishops’ Conference for the Doctrine of Faith, Catechesis, Clergy, Vocations, Institutes of Consecrated Life, Life and Family, Lay People, Education, Ecumenism and Dialogue, Cultural Heritage, Tourism, Croatian Catholic Diaspora, the committees for Legal Issues, Justice and Peace, Youth, Media, Prisons, Roma, and an office for the Oversees Missions. See “Ustroj Hrvatske biskupske konferencije,” http://www.hbk.hr/?type=clanak&ID=33 (accessed December 9, 2014).

13