Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Hardships of the Greek-Catholic Church in Bulgaria After the Second World War

The Hardships of the Greek-Catholic Church in Bulgaria After the Second World War

THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK- CHURCH IN AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR

A BRIEF HISTORICAL OUTLINE ON THE OCCASION OF THE OF THREE BULGARIAN ON 26 MAY 2002

BERT GROEN*

1. INTRODUCTION

On 23 April 2002 at the Vatican, three Bulgarian Catholic who had been murdered by the communist regime in 1952 were declared martyrs of the Church and witnesses of the .1 One of them, Kamen Vicev, was born

* Bert Groen is professor of liturgiology and at the Karl-Franzens- Universität in Graz. Until September 2002 he was lecturer at the Institute of Eastern Chris- tian Studies in Nijmegen. He is editor-in-chief of JEastCS. 1 Updated and revised version of a lecture originally given at the congress Le Chiese ori- entali cattoliche d’Europa nella loro storia di fede e di sofferenza dall’inizio del secolo fino ad oggi, organized by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, , 22-24 October 1998. On the martyrdom of the three priests and their beatification, see Beatificationis seu De- clarationis martyrii servorum Dei Petri Vitchev et Pauli Djidjov necnon Josaphat Chichkov sacerdotum professorum congregationis Augustinianorum ab Assumptione in odium fidei, uti fer- tur, interfectorum († 1952): super martyrio, Congregatio de Causis Sanctorum, Prot. N. 2044 ( and Rome, 2002); L’ Osservatore Romano, 24 April 2002, pp. 1, 4. See also W. Dufault, ‘1952: Nos frères de Bulgarie’, in Mémoire Assomptionniste: Écrits au fil des ans 1850-2000 (Le Bourget-du-Lac, 2000), pp. 131-133; P. Gallay, Het martelaarschap van drie Bulgaarse Assumptionisten (Paris, 2002); , 94 (2002), pp. 567- 571; Katholikê, 11 June 2002, p. 8. On the papal visit to Bulgaria, see L’ Osservatore Romano: Speciale, 20-21 May 2002, pp. 8-32; L’ Osservatore Romano, 25 May 2002, pp. 1, 4-7; 26 May 2002, pp. 1, 4-7, 14; 27- 28 May 2002, pp. 1, 7-13; 29 May 2002, pp. 1, 5, 10; 30 May 2002, pp. 1, 4; Katho- likê, 25 June 2002, p. 4; Service Orthodoxe de Presse, No. 270, July-August 2002, pp. 25- 27; F. Hoppenbrouwers, ‘Paus Johannes Paulus II bezoekt EU-kandidaat Bulgarije’, Een-Twee-Een, 30 (2002), 9, pp. 27-28. See also J. Pumberger, ‘Orthodoxe, Katholiken, Muslime: Bulgarien vor dem Besuch Johannes Pauls II.’, Herder Korrespondenz, 56 (2002), 5, pp. 237-242. 246 BERT GROEN in an Orthodox family and belonged to the . He was provin- cial vice-, professor and of the seminary of the congregation of the Assumptionists in Plovdiv. The other two, also Assumptionists, adhered to the Latin rite, viz. Josafat Siskov, in Varna, and Pavel Dzid- zov, treasurer of the seminary in Plovdiv. During his visit to Bulgaria (23-26 May 2002), John II beatified the three priests (Plovdiv, 26 May 2002). On the eve of the ceremony, a vigil was held in the ancient Roman theatre of Plovdiv during which the horrors of their martyrdom were recalled and thanks were given to for their beatification. Six years earlier, viz. in 1994, a Vatican also declared the Latin-rite of Nikopol, Evgenij Bosilkov, a former student of the Pontifical Oriental Institute (1926-1931) and a Passionist father, who had also been murdered in 1952, a martyr.2 His beatification took place on 15 March 1998 in Rome. The annual liturgical commemoration of the four martyrs in the Church was put on 13 November.3 In this article the historical context of their sufferings is sketched in broad outlines. I will concentrate on the Byzantine-rite although because of the close links and intertwining ties between the Byzantine and Latin rite within the Roman Catholic Church of Bulgaria, the Latin rite can- not be disregarded. Further, in order to show that not only the Roman Catholic Church was targeted, the hardships of the other denominations will also be briefly described. Firstly, the take-over of the Bulgarian state by the communists and their atti- tude towards will be described. Then, the consequences for the reli- gious communities in Bulgaria, in particular the Roman Catholic Church,

2 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 91 (1999), pp. 158-160; I. Sofranov, Mons. Eugenio Bossilkov c.p., Vescovo di Nicopoli (Bulgaria), Martire per la fede Cattolica (1900-1952): In occasione del XXX anniversario del martirio (1952-1983) ([Pessaro], 1983); I. Sofranov and S. Mercanzin, De Dienaar Eugenius Bossilkov: Bulgaarse Katholieke Bisschop Martelaar (1900-1952) (Grave, 1988); Bisschop Eugenius Bossilkov, ed. Congregation of the (s.l., 1998). Bosilkov’s doctoral thesis submitted in 1931 in Rome dealt with the unity between Bul- garia and the Church of Rome. 3 The new Roman Martyrology of 2001 mentions the commemoration of Bishop Bosilkov’s passio on 11 November, the day of his death, but there is no entry of his commemoration on 13 November. See Martyrologium Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Ioannis Pauli pp. II promulgatum (, 2001), pp. 582-588. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 247 will be examined. Next, the new situation that arose after 1989 and figures on the denominations in Bulgaria will be considered. Finally, some observa- tions will be made on Greek-Catholic suffering, cooperation between the Byzantine and Latin rites, and ecumenism. This article is dedicated to the Congregation of the Assumptionists, both in Bulgaria and worldwide, because of the close ties existing between this Congregation and the Institute of Eastern Christian Studies in Nijmegen that continues the work of the former Assumptionists’ Institute of Byzantine and Ecumenical Studies.

2. COMMUNIST TAKE-OVER AND BATTLE AGAINST RELIGION

At their meeting in Moscow, 9 October 1944, Winston Churchill suggested to Stalin that after the war the Soviet Union would exert 75% and the other Allied Forces 25% of the political influence in Bulgaria.4 Stalin agreed. Con- sequently, the Western powers would not interfere in Bulgaria’s political devel- opments, just as the Soviet Union would not intervene in Greece.5 Actually, 75% was tantamount to a monopoly and soon only the Soviet Union defined Bulgaria’s destiny. One month before the Moscow meeting Soviet troops had occupied Bul- garia, which had taken sides with Germany and Italy during the war. On 9 September 1944, a ‘National Committee of the Patriotic Front’, which included members of the small Bulgarian Communist Party, was invested with political power. With the aid of the Soviet troops the Bulgarian com- munists, led by Georgi Dimitrov (died in 1949), soon enlarged their influ- ence, monopolized political power and eliminated any opposition to their monopoly and all threatening non-communist, so-called ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fas- cist’ elements. Even communists that had not been trained in Moscow had to disappear. Innumerable persons were sent to the 65 concentration camps throughout the country. Tens of thousands of people were murdered;

4 H.-J. Härtel and R. Schönfeld, Bulgarien: Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Regensburg and Munich, 1998), pp. 191-220; M. Weithmann, Balkan-Chronik: 2000 Jahre zwischen Orient und Okzident (Darmstadt, 19972), pp. 424-463, 480-482, 486-488, 537-538. 5 Greece was soon torn apart by a cruel civil war between communists on the one hand and royalists and right-wing groups on the other (1946-1949). 248 BERT GROEN estimations vary between 20,000 and 200,000. In 1950, V"lko (Valko) Cer- venkov, also nicknamed ‘little Stalin’, became the leader of the Communist Party. Under his leadership the policy of elimination continued. The absolutist atheist State party waged a rigorous battle against religion and the Churches. Initially, because of the regime’s need to homogenize the political landscape and its wish to give a good impression to the Western Allied Forces before the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947, persecution of religious communities was not yet carried out on full scale. In 1945-46, at first, ‘only’ and in the schools and in the army were abol- ished. The Paris Peace Treaty that was itself concluded between Bulgaria and the Allied Forces in 1947 guaranteed religious freedom and other human rights. From December 1947, the new constitution, which was a close imitation of the Soviet Union's, prescribed a separate Church and State and that the State recognise only civil marriage. At the same time the constitution allowed religious freedom in Bulgaria, but only as a mere formality.6 Dating from 25 February and 1 March 1949, the Denominations Act, too, confirmed religious freedom and separation between Church and State. This law also established that the ‘Bulgarian Orthodox Church is the traditional of the Bulgarian people’, a weakening of the passages in the old constitution from 1879 where Orthodoxy was the ‘dominant religion’ and received financial sup- port from the State. That Church-State separation and so-called ‘religious freedom’ were just for appearance’s sake was obvious from other rules and lim- itations in this Act, such as: - All religious communities were subject to total State control, including their finances. - All their publications were to be submitted to censorship. - They were prohibited from any involvement in youth education and for- bidden to found charitable institutions. - Their existing institutions were taken over by the State. - The Director for the Denominations, a state under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was entitled to dismiss any churchman.

6 Kirche und Staat in Bulgarien und Jugoslawien: Gesetze und Verordnungen in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. R. Stupperich (Witten, 1971), p. 5. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 249

- of any Church or religion had to be Bulgarians. - Contacts with foreigners and foreign institutions were strictly limited.7 The Roman Catholic Church and the American Protestant denominations in particular were hampered a great deal by the last two prescriptions. Although the State confirmed religious freedom, in reality – just as in other Eastern European countries with ‘real socialism’ – it fought against that free- dom and promoted atheist propaganda. According to the State, all confes- sions were free, but in reality they were obliged to comply with strict State rules under penalty of sanctions. The Churches’ and ’ right of exis- tence was formally acknowledged by the atheist communist State. Never- theless, the latter’s ultimate goal was their extinction.8 The Soviet Union’s anti-religious policies and practice served as examples for Bulgaria’s regime.

3. CONSEQUENCES FOR BULGARIA’S RELIGIONS AND DENOMINATIONS, ESPE- CIALLY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

3.1. Orthodox, Muslims, Jews and Protestants a. The Orthodox Church received ambivalent treatment: it was both perse- cuted and privileged.9 On the one hand, the communists regarded it as an

7 Ibid., pp. 5-11. 8 Cf. ibid., p. 55; K. Hutten, Christen hinter dem Eisernen Vorhang: Die christliche Gemeinde in der kommunistischen Welt, Bd. II (Stuttgart, 1963), pp. 471-484; J. Hoffmann, Églises du silence: A l’Est, ténèbres et lumières (Paris, 1967), pp. 138-145; R. Hoare, ‘Bulgaria’, Religion in Communist Lands, 18 (1990), pp. 172-180, on pp. 172-173; P. Mojzes, Religious Liberty in Eastern and the USSR Before and After the Great Transformation, East European Monographs, 337 (Boulder and New York, 1992), pp. 133-155, 389-390. 9 D. Slijepcevic, Die bulgarische orthodoxe Kirche 1944-1956, Untersuchungen zur Gegen- wartskunde Südosteuropas, 1 (München, 1957); M. Pundeff, ‘Church-State Relations in Bulgaria under Communism’, in Religion and in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, eds. B. Bociurkiw and J. Strong (London, 1975), pp. 328-350; F. Heyer, ‘Bulgarien II: Jüng- ste Geschichte und gegenwärtige Situation’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 7 (1981), pp. 372- 375; S. Raikin, ‘The Bulgarian Orthodox Church’, in Eastern and Politics in the Twentieth Century, ed. P. Ramet, Christianity under Stress, 1 (Durham and London, 1988), pp. 160-182, on pp. 170-181; D. Kirov, ‘Die Situation der orthodoxen Kirche in Bulgarien’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 18/9 (1990), pp. 14-15; A. Krastev, ‘Die Bulgarische Kirche in Geschichte und Gegenwart’, in Religion und Gesellschaft in Südosteuropa, ed. H.-D. Döp- mann, Südosteuropa-Jahrbuch, 28 (München, 1997), pp. 149-155, on pp. 152-155; S. Ramet, Nihil Obstat: Religion, Politics, and Social Change in East-Central Europe and (Durham and London, 1998), pp. 277-285; D. Gonis (Gonês), Historia tôn Ortho- doxôn Ekklêsiôn Boulgarias kai Serbias (Athens, 1999), pp. 158-168. See also Kirchen und 250 BERT GROEN institution that might become ‘democratic’ and ‘progressive’. They also pro- moted the Church as a means of rapprochement between the Bulgarian peo- ple, the overwhelming majority of whom were Orthodox, and the Orthodox populations of the socialist -states, the Soviet-Union, Romania and Yugoslavia in their common battle against ‘imperialism’.10 On the other hand, the Communist Party tried to marginalize Orthodoxy and to eradicate any Orthodox element that did not comply by its wishes. After the communist take-over numerous Orthodox, both from the and from the , were arrested and murdered. Many others were sent to concentration camps. Stefan, who had been elected on 21 January 1945, did not support communist ideology and resigned in September 1948 because of problems with the government – the Communist Party did not trust him – and tensions with the other members of the Holy Synod. He was held in custody by the communist authorities in a Bulgarian village until his death in 1957. The authenticity of the ‘Message to the Bulgarian People’ allegedly written by him on Good Friday 1952, in which he denounced athe- istic communism and the ‘conspiracy’ of metropolitans against him, is doubt- ful.11 The Metropolitan of Nevrokop, Boris, was shot on 8 November 1948. After such repression, the Holy Synod became docile. It assured the regime of its absolute loyalty and joined it in singing the praises of Bulgarian ‘patri- otism’ and love of Russia. Most maintained fairly cordial contacts with the regime and even supported propaganda for it. This submissive attitude, however, did not prevent the government from expropriating Orthodox prop- erties. Ministry and pastoral care were made almost impossible. Many churches and were demolished or turned into museums. The Church was more or less limited to the performance of liturgical rites within her remain- ing buildings. The State campaigned against the observance of religious feasts. Young people in particular were strongly discouraged from church atten- dance and participation in ecclesial life. A few publications were permitted, it is true, but they were censored. Theological education and seminaries were

Glaubensbekenntnisse in Volksrepublik Bulgarien (Sofia, 1975); this was published by the Ecumenical Department of the Holy Synod. 10 I. Elenkov, La Chiesa Cattolica di rito bizantino-slavo in Bulgaria dalla sua costituzione nel 1860 fino alla metà del XX sec. (Sofia, 2000), p. 212. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 251 restricted to elementary levels only and so seriously hindered in their spiri- tual activities. At the same time, paradoxically, Orthodoxy retained a protected position. It was recognised as the ‘traditional Bulgarian religion’ and the State financed the Church’s participation in international conferences and dia- logues in order to show to the Western world that Orthodoxy in Bulgaria was free. Further, the Bulgarian Patriarchate was re-established and the new eccle- siastical constitution of 31 December 1950 asserted that the Metropolitan of Sofia is also of Bulgaria. Unfortunately, this happened without pre- vious consultations with the Patriarchate and another dis- agreement between Sofia and the Fanar occurred, which was only overcome in 1961 when Constantinople recognized the patriarchal status of Bulgarian Orthodoxy. (The previous rift caused by the disagreement on the Bulgarian lasted from 1870 till 1945.) In May 1953, a Church-Nation Synod was held to elect the new patriarch, the learned Metropolitan of Plovdiv, Kiril, who was also vice-chairman of the Holy Synod. Incidentally he had also been imprisoned and tortured by communist authorities. b. was considered as a ‘non-Bulgarian’ and ‘fanatic’ religion, not only by the regime but also by many Bulgarian citizens. Muslims (Turks, Pomaks, Roma and Tatars) were socially discriminated against. The regime nation- alised vakıf property, severely obstructed the activities of the imams and greatly reduced the number of hocas (from 15,000 before 1944 to 460 in the early 1960s).12 Because the efforts to undermine the Islamic religion were not very successful, the Communist Party changed its tactics: in 1950-1951, some 155,000 Muslims – not only Turks but also Pomaks – were sent to Turkey and about 150,000 were resettled elsewhere in Bulgaria. In 1952, Koran schools were closed. Non-religious rites and feasts, such as ‘socialist’ funerals and feasts of admission to the youth organisations, were propagated, but these initiatives met with little success. In later years, viz. 1985-1989, dur- ing the so-called ‘rebirth process’, the Muslims were forced to take new, ‘Bul- garian’ names. Religious rites, such as circumcision, were penalised, mosques

11 Religion in Communist Lands, 7 (1979), pp. 111-113; S. Raikin, ‘The Communists and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, 1944-48: The Rise and Fall of Exarch Stefan’, Religion in Communist Lands, 12 (1984), pp. 281-292. 12 Vakıf is property of Muslim charitable foundations and religious communities. Hoca is a religious teacher. 252 BERT GROEN were demolished, Turkish cultural centres closed, and much violence erupted. In June-July 1989, about 370,000 Muslims involuntarily departed to Turkey. (Later, because of unfavourable conditions in Turkey, some 150,000 returned to Bulgaria.) The docile Islamic Supreme Religious Council financially sup- ported by the State denied the repression.13 c. The Bulgarian Jews – they numbered about 50,000 during the Second World War – were the only Jewish community in Eastern Europe that sur- vived the Holocaust. The Orthodox metropolitans Stefan and Kiril distinguished themselves in rescuing the Jews. Regrettably, only the Jews within the Bul- garian borders were saved; in and Thrace, viz. territories that were occupied by the Bulgarians during the Second World War, nearly all Jews (11,384) were killed in the Shoah. After the abolishment of the anti-Jewish legislation during the war, the communist regime restored (and largely con- trolled) Jewish life but the economic situation of the Jews remained depressed. Due to , Zionist feeling and the regime’s increasingly negative attitude to national minorities – the survivors became the victims of discrimination and slander – most of them migrated to Israel (between 1949 and 1951, over 44,000 Jews left).14 d. Initially, the Protestant Churches rejoiced in the alleged separation between the Orthodox Church and the State because they desired equal treatment of all Churches. Soon, however, they sobered up. The regime looked at the financial and moral support given by Western Protestant Churches to their

13 See also ‘Turkish Muslims in Bulgaria’, Religion in Communist Lands, 15 (1987), pp. 209- 212; A. Bassarak, ‘Wer sind die “Bulgaren islamischen Glaubens”?’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 19 (1991), 5, pp. 26-27; P. Nitzova, ‘Islam in Bulgaria: A Historical Reappraisal’, Religion, State and Society, 22 (1994), pp. 97-102, on p. 101; Mojzes, Religious Liberty in Eastern Europe and the USSR (see n. 8), pp. 150-151; W. Höpken, ‘From Religious Identity to Ethnic Mobilisation: The Turcs of Bulgaria before, under and since Communism’, in Mus- lim Identity and the Balkan State, eds. H. Poulton and S. Taji-Farouki (London, 1997), pp. 54-81. 14 See also N. Oren, ‘Bulgaria: In World War II, The Postwar Period’, Encyclopaedia Judaica 4 (1971), pp. 1485-1492. According to the Dutch newspaper Trouw, 8 October 1998, p. 10, an important motive was also the Jewish conviction that the Shoah had put an end to two millennia of peaceful Jewish life in the Balkans. The Bulgarian philologist, R. Pavlova, states that there is no anti-Semitism in Bulgaria. See her article ‘Die Situation der Kirchen – insbesondere der Orthodoxen Kirche – im postkommunistischen Bulgarien’, in Kirchen und Gläubige im postsowjetischen Osteuropa, ed. W. Kasack, Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavis- tik, 63 (München, 1996), pp. 163-176, on p. 175. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 253

Bulgarian co-religionists with great suspicion (just as it distrusted the finan- cial aid given to the Bulgarian Catholics from abroad). The denominations which had their mother Churches in the Western world, such as the Methodists and the Baptists, were especially and violently persecuted. Numerous pastors and other faithful were arrested, ill-treated and imprisoned for many years. Others ‘disappeared’. Between 1947 and 1950 all foreign had to leave the country. In the autumn of 1948, fifteen ministers, including the heads of the Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists and Pentecostals, were arrested and physically and mentally tortured. During staged trials in February and March 1949, they were accused of ‘attempting to reinstate a bourgeois cap- italist regime’, of spying and high treason and sentenced to long-term prison penalties, the four church leaders for life. Moreover, the State strictly super- vised the congregations and appointed its confidants as ministers, causing division and mutual distrust within several congregations.15

3.2 Roman Catholics At the end of the 1940s, the Roman Catholic Church numbered only 1% of the population; about 90% belonged to the Latin rite, 10% to the Byzan- tine. In spite of its small size, this Church had great prestige because of the high level of education of its priests, and its famous schools and charities.16 Unlike the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church was hit by the communist authorities in its entirety.17 It was not de jure recognised and was

15 Mojzes, Religious Liberty in Eastern Europe and the USSR (see n. 8), pp. 137-147; P. Mojzes and G. Stricker, ‘Protestantismus in Bulgarien’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 19 (1991), 5, pp. 23-26; M. Matheeff (Mateev), Terreur in het rode paradijs: Tragedie der Bulgaarse Chris- tenen (Utrecht, 1974); Beatificationis (see n. 1), Summarium, pp. 290-298, 359-360; L. Davies, ‘Pentecostals in Bulgaria’, Religion in Communist Lands, 8 (1980), pp. 299-304. 16 For a survey of Catholic institutions on the eve of the communist take-over, see K. Drenikoff, L’Église Catholique en Bulgarie (Madrid, 1968), pp. 22-30. The Greek-Catholic Church numbered 26 parishes and 49 priests at that time. 17 Ibid., pp. 31-57; M. Carloni, Il silenzio della Chiesa Bulgara ([Pessaro], s.a. [1978]); J. Broun, ‘Catholics in Bulgaria’, Religion in Communist Lands, 11 (1983), pp. 310-320; P. Karakov, ‘L'église catholique Bulgare’, in Living in Truth: Catholics in Eastern Europe, ed. W. de Jonge (The Hague, 1989), pp. 192-194; E. Synek, ‘Licht und Dunkel: Eine kleine Kirchengeschichte der bulgarischen Katholiken’, Der Christliche Osten, 48 (1993), pp. 134-161, 225-260, on pp. 249-260; Elenkov, Chiesa Cattolica di rito bizantino-slavo (see n. 10), pp. 126-169, 183-221; Beatificationis (see n. 1), Informatio, pp. 92-139; S. Eldarov, Katolicite v Balgariâ 1878-1989: Istoricesko izsledvane (Sofia, 2002), pp. 549-759. 254 BERT GROEN denounced as a reactionary group, a body alien to Bulgarian culture and an instrument of foreign interests, such as ‘American imperialism’. At first, in 1945, the inter- preparatory seminary in Sofia was closed. Before the Second World War, the Apostolic Visitator, later Apostolic Dele- gate, the then and later Pope, Angelo Roncalli,18 had campaigned vigorously for this seminary. It was opened in 1934 and led by the Jesuits. Then, the Church was forced to withdraw from its charitable institutions, such as boarding schools, orphanages and its two hospitals. Innumerable Catholics were arrested and tried, some in secret trials. Here I will only men- tion several notable examples. On 17 February 1950, the Superior of the Capuchins in Sofia and founder of the ‘Good Press’, Damjan Gjulov, was arrested, tortured and on 14 January 1952 condemned to twelve years in prison. In July 1952, the new Superior of the Capuchins in Sofia, Fortunat Bakalski, was also apprehended. He was tortured and died in prison. On 16 July 1952, Bishop Evgenij Bosilkov was arrested. Communist attempts to convince him and other leading Roman Catholics to break off relations with Rome and set up a national Catholic Church had failed. From 29 Septem- ber till 3 October 1952, Bishop Bosilkov and forty other Catholics were tried in well-prepared mock trials. Twenty-seven of the accused were priests, among whom ten were Assumptionists; the others were prominent laymen, includ- ing two editors of the Catholic weekly Istina, and two . The nuns and several priests were of the Byzantine rite; one of them was the later Greek- Catholic Exarch, Metodij Stratiev. They were tried for plotting against the Bulgarian state, spying for the West – in particular the Vatican, America and France –, importing foreign currency, contacts with foreigners and storing firearms. The Vatican was charged with financing all of their illegal activities. Living conditions in Sofia’s prison were terrible and there were harsh inter- rogations and torture. Bishop Bosilkov and the three Assumptionist Fathers, Vicev, Siskov and Dzidzov, were condemned to death and executed on the night of 11/12 November 1952.19 In his Orientales Ecclesias from

18 From 1925 till 1931 he was Apostolic Visitator and from 1931 till 1934 Apostolic Del- egate in Bulgaria. See Oriente Cattolico: Cenni storici e statistiche, ed. Sacra Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali (Vatican City, 19744), p. 186. 19 Beatificationis (see n. 1), passim. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 255

15 December 1952, Pope Pius XII protested against Bishop Bosilkov’s fate and the repression of the Catholic Church in Bulgaria.20 The others who stood trial in 1952 received long prison terms, two of them of twenty years. These were spent in the concentration camps for polit- ical prisoners at Belene, Danube River, with torture, forced labour and a cruel regime.21 In another such mock trial held in 1952, the well-known physician Petko Momcilov was condemned to death. The Latin-rite bishop of Sofia-Plovdiv, Ivan Romanov, who was taken into custody in 1952 and condemned to twelve years of forced labour, died in prison at the beginning of 1953. The Greek-Catholic Exarch, Ivan Garufalov, died of a heart attack on 7 August 1951. The vacancy caused by his death was filled only at the end of the 1950s when the former Exarch, Kiril Kurtev, who had resigned for health-reasons in 1941, returned to Sofia.22 In the summer of 1948, the communist authorities ordered the closing of the foreign schools, such as those run by the Polish Resurrectionists, who also had a Greek-Catholic ‘branch’, the of the Assumption, the Sis- ters of Vincent, the Sisters of and the Brothers of the Christian Schools. The most renowned foreign school probably was the boys’ college of St Augustine run by the Assumptionists in Plovdiv.23 This elite college, which had opened its doors in 1884, served to provide Bulgaria with fine intellectuals educated within French and Catholic traditions and, at the same time, it was a means to convert this people to Catholicism. Because the Latin rite was considered too alien for the Bulgarian , the Byzantine- Slavonic rite was promoted as the right way to achieve the goal of ‘union’. The Byzantine-rite Ascension chapel in Plovdiv was an important liturgical centre of the unifying efforts. So St Augustine was not only an excellent school but also the heart of the Assumptionists’ mission of union in Bulgaria

20 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 45 (1953), pp. 5-14, on p. 9. 21 ‘Interview mit dem bulgarischen unierten Priester Gavriil Belovetschov’, Informations- dienst Osteuropäisches Christentum, 3 (1991), 5-6, pp. 23-24; Le Balkan crucifié: L'Église de Bulgarie dans la tourmente (video 1996; available at the Generalate of the Assumption- ists in Rome). 22 Sofranov, Mons. Eugenio Bossilkov (see n. 2), p. 58; G. Adriányi, Geschichte der Kirche Osteuropas (Paderborn, 1992), pp. 156-161, on p. 158. 23 A. Fleury, Un Collège français en Bulgarie: “Saint-Augustin”, Plovdiv, 1884-1948 (Paris, 2001). 256 BERT GROEN aiming at leading ‘schismatic’ Orthodoxy back to the true Roman Church. At the same time, besides Bulgarian language and history, French and French culture were propagated. Although many Assumptionists loved Bulgaria and its inhabitants, they saw themselves as representatives of France. So did other French congregations that worked in Bulgaria. Many Bulgarian intellectuals, regardless of their religion, had studied at St Augustine or at one of the other foreign schools – mostly to their great sat- isfaction – but now these schools were compelled to close their doors. In 1949, the non-Bulgarian religious had to leave the country.24 Moreover, the Catholic hospitals and orphanages were nationalised. Except for the church buildings, all ecclesiastical possessions were expropriated. Several churches were closed, lay associations dissolved. At the beginning of 1949, the Apos- tolic Delegation, too, was abolished.

One difference between Bulgaria and the , Romania and Czechoslo- vakia, is that in Bulgaria the small Greek-Catholic Church was not officially forbidden and forced to return to Orthodoxy. Although both the Greek-rite and the Latin-rite Catholic communities were persecuted intensely, the Greek- Catholic church structures were not entirely liquidated. The Bulgarian sisters of the and the Carmelite sisters – both observing the Byzantine rite – were not forced to renounce their vows or leave the country, but some of them had to serve long prison terms and the important charitable and edu- cational work of the Eucharist sisters was severely obstructed. In October 1953, police forces raided the Carmel in Sofia. Exarch Kurtev was arrested several times. Later, during the 1960s, as a sign of ‘good will’, he received per- mission to attend the . The number of priests decreased, and those alive were ageing. There was no growth. Firstly, because religious education was considerably obstructed.

24 Sr. Marie-Antoine, Les Oblates de l'Assomption servantes de l'Unité chez les Bulgares (s.l., s.a); L. Guissard, De Assumptionisten toen en nu (Leuven, 1999), pp. 97-104; Oriente Cat- tolico (see n. 18), pp. 618-622; cf. 180-189, 481, 658. Some congregations, such as the Oblates of the Assumption, also evacuated their Bulgarian members: see J. Walter, The Assump- tionists and their Eastern Apostolate (1863-1980) (Rome, 1980), p. 68. Other congrega- tions, such as the Resurrectionists and the Assumptionists, kept their Bulgarian members in Bulgaria. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 257

There was no longer a seminary in Bulgaria and studying abroad was not allowed. After 1975, private lessons could be given, even though only a few priests had an educational level high enough. Between 1980 and 1982, some candidates for the priesthood were even permitted to study in Rome but when they returned home their were confiscated.25 A second reason for the lack of growth in the number of priests is that the living conditions of priests and candidates were most difficult. Often they lived in small rooms in or next to the church or even in a cellar, because the presbyteries, too, had been expropriated. They had great problems in obtaining residence permits and many of them were poor. Their living conditions were unhealthy, just as those of the sisters. A third reason is that candidates were scrutinised by the State with regard to their loyalty to the regime’s socialist order in an embar- rassing and painful way. They needed the State’s permission for and this was very difficult to get.26 The Roman Catholic Church had no longer an ecclesiastical press. Only calendars with limited circulation for both rites could be published. Parish catechesis was only possible during Mass and during the preparation for bap- tism and other sacraments. Young people who confessed their faith openly were not allowed to study at the . Some parishioners spied for the regime.27 The new constitution, dating from 1971, which among other things guar- anteed the Bulgarian people the right to ‘religious rites and the conduct of anti-religious propaganda’, meant no improvement for actual religious life. More important is the year 1975 just mentioned. On 27 June of that year, party leader Todor Zivkov visited Pope Paul VI in connection with preparations for the 1100th anniversary of Bulgaria’s christianisation, linked to the St Method- ius celebration, and because of preparations for the Bulgarian state’s 1300th anniversary. From this year on, slight improvements could be observed.28

25 G. Eldarov, ‘Oosterse kroniek: Bulgarije’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 35 (1983), pp. 46-50, on p. 50. 26 C. Campana, ‘Oosterse kroniek: Bulgarije, het roepingenvraagstuk’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 38 (1986), pp. 276-282; H. Glassl, ‘Zur Situation der Kirchen in Bulgarien’, Kirche in Not, 32 (1984), pp. 140-146, on pp. 142-143. 27 Informationsdienst Osteuropäisches Christentum, 2 (1990), 3-4, pp. 32-33. 28 G. Stricker, ‘“Trotz Verfolgung überlebt”: Katholischer Glaube in Bulgarien’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 19 (1991), 5, pp. 21-23, on p. 22. 258 BERT GROEN

From 4 till 8 November 1976, the Vatican state secretary, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, visited many Bulgarian parish churches. Other mutual official vis- its between the Vatican and Bulgaria’s political and Orthodox leadership and both sides’ participation in cultural projects and happenings also showed the slight thaw.29 An unpleasant consequence of the thaw was that representatives of the Roman Catholic Church had to join the official activities of the Bul- garian State for world peace and disarmament under the pax sovietica. How- ever, in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in various other Eastern European countries, such as Czechoslovakia, there were no ‘peace priests’ in Bulgaria. The support given by the Slavonic Pope, John Paul II, to the Bulgarian Catholics and his attitude to the communist authorities that was both firm and diplomatic also slightly improved the Church’s situation and two Latin- rite bishops were appointed.

In 1980, the Greek-Catholic Exarchate numbered 10,000 to 20,000 faith- ful. There were 24 church buildings and chapels and twenty priests. Several Latin-rite priests were bi-ritual. Bulgarian Greek-Catholics lived not only in Bulgaria but also abroad. In Rome a ‘Bulgarian Catholic Library’ existed. In 1966, the appointed Georgi Eld"rov (Eldarov) for the pastoral care of the Bulgar- ian emigrants. One of his activities was editing an information bulletin called Abagar. In 1983, a Bulgarian Catholic Centre, in which Greek-Catholics also participated, was inaugurated in Rome. This centre has an archive, an his- torical and an ecumenical library and a chapel dedicated to St Cyrill and St Methodius.

4. NEW SITUATION

In November 1989, party leader Zivkov lost his power and a movement of gradual democratisation grew stronger. During the , when the Com- munist Party had lost its monopoly of power, great changes occurred. I will only mention several of the most important developments. On 19 October

29 I. Sofranov, ‘Oosterse kroniek: Bulgarije’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 29 (1977), pp. 106- 114, on pp. 110-114; id., ‘Oosterse kroniek: Bulgarije’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 31 (1979), pp. 268-272, on pp. 270-272. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 259

1990, the Roman Catholic Church became a legal body.30 On 5 December 1990, diplomatic relations with the Vatican were re-established. During the 1990s, Bulgaria’s political leaders repeatedly attempted to invite Pope John Paul II to visit their country. Their proposal was met with disapproval by Ortho- dox Church leaders31 and only after considerable state pressure on the latter was the papal visit realised in 2002. In 1991, a new constitution was adopted. Like its predecessors from 1947 and 1971, it names Orthodoxy Bulgaria’s traditional religion and, at the same time, holds for and separation between Church and State (art. 13). It states that the freedom of conscience and ‘the choice of religious or atheistic views’ are inviolable and that the State promotes tolerance among believers from different and between ‘believers and non-believers’, but that religious freedom should not oppose national security, public order, etc. (art. 31). It must be noted that the constitutional concepts of national security and public order are vague.32 Nevertheless, this time the proclaimed freedom was implemented in practice, at least for the Roman Catholic Church, but far less for several Evangelical Churches, the Jehova’s Witnesses and the Mormons all of whom continued to meet with obstructions and discrimination.33 The Orthodox Church and the Muslims, too, regained their freedom and could improve their situation. However, Orthodoxy was soon vexed with a (beginning in 1992). Several metropolitans criticised Patriarch Maksim for

30 Informationsdienst Osteuropäisches Christentum, 2 (1990), 1, p. 6; 2, p. 6; 18-19, pp. 8-9; 22-23, pp. 4-6; 3 (1991), 1-2, pp. 8-9; 13-14, pp. 26-27; 17-18, pp. 26-27; 19- 20, pp. 5-6; 21-22, pp. 3-4; 24-25, pp. 9-13; 4 (1992), 1-2, pp. 9. 25-26; 3, pp. 8-9; 4- 5, p. 16; 8-10, p. 37; 15-16, p. 4; 17-18, pp. 7-8. On the relations between Bulgaria and the Holy See, see also S. Eldarov, Balgariâ i Vatikana 1944-1989: Diplomaticeski, c’’rkovni i drugi vzaimootnoseniâ (Sofia, 2002). 31 Cf. Keston News Service 1997, Nr. 2, March 1997, p. 9; J. Pumberger, ‘Ungelöster Kon- flikt: Bulgarien und seine orthodoxe Kirche’, Herder Korrespondenz, 52 (1998), pp. 88-92, on p. 91. 32 Freedom of Religion and : A World Report, eds. K. Boyle and J. Sheen (London and New York, 1997), pp. 279-286 (Bulgaria), on p. 282. 33 E. Cohen and K. Kanev, ‘Religious Freedom in Bulgaria’, Journal of Ecumenical Stud- ies, 36 (1999), pp. 243-264; J. Anderson, ‘The Treatment of Religious Minorities in South- Eastern Europe: Greece and Bulgaria Compared’, Religion, State and Society, 30 (2002), pp. 9-31, on pp. 15-22; Glaube in der 2. Welt, 30 (2002), 6, p. 4. 260 BERT GROEN the fact that his election in 1971 had not taken place according to the eccle- siastical statutes and chose the Metropolitan of Nevrokop, Pimen, as their new Patriarch. The Bulgarian Socialist Party supported Patriarch Maksim and his followers, whereas the Union of Democratic Forces took sides with the anti- patriarchal party. It is to be regretted that, in spite of repeated efforts made by the Constantinople Patriarchate, other Orthodox Church leaders and Bul- garian to put an end to the division and despite the death of ‘anti- Patriarch’ Pimen in April 1999, the schism still lasts.34 On 17 December 1992, a law on restitution of expropriated property of the Catholic Church was passed by Parliament. Before that date, viz. during the 1992 ad limina visit in Rome, Exarch Stratiev, at that time President of the Bulgarian Bishops’ Conference, complained of the State’s unwillingness and retardation. By 1994, much of the Catholic property, though not all of it by far and most of it rather dilapidated, had been restored. Unfortunately, the Denominations Act from 1949 has still not been replaced and attempts to adopt a new law have failed, mainly because of disagreements on the place of the majority church and the minority faiths.35

34 On the schism within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, see J. Broun, ‘The Schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’, Religion, State and Society, 21 (1993), pp. 207-220; id., ‘The Schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Part 2: Under the Socialist Government, 1993-97’, Religion, State and Society, 28 (2000), pp. 263-289; E. Kraft, ‘Vergangenheits- bewältigung in der bulgarischen Kirche?: Zur kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzung um Patriarch Maksim’, in Horizonte der Christenheit: Festschrift für Friedrich Heyer zu seinem 85. Geburtstag, eds. M. Kohlbacher and M. Lesinski, Oikonomia, 34 (Erlangen, 1994), pp. 516-530; K. Haramiev, ‘The Legacy of Government Manipulation of the Churches in the Post-Communist Balkans: The Case of Bulgaria’, in The Balkans: A Religious Backyard of Europe, ed. M. Faber, Collana di studi sui Balcani e l’Europa Centro-Orientale, 4 (, 1996), pp. 139-145, on pp. 142-145; H. Gstrein, ‘Bulgarien: Von der Wende zur Zerreißprobe’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 25 (1997), 3, pp. 17-22; id., ‘Am Beispiel Bul- garien’, Het Christelijk Oosten 50 (1998), pp. 296-305; id., ‘Bulgarien zwischen Spaltung und Papstbesuch: Weiter problematische bulgarische Orthodoxie’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 53 (2001), pp. 281-291; id., ‘Zwischen Spaltung und Papstbesuch: Zur Problematik der Orthodoxen Kirche in Bulgarien’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 30 (2002), 2, pp. 12-18; Härtel and Schönfeld, Bulgarien (see n. 4), pp. 284-287; I. Bell, ‘Bulgariens Kirche und die Poli- tik’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 26 (1998), 7-8, pp. 22-24. Both on the schism and on the general situation of Orthodoxy in Bulgaria, see H.-D. Döpmann, ‘Aus der Bulgarischen Orthodoxen Kirche’, Kirche im Osten 39 (1996), pp. 149-166; id., ‘Aus der Bulgarischen Orthodoxen Kirche’, Kirche im Osten, 42-43 (1999-2000), pp. 163-191. 35 See e.g. Keston News Service, Special Report, Bulgaria: Religious Liberty Ahead of Papal Visit, 20-24 May 2002. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 261

Various serious problems of the Roman Catholic Church in the fields of religious education and priests’ training still remained unsolved. At the end of the second millennium, the Church still faced the problem of mostly elderly priests (even some who had survived concentration camps). The sis- ters, too, who assisted in catechesis, pastoral care and charity were elderly. In spite of this, many and weddings were celebrated. Contrary to the previous decades when most churchgoers were elderly or people with lit- tle education, at the end of the 1990s many young people were among the churchgoers. The Greek-Catholic Exarch, Hristo Projkov (born in 1946), who is also President of the Bulgarian Bishops’ Conference, asserted that the young were very interested in the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, according to other priests, Catholic students were rejected by their fellow students.36 Bishop Projkov said he regarded religious education, the teaching of moral values and the provision of medicines and food to the poor as essential tasks of today’s Church.37 The ignorance of many of the faithful, partly due to the State’s former restrictions on catechesis, high unemployment, and poverty throughout the country were indeed huge problems. Roman Catholic organisations have resumed their activities. On 19 May 1992, Caritas Bulgaria was founded. In 1995, a new of the sisters of the Eucharist with a medical centre and a relief post for the needy and aged was built. A new convent for the Carmelite sisters, too, was constructed. In 2002, the pastoral centre ‘Pro Oriente’ in Sofia, which is partly intended as a meet- ing place between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, was rebuilt. Without financial aid from foreign organisations, such as Aid to the Church in Need (Kirche in Not/Ostpriesterhilfe), these projects and others would be impossible.38 Fur- thermore, two periodicals are now published: Istina-Veritas and Abagar.39

36 E.g. K. Kurzok, ‘Katholiken in Bulgarien’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 23 (1995), 6, pp. 30- 31, on p. 31. 37 Cf. ‘Bulgarien: Aus dem Leben der Katholischen Kirche’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 21 (1993), 3, pp. 5-6. 38 See e.g. Aid to the Church in Need, Report on Bulgaria, January 2002. 39 See also M. Koinova, Catholics of Bulgaria, ed. Centre for Documentation and Infor- mation on Minorities in Europe – South East Europe, December 1999: www.cedime.net; G. Feige, ‘Bulgarien’, in Kirche und Katholizismus seit 1945, Bd. 2: Ostmittel-, Ost- und Südost- europa, ed. E. Gatz (Paderborn, 1999), pp. 56-61. 262 BERT GROEN

5. FIGURES

On 20 August 1998, the Directorate for the Denominations of the Council of Ministers published up-to-date figures for all Churches and religions in Bul- garia.40 The Orthodox Church numbers about 83% of the population of 8,500,000. This Church has 3,700 church buildings and 120 monasteries. Sixty more church buildings are being constructed. No exact indications are given as to how many of the faithful and the parishes adhered to Patriarch Maksim at that time and how many to the ‘anti-patriarchal’ side. Nor are there exact figures with regard to the Old Calendarists, who fight against the Gre- gorian calendar and ‘heretic’ ecumenism; they have ten parishes in Bulgaria as of 1998, but their size and influence have grown considerably since then.41 Unfortunately, the high percentage of Orthodox means neither that all of them are believers nor that all have been baptised. It means only that either they do not belong to the other denominations and religions, or that they regard Orthodoxy as the national Bulgarian religion. Moreover, out of 120 monasteries only about twenty function as such. According to the figures, the second largest religious group are the Mus- lims, who make up 10 to 12% of the population. They possess 993 mosques. Sixty more have been planned. There are some 65,000 Protestants belonging to different Churches, such as the Methodists, Congregationalists and Pentecostals. They have twenty-one church buildings at their disposal. However, in view of the diversity of the Protestant Churches, it seems to me that the figure of their church buildings only indicates ‘official’ churches and that there are many ‘unofficial’ places of . There are about 60,000 Catholics, including about 15,000 Greek-Catholics. The Catholics have seventy church buildings, but they now account for only 0,64% of the population. However, in 1998 the Orthodox bishop Natanail

40 Orthodoxie Aktuell, 2 (1998), 9, pp. 10-11. Cf. the slightly different figures in H. Gstrein, ‘Zwischen Spaltung und Papstbesuch’ (see n. 34), pp. 17-18; N. Bogomilova-Todorova, ‘Bul- garische Orthodoxie nach der “Wende”: Probleme des sozialen und religiösen Wandels’, Glaube in der 2. Welt, 30 (2002), 2, pp. 19-24, on p. 20. 41 Cf. Gstrein, ‘Am Beispiel Bulgarien’ (see n. 34), p. 300; id., ‘Zwischen Spaltung und Papstbesuch’ (see n. 34), p. 17. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 263 of Nevrokop asserted that in Bulgaria there are no less than 200,000 Roman Catholics. He ascribed this figure – in my opinion overexaggerated – to Catholic proselytism.42 Furthermore, there are about 20,000 Armenians. The Jews nowadays num- ber only 6,000. Of eighteen synagogues only four are still used. Several have been repaired, the others left to the mercy of climate and decline. Also the Baha’i religion and the ‘Universal Church of the Great White Brotherhood Yusmalos’ – the latter is well known in the Ukraine – have been registered. The Jehova’s Witnesses only managed to get an official registration by 7 Octo- ber 1998.

According to a survey done in 1994, 12% of the Bulgarian population is deeply faithful, 48% claims to be more or less religious, 36% states that they are non-religious or even atheists, and 4% does not know whether they are religious or not. A 1997 survey shows that 15% of the Bulgarians is deeply faithful, 47% believe in God to a certain degree, 10% but not in God, 9% is atheist, and 19% is not interested.43 However, the out- come of a different survey done in 1997 was that the Orthodox Church was highly esteemed, more than justice and politics but less than the army. Another outcome of this survey was that, although two thirds of the young valued religion positively, they distanced themselves from the Orthodox Church.44 Incidentally, most Catholics seem to keep aloof from the schism that afflicted the Bulgarian Orthodox Church for more than ten years.45 However, some of them see a chance for their Church to show new ways to the ‘lost’, which looks like a form of proselytism.46

42 Orthodoxie Aktuell, 2 (1998), 9, pp. 15-16. 43 N. Bogomilova Todorova, ‘Religion und sozialer Wandel in Bulgarien’, in Religiöser Wandel in den postkommunistischen Ländern Ost- und Mitteleuropas, eds. D. Pollack, I. Borowik and W. Jagodzinski, Religion in der Gesellschaft, 6 (Würzburg, 1998), pp. 347- 369; id., ‘Bulgarische Orthodoxie nach der “Wende”’ (see n. 40). This author also outlines the processes of secularization and individualization and their consequences for religion. 44 Gstrein, ‘Am Beispiel Bulgarien’ (see n. 34), pp. 298-299. 45 See the literature in n. 34. 46 Kurzok, ‘Katholiken in Bulgarien’ (see n. 36), p. 31. 264 BERT GROEN

6. FINAL OBSERVATIONS

6.1. The fate of the Bulgarian Catholics during the communist regime has been particularly hard, a Way of the Cross. Their steadfast attitude, proba- bly strengthened by a centuries-old tradition of tenacity under foreign occu- pation and persecution, deserves great respect. Despite great State pressure, the number of Catholics has not declined. Despite imprisonment and tor- ture, Catholic priests and nuns have not given up their pastoral work. Their moral standards and discipline remained high.47 The ordeal of the Bulgarian Catholics may have made it easier for them to bring back Christianity to its core: bearing witness to God, serving the Highest One and one’s fellow men, becoming sacraments of Christ’s rad- ical love. It probably enabled them to avoid earthly triumphalism, which can seduce any Church. The attitude of self-aggrandisement, which has been growing in some Eastern European Greek-Catholic Churches dur- ing the 1990s, seems to be less virulent in the Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church.

6.2. In Bulgaria, Latin rite and Byzantine rite seem to work together and realise that they belong to the same Church. The efforts undertaken by - cio Roncalli to promote friendly contacts and interconnections between both rites and to unite the bishops in one inter-ritual Bishops’ Conference have proven fruitful. Other important reasons for this co-operation appear to be common suffering during the past four decades and united service to those in need.48 This practice commendably contrasts with that in other countries, for example in the Ukraine, where competition between both rites occurs. In Poland, too, such competition can be observed, but this is mainly due to ethnic differences. However, the bi-rituality of several priests and the interconnections of the small Greek-Catholic community with the larger Latin rite may serve pastoral needs but also lead to a fading of the differences between both rites, to the detriment of the Byzantine. It is not true that Byzantine-rite

47 Broun, ‘Catholics in Bulgaria’ (see n. 17), p. 317. 48 Stricker, ‘“Trotz Verfolgung überlebt”’ (see n. 28), p. 23. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 265

Catholicism kept its full ancestral heritage. Until the Second Vatican Coun- cil, the Greek-Catholic liturgical, spiritual and theological traditions had to a great extent been latinized.49 If the Greek-Catholics wish to regain some of their lost Byzantine traditions, they may feel encouraged by the Coun- cil’s wish for reforms and ‘de-latinize’ in order to preserve their own iden- tity.50 Their specific religious identity should not be the Latin usage that distinguishes them from the Orthodox but essential ‘Eastern’ characteris- tics, such as the sense of mystery in the liturgy, synodal structures, the interconnectedness between theology and law and the special place of .51 Furthermore, the question may be asked if an Apostolic Exarchate for Bul- garia’s small Greek-Catholic community is not too heavy an ecclesial struc- ture and if a ‘lower’ structure, e.g. a special , would not be more appropriate. (One might ask the same question with regard to the tiny Greek- Catholic community in Greece that comprises less than 2,000 faithful.) On the other hand, if one wishes to safeguard the Byzantine rite from decline within the Romana, a bishop is indispensable.

6.3. Ecumenical relations in Bulgaria are far from being well-developed. On the one hand, there is tolerance but, on the other, denominational funda- mentalism and lack of knowledge of other confessions and religions are wide- spread. Catholicism, however insignificant its numerical size in Bulgaria may be, is often looked at with great suspicion. An important reason for the rejec- tion of the Roman Catholic Church is the close link between the Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian nation and state. Orthodoxy is regarded as the guardian of morals and national values that must be protected from religious

49 Cf. J. Meijer, ‘Een katholieke variant: De Grieks-Katholieken in Oost-Europa’, in Katholieken in Oost-Europa: Opleving, getuigenis en engagement, eds. C. Arends and G. van Dartel (Kampen, 1989), pp. 142-165, on pp. 161-164. See also the description of prob- lems in: M. Van Parys, ‘Comprendre et vivre l’identité des Églises orientales catholiques: Approche théologique’, Irénikon, 70 (1997), pp. 163-182, on pp. 178-179. 50 R. Taft, ‘The Liturgy in the Life of the Church’, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 40 (1999), pp. 187-229; Vsevolod of Scopelos (Ukrainian-Orthodox Bishop in the USA under the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate), ‘The Commitment to Ecumenism: Orientale Lumen’, ibid., pp. 351-369. 51 R. Weakland, ‘Ecumenism and the Eastern Catholic Churches’, Logos: A Journal of East- ern Christian Studies, 40 (1999), pp. 333-349, on pp. 344-347. 266 BERT GROEN pluralism and foreign ‘’.52 Although to a lesser degree than in other Orthodox countries (in particular, Greece, and Russia), in Bulgaria, too, the Orthodox element sanctifies the national element, the latter making the former ethnic. The French Orthodox Christian and specialist in strategic and geopolitical issues, François Thual, even contends that Orthodoxy promotes a nationalistic ideology which reinforces a people’s national feeling and that it is this feeling that perpetuates the people’s identification with Orthodoxy.53 In addition, several prominent Orthodox theologians, for instance John Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann and Kallistos Ware, complain that Ortho- doxy suffers from the distortions of nationalism.54 Nevertheless, the close link between Orthodoxy and several Balkan peoples may also be regarded as an interesting result of the of Christianity. It has produced many popular religious rites, especially with respect to the veneration of ‘national’ (St Ivan of Rila in Bulgaria, St Sava in Serbia, etc.). Most theologians and priests of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church refer to the fact that Orthodoxy was the official religion in the First and the Second Bulgarian Empires. They claim that Orthodoxy preserved the people’s iden- tity under Ottoman rule and that the creation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Exar- chate during the second half of the nineteenth century was an essential con- tribution to the political independence of the Bulgarian State in 1878. It must not be overlooked, however, that the nineteenth-century movement of union with Rome also aimed at the promotion of the Bulgarian national

52 H.-D. Döpmann, ‘∞“Gottes auserwähltes Volk” im Verständnis der Bulgaren’, in ‘Gottes auserwählte Völker’: Erwählungsvorstellungen und kollektive Selbstfindung in der Geschichte, ed. A. Mosser, Pro Oriente: Schriftenreihe der Kommission für südosteuropäische Geschichte, 1 (Frankfurt am Main, 2001), pp. 273-294; Anderson, ‘Treatment of Religious Minori- ties in South-Eastern Europe’ (see n. 33), pp. 22-28. 53 F. Thual, Géopolitique de l'Orthodoxie (Paris, 19942 ), pp. 17-18, 69, 125-132. Cf. B. Groen, ‘Nationalism and Reconciliation: Orthodoxy in the Balkans’, Religion, State and Society, 26 (1998), pp. 111-128. 54 J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today (Crestwood, New York, 19964), pp. 73, 81, 131-132; id., The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church (Crestwood, N.Y., 1982), pp. 225-229, 251-253; A. Schmemann, ‘A Meaningful Storm: Some Reflections on , Tradition and Ecclesiology’ St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 15 (1971), pp. 3-27; T. Ware, The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth, 19933), pp. 77, 89, 174-175, 191. THE HARDSHIPS OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH 267 and ecclesial identity. Both the Union movement and the trend towards an Orthodox exarchate were reacting against Greek dominance within the Patri- archate of Constantinople and were in favour of Bulgarian independence.55 However, Rome also exploited the Union movement in an attempt to lead the Orthodox ‘dissidents’ back into the true fold. Moreover, several Roman Catholic congregations, e.g. the Assumptionists, as we have seen, adopted the Byzantine-Slavonic rite in order to facilitate the process of union. Particularly during the nineteenth century, this adoption often met with resistance from adherents of the Latin rite who were inspired by the concept of ‘Latin supe- riority’ (praestantia latina) and rejected any other way of worship and spiri- tuality within the Roman Church. Many Orthodox mistrust the Greek-Catholic Church and tend to believe that ‘Uniates’ are the Trojan horse of Vatican imperialism, an instrument of Papism for the subjection of the Orthodox peoples. Most Orthodox bishops and theologians consider the ecclesiological status of the ‘Uniate’ Church as irregular.56 In general, many Catholic and Orthodox theologians are not will- ing to apply the notion of sister Churches to Catholic-Orthodox relations. They do not fully realise that these Churches are partners and common wit- nesses of the Gospel.57 Moreover, the common suffering of all denomina- tions during the communist dictatorship ought to serve as a bridge towards mutual understanding, not towards isolation. In spite of its ordeal, the Catholic Church in Bulgaria did not retreat from the rest of Bulgarian society. However, for many Greek-Catholics ecumenism

55 I. Sofranov, Histoire du mouvement bulgare vers l’Église Catholique au XIXe siècle, I: Pre- mière pèriode – les origines (1855-1865) (Rome, 1960); G. Eldarov, ‘Die Union der Bul- garen mit Rom: Zur hundertjährigen Gedenkfeier (1860-1960)’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 10 (1961), pp. 3-27; R. Grulich, Die unierte Kirche in Mazedonien (1856-1919), Das östliche Christentum, N.F., 29 (Würzburg, 1977), pp. 33-95; Elenkov, Chiesa Cattolica di rito bizantino-slavo (see n. 10), pp. 50-104; S. Eldarov, Katolicite v Balgariâ (see n. 17), pp. 31- 191. According to the Bulgarian Patriarch, Kiril, however, the Bulgarian Union movement was the result of Catholic aggression. See his work: Kiril, Katoliceskata propaganda sred Balgarite prez vtorata polovina na XIX vek: I (1859-1865) (Sofia, 1962). 56 See e.g. G. Zyablitsev, ‘Uniatism as an Ecclesiological Problem Today’, in Four Hundred Years Union of Brest: A Critical Re-evaluation, eds. B. Groen and W. van den Bercken (Leu- ven, 1998), pp. 193-199; B. Groen, ‘The Trojan Horse and a Grecian Gift: Present-day Greek Orthodox Reactions to the Union of Brest’, in ibid., pp. 201-238. 57 Cf. E. Suttner, ‘Die Anerkennung der Orthodoxen Kirche als Schwesterkirche durch das 2. Vatikanische Konzil’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 50 (1998), pp. 243-256. 268 BERT GROEN is not a matter of priority. It is difficult for them to consider the Orthodox Church as their original mother Church. They are indifferent to her, look almost exclusively at Rome and, in spite of the latinizations, tend to regard their Greek- Catholic rite as the Eastern rite. In order to change this situation, education must be improved and close collaboration and common study with the Ortho- dox Church promoted. After all, Christianity should not be concerned with fighting for national interests, issues of dominant, traditional religion, ecclesiastical structures of power and ritual issues but with service to God and fellow man. Individual religious freedom is also essential: It is a most costly good, not always regarded as such in the Churches, and an indispensable element in any modern ecu- menical training. Openness and tolerance of other religious convictions is a conditio sine qua non in a multi-religious society. The hard fate of all denom- inations in Bulgaria in the second half of the twentieth century proves it.

Top View