|
THE TRUTH by: Viktor Nuiæ, OFM, Dr. INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION Preliminary remark: This brief review of the history of the tragic conflicts between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Franciscans and the bishops from their beginnings (1881) until the month of August 1996, and with special emphasis on the conflicts between the Herzegovinian Franciscans and the last three Herzegovinian bishops, or better known as the "Herzegovinian Affair", has been designed and written as a popular edition. As such it is not equipped with a scientific apparatus: notes containing data about the use of sources or literature. This has been left for some future, all-encompassing, scientific edition. Nevertheless, the book is based on the documents (sources) cited, some works of which have been published while others are still waiting to be published. Other sources include notes and the memory of the author as a direct participant in all negotiations held between May 1968 until the end of 1979, excluding however, negotiations held during the Congregation for Evangelization of the People held in Rome on 20 February 1974. The author did not participate in this Congress as he was refused a passport. The literature used include: The Schematism of the Herzegovinian Franciscan Province, from 1977, a book by Friar Ignatius Gavran Lucerna Lucens, from 1978, and an article by the same author Law against Justice, published in St. Anthony's Calendar of 1996, pp. 71-82. I know that many will receive this book with wonder and with a multitude of questions: why bring out internal ecclesiastic conflicts to the public? Maybe they are right, but seeing that the conflict between the bishops and the Franciscans continued publicly for centuries and that it is the topic of discussion in many places, we believe that it was more respectable and useful to approach the matter openly with the full truth at hand. Silence, secrecy, cover-ups and one-sided explanations of the truth are food for gossip and sometimes lies which we, at least they who are well minded, certainly do not need. It would be dishonourable to speak about someone in such a way that they cannot defend themselves, that is, behind someone's back, to an uniformed public and without presenting any evidence. We will not speak about individuals, except where this is unavoidable, but rather about the facts, actions and attitudes. We will not depict individuals on one side as bad and on the other as good. We believe this a useful method to adhere to the motto that Solshenyzin used in Volume II of his Gulag, "The line, which separates good from evil, does not flow between classes nor between parties, but across and through every human heart. This line is mobile and moves throughout the years. Even in the heart that has been overtaken by evil it maintains some bridgehead towards good. Even in the best of us - there exists some unconquerable shelter of evil." The direct inspiration for publishing this text is the latest conflict between the Bishop's Ordinary in Mostar and the Provinciality of Herzegovinian Franciscans where the Bishop forces the Herzegovinian Franciscans out, during the fiercest battles between the Croats and the Bosnian-Muslims. They were virtually driven out of Mostar in 1996, and later further on from apljina. Yes, that is right, he is expelling them, in the literal sense of the word because he will not allow them to survive anywhere near the wider area around apljina where they were the spiritual servants for centuries. He will not let them stay not even as a Community of Clergy without a parish! Nevertheless, to be able to fathom the crux of the problem and for the sake of the truth, it is necessary as briefly as possible to recall the history of the conflict. Firstly, in Bosnia and then later in Herzegovina. I. BOSNA SREBRENA (SILVER BOSNIA) 1. The Establishment of the Bosnian Franciscan Vicary The Bosnian Vicary was established immediately following the arrival of the Franciscan General, Father Gerald Odnonis to Bosnia, when he came in 1339, to visit the Bosnian ban, Stjepan Kotromani. The primary task of the Franciscans was to drive back and withstand the Bogumil heresy which would have engulfed Bosnia. And so they came from various areas of Europe - Italy, Germany and even England, Spain and Poland - as Franciscan missionaries to work on this task. They were very successful: they rapidly learnt the language and adapted to the mentality of the local people - recruiting candidates from the populace - they too, soon became domestic. Several papal documents refer to the tedious task faced by the Franciscans. The most expansive of them all has to be the papal bull issued by Pope Eugene IV, Super gregem Dominicum, dated 23 January 1445. However, conversion needed to be supported by faith so the Franciscans immediately set off organizing a curatic service for which they were given exclusive rights to by the Pope. If, for example, a nobleman wished to have his own chapel and his own secular priest, he firstly needed to obtain approval from the Franciscans. When the Turks invaded Bosnia, the Franciscans continued their work but they were now exposed to far worse ordeals, which continued to become worse as time went on. It was especially difficult when Austria and some other European countries began to successfully ward off the Turks and repress them liberating Hungaria, Slavonia, Dalmatia, that is, at the end of the Seventeenth Century on to the Eighteenth Century and in to the Nineteenth Century. It was not infrequent that the Turks humiliated, beat, detained and murdered the Franciscans. Despite the horrific pressures and despite the fact that a great deal of the Catholic population suffered calamities and fled, one section of the population nevertheless remained in Bosnia and managed to preserve Catholicism as a constituent factor of these regions. Most of the deserves for the preservation of Catholicism goes to the Franciscans. Even Bishop Stadler (whose inauguration virtually marks the beginning of the conflict) said, "There probably is not a country in the world, which has so much to thank the Franciscans for, as does Bosnia-Herzegovina. The sons of St. Francis faced with the greatest suffering, victims and banishment managed to maintain the Catholic faith in Bosnia. They lived for Bosnia and died for it until finally better days once again came to these lands, once again thanks to them." The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Franciscans are not just merited with preserving the faith amongst their people but their very national awareness as Croats as well as their cultural exaltation during the dark centuries of our past. Let us just mention the pleiad of Bosnian Franciscan writers led by Matija Divkovi who shone in the 19th Century, with the list ending with Juki, Marti, Kneevi and Josi. 2. Introducing a New Church Hierarchy Austria was a dual monarchy: it was not forthcoming in sharing its rule with the Hungarians and at the same time it held the Slav people as subordinate and wherever possible as divided. After invading Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Monarchy did not particularly favour the idea that the Slavs and most especially, the Croats should be strong and united. This is where the origins of a Bosnian nation as such arise, as did the Bosnian language and a tendency to lean towards the Muslims. This was typical colonial politics so that even after 30 years of rule, Bosnia had not done away with serfdom and where 85% of its children remained without even a basic education. This political idea was threatened by the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Franciscans who always stressed their Croatian belonging. As such, Austria was determined to diminish the influx of Franciscans by cutting off any financial support, dispossessing them of their parishes and to completely squeeze them out of public life. Preparing for it in the long run, Austrian diplomacy decided in 1875, to sent a papal visitator to Bosnia to investigate the need and possibility of establishing a new Church organisation in that region. Because of the Uprising, the visitation did not take place until 1878, and even then it ended with a negative result: the visitator, Dr. Kazimir Forlani and the apostolic vicar Vujii and the Bosnian Franciscans signed a statement in Kraljeva Sutjeska stating "that for now there was no need for any changes in Bosnia". Nevertheless, immediately following the occupation, Austrian diplomacy was determined that through their emissary Paara and other contacts in Rome, it would succeed in its intention: to dispossess the Franciscans of their parishes and to introduce secular priests to Bosnia which would be headed by a regular hierarchy (a diocesan bishop). As such, the Holy See and the papal bull by Pope Leon XIII Ex hac augusta dated 5 July 1881, led Bosnia-Herzegovina into the regular hierarchy. It recognised the right for the Austrian Emperor to nominate the Archbishop and bishops of Bosnia-Herzegovina, to recommend to the Pope, the first Canon for the Sarajevo Kaptol while the other three he would nominate himself personally. Austria did not succeed with its intention of completely excluding the Bosnian Franciscans. It used other means, often not quite honourable in that aim: it revoked pledges made to the Franciscans, the Franciscans were blasphemed and slandered as being uneducated and disorderly, it threatened with administrative measures against them and the whole while attempting to pass the odiousness of its demands on to the Holy See. 3. The Era of Archbishop Stadler Several months after declaring the mentioned papal bull, Dr. Josip Stadler was nominated as the first Archbishop of Vrhbosna. The Bosnian Franciscans warmly welcomed the new bishop with good intentions. Several Franciscans went ahead to Slavonski Brod to meet him upon his arrival even before he was to step on to Bosnian land as the bishop. All the way to Sarajevo, Franciscans greeted him along the roadway with their populace. It is undeniable that Archbishop Stadler was a conscientious and diligent man. This diligence and conscientiousness - amongst his other qualities - were often emphasised and highlighted by many Franciscan provincials. His education was also at a solid level, that is, within the framework of theology and 19th Century thinking and, the surroundings he grew up in and its views on man and society and the role of science and faith, relations between the State and religion, nation and faith. He was most surely a very capable organiser. His contemporaries highlighted the huge construction efforts undertaken by the Bishop: the cathedral (1884 - 1889), education facilities in Travnik and Sarajevo, the parish church in Novo Sarajevo, the Archbishop's Palace with its chapel, the women's refuge Bethlehem and men's refuge Egipat in Sarajevo and a church and convent for the nuns, Dolorosa located in ardak near Gradaac. He also assisted with the construction of other churches and parish presbyteries. Nevertheless, there are some less favourable sides to Stadler and his manner, which led to the deep conflict with the Bosnian Franciscans. There were three general problems in Bosnia which emerged after the arrival of the Archbishop Stadler and then later during Šari's rule: a) the dispossession of parishes; b) the secularization of the Franciscans; c) the squeezing out of Franciscans from public life. a) The Dispossession of Parishes The Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastic Business on 10 December 1881, determined that all parishes were at the disposal of the bishops if the Franciscans do not manage to claim their rights to them, except those which are adjoined to Franciscan monasteries. These same parishes were to be handed over to the bishop upon them being vacated. At the same time a moratorium was set for a period of 1 year when parish priests would not be nominated. This was intended to be sufficient time for the Franciscans to present their case to the Holy See with regard to their special rights to these parishes, if indeed these rights existed. In the last Clause of the Decree, the Franciscans were especially grateful to the Holy See. They namely, presented a special petition to prove their rights. A special book was even published on the matter. According to the Ecclesiastic law of the time a parish could rightfully become monastic in four ways: 1) in that the monks founded the parish where there had not been one until then; 2) in that they obtain a grant; 3) in that they administer the parish for a certain period (between 30 to 40 years), which is referred to as prescription or a case of statute of limitation; 4) in that the parish is handed over to them to their ownership and care by the appropriate Church authorities or the Holy See. The Bosnian Franciscans had attained the right to own their parishes in all four of these ways. They nevertheless expressed their readiness to withdraw from 16 parishes in the Vrhbosna and 8 in the Banja Luka dioceses. However, the bishop considered this number far too low. Then the Franciscans offered an additional 8 parishes to the original 24. But, the Archbishop did not accept this offer but demanded that in addition to the 24 originally offered, a further 20 be handed over. The Franciscans turned to the Holy See with a petition, which was taken to Rome by Friar Ilija avarovi where he presented the entire situation in person to the Holy See. At the same time, the Archbishop too went to Rome and expressed his wishes. Pope Leon XIII commissioned the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastic Business to investigate the matter. The investigation was concluded with a decree issued by approval of the Holy Father on 14 March 1883. The Decree passed an order that the Franciscans hand over 35 parishes to the Archbishop while the remainder were to remain as monastic parishes in the ownership of the Franciscans. At first, Archbishop Stadler accepted the Decree of 1883, as final. In the magazine The Sacred Heart of Christ, issue no. 4, 1883, the Decree was published with an official no. 290 and titled "The Parish Issue Resolved". However, Stadler later attempted to and continued to deny the validity of that Decree. b) The Secularization of the Franciscans The word "secularization" in this context is taken to mean the transition from a monastic to a worldly (secular) clergy. Stadler's attempts to compel the Franciscans to transfer to a secular clergy ruined their faith in the Archbishop and shook the very foundations of the 'Bosna Srebrena' Provinciality. Before he even arrived in Bosnia, Stadler had come to a negative judgement about the Franciscans. In his sermons he constantly reiterated that the secular clergy would be more successful in pastoral care than the Franciscans had been. Sometimes he would say, "If the Franciscans become secular clergy, then they will be good priests!" It is generally well known that secularization is not embarked on as a result of higher motives but rather as a human weakness and as a result of indecisiveness. The Franciscans were, as a result of Stadler's actions, if indeed they survived at all, destined to be limited to some dozen monasteries. In 1883, he approached Provincial avarovi and recommended they come to an agreement regarding the secularization of the Franciscans! This would have been the same thing as coming to a father and discussing how best to demolish his family. These attempts were repeated in 1896, when he suggested to Provincial iak that the Franciscans simply be allowed to leave the Order. In 1898, he sent his Proclamation to the Franciscans to join the secular clergy - via their Provincial! In the beginning that is in 1898, there were only 11 secular priests. Stadler hoped that with more priests at hand he would attain all the parishes. He believed that many Franciscans would refuse to accept the new constitution (he referred to them as "reforms") and that they would naturally request secularisation. He himself went amongst them to try and convince them of this move. At the same time (around 1 February 1898) he sent a letter to the Holy Father requesting that he be assigned all the Bosnian parishes. As his justification for this request he noted that the majority of Bosnian Franciscans desired to be secularized and had requested that he, Stadler, accept them. He also requested the Holy See to allow him to be given the authority to accept these Franciscans to his clergy without the necessary papal approval. Nevertheless, despite the claims noted in the Archbishop's letter mentioned above, few Franciscans actually proceeded to be secularized. As such on the Feast of the Annunciation on 25 March 1898, he issued his Proclamation which openly and publicly called on the Franciscans to renounce the Order and to join the secular clergy. The Proclamation was sent to individual addresses with the same reference number: 322, and was also published in the official newsletter Vrhbosna. c) Squeezing the Franciscans out of Public Life This phenomenon of squeezing the Franciscans out of public life was most evident during Stadler's period. He diminished their reputation and position in society before government authorities and attempted to completely exclude them from reputable and lucrative services. These included positions like the catechists in Sarajevo and other large towns. It appeared that Stadler believed that it was unfathomable that a Bosnian Franciscan could become a member of the Bishop's Kaptol (Court). Attempts to diminish the Franciscans continued by preventing them from participating in political life. During elections for the Bosnian Parliament, opponents of the Franciscans managed to convince Rome that the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Franciscans should lose their right to passive voting. This meant that they could not be elected as representatives to the Parliament. As citizens and in keeping with the Constitution, they had this right and now the "Church" was to take this right away from them. This could in a sense, even be positive, for why should priests be allowed to be politicians for this could bring their spiritual mission into doubt? If this was so, why was this right not taken away from the secular clergy in Bosnia and elsewhere for that matter? This was never even considered as a possibility. This in a way did not only harm the Bosnia and Herzegovinian Franciscans as much as it did the entire national issue. During that period when there was still too few a secular intelligentzia and participation of priests including the Franciscans, it was more than necessary for them to be involved in defending national interests. A Herzegovinian Franciscan, Friar Didak Bunti was quite harsh in his reaction to these actions and he sent a letter to the Provincial of Bosnian Franciscans and later the Bishop of Mostar, Friar Alojzije Miši, "Thanks to this ban, we are certainly being thrown out like garbage. It is almost as if they are saying, 'Off with you Friar! Out of our parish! Away from public life Friar! Back to your monastery, Friar!' that is, 'Move out of this world, Friar!'" The fundamental reason behind squeezing the Franciscans out of public life was the "ideal" of the Bishop's power, which he exercised over the Bosnian bishops. Stadler brought this ideal from Austria which, at the time, still breathed with a feudal spirit. This seemed natural to Stadler and was founded on his belief of God's almighty right. The Bosnian Franciscans however, had until then been used to bishops who were not bishops for the sake of their own power and reputation but rather for the sake of the priests and the people? These were bishops such as Friar Marko Dobreti, Friar Augustine Mileti, Friar Marijan Šunji, Friar Paškal Vujii and others. The Franciscans could not feel such deep respect for the worldly praise of authority and the ostentatiousness of high Church dignitaries as they had felt for the true values of worth and holiness. For this reason that is, the Archbishop's attitudes and efforts even the most humble of Franciscans, such as avarovi, both the uri's, Miši, ubeli etc, rebelled against him. They were deeply disappointed with the actions of the Church leader and were of the firm belief that his actions did not do that much harm to them as Franciscans as it did in fact to Catholicism itself in Bosnia. In time, the Archbishop's Ordinary had in fact created its "own" clergy and virtually tripled the number of parishes at its disposal. He offered a huge deal of the foreign and later domestic income of the Church to the discretion of his priests. Finally, he personally defended the clergy in addition to the excessively liberal rights they enjoyed under Cannon Law. These were then his envious successes during this century of politics. These successes proved to be far too costly though. 4. The Development of 'Bosna Srebrena' (Silver Bosnia) Despite all the hardship caused by Archbishop Stadler and his Ordinary, the Franciscans continued to develop their Province. One branch was their rapid development of construction activities (not including the construction of the education centres in Visoko and Sarajevo). Construction sites existed on many fronts during Stadler's reign. The Franciscans built five completely new monasteries: Kraljeva Sutjeska, Petrievac, Sarajevo and Rama. They also built 26 Franciscan parish churches. Some churches were completely refurbished; it could be said they were virtually rebuilt almost as new. These being in Vareš, Vidoši, Ljubunica and in Gorica (Livno). The Franciscans also constructed a significant number of churches in diocesan parishes. During Stadler's period they also built 31 parish presbyteries of which 17 were located in diocesan parishes. I will not mention here other public institutions and buildings, which they also constructed. What needs to be stressed here, is that by constructing these buildings - which were often much larger and numerous than those that the Archbishop's Ordinary constructed - the Franciscans were exclusively financed by themselves and their communities. It was rare that the government offered any assistance in these constructions. All the money, which the Christian world collected and sent to the Archbishop for the poor Bosnian Catholics - as far as the Franciscans were concerned - virtually did not come to Bosnia. In this regard, the Franciscans were in a much worse state than they had been during the Turkish invasions. During the Turkish rule, aid was sent from France and Germany as support for the construction of churches and supply of church vestments. This source had now "dried" up. "Wherever the Franciscans now knocked, the reply was, 'They have their own government to care for them now, so let the Government take care of them!' So now their knocking was in vein even when it came to those doors where they had never before been refused." 5. Archbishop Šari's Era Following the very long period of Stadler's rule which lasted for a full 37 years (1881 - 1918), a much shorter period of twenty years signified Šari's era (1919 - 1945). This was the period between two world wars and in a new State known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Slovenes and Croats (SHS), or rather as it was, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Compared to Josip Stadler, Ivan Šari (1871 - 1960) was born in Bosnia. He came to know the Bosnian Friars directly. And indeed, he sometimes showed some feelings of sympathy and understanding towards them. However, he was influenced a great deal more during his education in Travnik and Sarajevo. Here he adopted the Jesuit opinion of the monastic clergy. He was finally influenced by the joint life he shared with Archbishop Stadler. He became a Canon in Sarajevo virtually immediately upon graduating, when he was only 25 years old. He remained with Stadler until his death. It appears he virtually - without any criticism - accepted anything that Stadler had to say about the Franciscans as well as his perceptions of authority and regarding his duty as the Archbishop of Vrhbosna. As such Šari inherited Stadler's aims and goals. He simply wanted to imitate Stadler. We know of three grievances or rather requests forwarded by Šari demanding that the Franciscans be dispossessed of their parishes; in 1928, 1931 and 1936. However, it could virtually be said that his requests to confiscate these parishes were ceterum censeo (predetermined demands) as was his other correspondence to Rome regarding the Franciscans - even if this was not always clearly and directly expressed. According to Archbishop Šari, the Franciscan parishes could not be Franciscan because the presbyteries and churches did not belong to them but were rather built by the people! Even if it were true that the people constructed these churches this still would not prove that the parishes did not rightfully belong to the Franciscans. Rights to a parish can be gained in only one way (title) while the ownership of the church and the presbytery is another matter entirely. Cannon Law never asked that a church and presbytery in monastic parishes required to be in the ownership of the monastic community to which the parish belonged. In this light, the Archbishop's claims on behalf of the "people" had no worth. The monks had earned a great deal with their own toil and labour and with their earnings they constructed or bought these houses. Legal documents exist to prove this. Indeed, the people helped construct these churches and often voluntarily but these Franciscan churches were built in the end to serve the "people". Archbishop Šari was of the belief that the Franciscans received all they had from the people and benefactors because when they first came to Bosnia they did not have anything. As such he concluded that nothing belonged to them. The people gave for the church and not for the Franciscans themselves! Nevertheless, it is not important who received what from whom but rather the reason why something was given and finally received. If someone rewards or pays me for my work then that is my earnings and it is mine. Can it be that in 600 years of their existence in Bosnia the Franciscans did not earn or gain anything at all? Penalties issued by Archbishop Šari during his reign were not rare. We will not however, speak of those now. The aforementioned is unfortunately only a minute detail of the misfortunes committed by Archbishop Šari, which afflicted the Croatian people, and the Church in Bosnia. Misfortunes, which were mostly felt by the ordinary man, the believer, who despite the fact whether a priest is a Franciscan or diocesan priest, if he is a good priest serves as an ideal and leader for his brethren. II. FRANCISCAN HERZEGOVINA Herzegovina was once the administrative province of the Bosnian kings. Stjepan Kosa, a noble who administered the southern and eastern regions of the Bosnian kingdom in 1448 was given the title "Herzog" or "the Duke of St. Sabe". This is how the region then gained its name Herzegovina or the Dukedom of St. Sabe. Pastoral activities in Herzegovina were firstly conducted by Franciscans from the Slavonian or Dalmatian provinces and then later from the Bosnian Vicary. Before the Turks occupied Herzegovina that is in 1482, there were at least three monasteries in Herzegovina; in Konjic, Mostar and Ljubuški. In the 16th Century, the Turks destroyed all three monasteries so that not one monastery existed in the entire region of Herzegovina. Nevertheless, the Franciscans continued with their pastoral care amongst their people coming from the closest monasteries outside Herzegovina. Namely, after the destruction of the monastery in Ljubuški, the Franciscans re-settled in Zaostrog, which belonged to the Bosnian Vicary. From here they continued to spiritually serve their former parishes which had belonged to the Ljubuški monastery. After the destruction of the Mostar monastery, the Franciscans left and moved out of Herzegovina from where they continued to serve the parishes covered by their former monastery. They stayed in various towns until they finally built a monastery in ivogoše from where they served their faithful located in Herzegovina. This situation lasted until the liberation wars - the Candian War (1645 - 1669), and the Viennese War (1683 - 1699). During these wars it was very dangerous and later the Turks did not allow Franciscans from other (enemy!) lands to come to Herzegovina and to spiritually serve the Catholics in the region under their jurisdiction. Since then, the Franciscans located in the monastery in Kreševo in Bosnia were virtually responsible for the pastoral care of Herzegovina in its entirety. Duvno alone was served from the monastery in Fojnica while Roško Polje was served by the monastery in Kraljeva Sutjeska (both in Bosnia). This situation lasted up until the 19th Century. A. THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE HERZEGOVINIAN FRANCISCANS At the beginning of the 19th Century the Franciscans from the Bosnian province who were born in Herzegovina began to seriously consider building a new monastery in Herzegovina. They were further motivated to make this move by the fact that Herzegovina, which had previously been a Bosnian sanjak (administrative region) had during the Turkish rule been granted status as a separate 'pashaluk' (region administered by the pasha). 1. The Monastery on Široki Brijeg And indeed on 8 July 1843, eight Franciscans from Herzegovina by birth met in Posušje. They were members of the Bosna Srebrena province. After the meeting they sent the Holy Congregation for Spreading the Faith a letter in which they requested to be given approval to build a monastery in the land of their birth with the purpose of being able to better and more easily serve their faithful with their spiritual needs. Approval was issued by the Apostolic Vicar of Bosnia (in a letter dated 26 September 1843), as well as the General of the Franciscan Order (in a letter dated 30 September 1843). Upon receipt of the said letter, the Congregation for the Spreading of the Faith adopted a decision on 6 February 1844, and issued a decree which directed that a new Franciscan monastery be built in Herzegovina. After approval was given - following tedious efforts - by the Turkish Sultan on 23 July 1846, the founding stone was laid for the new monastery on Široki Brijeg. 2. An Apostolic Vicary for Herzegovina However, as soon as the Franciscans began work on building a monastery in their land, they were met with opposition by the elders of the Bosna Srebrena province. They considered that this would introduce disorder in the province and would diminish the value of the monastery in Kreševo. Matters became so tense between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Apostolic Vicary that peace could only be attained by separating Herzegovina from Bosnia - as far as Church matters were concerned. The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Vicar, Bishop Rafo Bariši (Friar), on 24 March 1846 abdicated from the Bosnian Vicary and held on to rule in Herzegovina. This decision was accepted by the Congregation for Spreading the Faith and approved with a decree issued on 29 August 1847, which was later approved by Pope Paul IX on 24 September the same year. As such in 1847, seceded from a unified Vicary for Bosnia and Herzegovina, a separate Vicary was established for Herzegovina alone. 3. A Franciscan Custody for Herzegovina Bishop Rafo Bariši (Friar) was nominated as the Apostolic Vicar for Herzegovina. He was a Franciscan from the Bosna Srebrena province. As the Apostolic Vicar and Visitator he was at the same time the ecclesiastic supreme authority of the Order. This however, did not last long because the Franciscans wanted to adapt their lives according to the Constitution of the Order on the one hand and on the other, circumstances as they were did not allow them to recruit novices. As such, as soon as they settled into their new monastery in Široki Brijeg they requested the Congregation for Spreading the Faith and the General of the Order to establish a Custody in Herzegovina which would be dependent on and under the direct authority of the General. Matters however, were not settled as quickly as they would have liked and a decree regarding the establishment of a Custody was only issued on 3 October 1852. The newly established Custody only had one monastery and even it was not completely built when the Custody was set up. The monastery had its own custodian, noviciate and a Franciscan school. The monastery was in charge of the then Franciscan parishes in western Herzegovina; Seonica, Grabovica, Roško Polje, Mokronoge, Posušje, Ruii, Veljaci, Brotnjo or Gradnii, Gradac, Mostar, Blato (Široki Brijeg) and the local chapels in Gorica and Zaslivlje. 4. The Monastery in Humac (Ljubuški) As soon as the monastery in Široki Brijeg was completed, the Franciscans decided to build a new monastery and college. They decided that the site of the new monastery would be in Humac, immediately adjoining the presbytery of the newly established Humac-Ljubuški parish. When they were given all the necessary approvals, the Apostolic Vicar, Friar Aneo Kraljevi laid the founding stone of the new monastery on 4 April 1867. Construction of the monastery lasted for ten years. In 1876, the noviciate from Široki Brijeg was re-settled in the new monastery, as was the school. 5. The Monastery in Mostar After the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1878, which meant that after four centuries, Christian rule was once again established in these regions, the need for a new monastery in Mostar was felt even more. Mostar was virtually the only city in Herzegovina. In 1866, the founding stone was laid for the church while in 1873, a residency was built next to the church. It was only in 1880 however, that the residency came into use. Then the decision was made to build a monastery. Construction began in 1890, while on 10 November 1894, the newly built building was by Cannon, proclaimed as a true monastery. 6. The Franciscan Province in Herzegovina The Herzegovinian Franciscan Custody proved through its forty years of existence to be developing quite well. In 1892, it already had two monasteries, 31 parishes, 65 priests, 19 clergymen and 5 honourable brothers. This was all that was needed to guarantee a regular, orderly and secure continuation of life. After obtaining approval from the Congregation for Spreading the Faith on 27 April 1892, General Alojzije from Parma established a new Herzegovinian Franciscan province. B. THE PROBLEM FACED BY THE PARISHES IN HERZEGOVINA 1. The Decision of the Holy See of 1899. At that time, the Franciscan Herzegovinian province was already riddled with the problem that parishes requested to be recognised with the appropriate decrees. The first diocesan bishop in Herzegovina was a Herzegovinian Franciscan, Friar Paškal Buconji who remained very favourable towards the Franciscans. What is more, he was their greatest benefactor. He did not present any threats to the Franciscans whatsoever. However, the new Austro-Hungarian "Catholic" authorities attempted through the Archbishop of Vrhbosna to influence Rome to dispossess the Franciscans of their parishes and to squeeze them out of public life. The Franciscans were compelled to offer the Bishop several parishes as secular to a diocesan clergy, which still did not exist in the area! In 1885 already, an agreement was reached with the Bishop that the parishes along the right bank of the Neretva river (western Herzegovina) were to remain as Franciscans, while the secular priests were given those parishes on the left bank of the Neretva river (eastern Herzegovina). However, the Holy Congregation did not approve this agreement. Nevertheless, when the Franciscans offered 12 existing parishes in western Herzegovina to be at the disposal of the local Ordinary and the secular clergy, the agreement was ratified on 17 July 1899. The Province now only had 25 parishes. 2. The Decision of the Holy See of 1923. In the first half of the 20th Century the Herzegovinian Franciscan province was marked with visible advancements. It had numerous vocations and a well-organised study programme, especially at the Franciscan Classical Grammar School in Široki Brijeg, which became public in 1918. During the First World War (1914 - 1918), the Herzegovinian Franciscan province sent several of its priests to the USA as pastors for Croatian workers. In 1926, the Croatian Franciscans in the USA established the Holy Family commissariat, which was then in 1931 annexed to the Herzegovinian Franciscan province. Later the Commissariat was upgraded to a Custody. Today that Custody consists of a monastery (in Chicago) and fifteen parishes and missions in the USA and Canada. Then too, the brothers were mostly involved in pastoral care for the faithful. In the Mostar-Duvno diocese, that is, the right bank of the Neretva river, of the 43 parishes in existence the Franciscans were responsible for 40. In addition to the 25 parishes which in 1899 remained in the care of the Province, the Franciscans also served in 15 other parishes, which were at the free disposal of the local Ordinary, or rather, the Bishop. In an effort to best conduct their pastoral care and to prepare priests for pastoral care the Province's administration came to an agreement with the bishops, Friar Alojzije Miši, a Bosnian Franciscan who had in the meantime become the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, to grant them by Cannon the 15 parishes which were already established and which they served in addition to a further 12 parishes which were to be established in the near future. The agreement was ratified by the Council of the Holy Congregation on 22 June 1923. 3. The Calamities of the Franciscans During the Second World War The Herzegovinian Franciscan province was almost but completely destroyed during the Second World War (1941 - 1945). The communists murdered 67 Herzegovinian Franciscans. A large number of them fled for refuge in order to save their bare lives. Following the War, some 70 Franciscans were detained and imprisoned in Communist dungeons to a total number of over 200 years. As such not even one-third of the faithful were left in Herzegovina after the War. The communists shut down all the education facilities that belonged to the Province; the High School in Široki Brijeg, the noviciate in Humac and the Seminary in Mostar. Throughout the entire time of Communist rule these institutions were prohibited from re-opening their doors. The authorities confiscated the majority, if not all, the monasteries in Herzegovina including most of the presbyteries and residencies in their ownership. In 1949, a decree was prepared to abolish the Herzegovina Franciscan province and the Franciscans were issued a directive to evacuate their monastery in Mostar. Fortunately, a few hours later this decree was withdrawn before it saw the light of day. Nevertheless, the Province once again revived itself, developed and strengthened. The blood of its martyrs truly was the seed for the new Franciscans who were educated and trained and were enrolled in the education institutions located in other Franciscan provinces and other monastic institutions and diocese, but mostly in Bosna Srebrena. 4. The Revocation of the Decision by the Holy See of 1923. However, huge problems for the Province, this time internal ecclesiastic problems, began some 32 years ago. This is namely, how long the conflict over parishes has existed between the Bishop's Ordinary in Mostar and the Province of the Herzegovinian Franciscans. In 1942, namely, the new Mostar bishop, Dr. Petar ULE, was a non-Franciscan - nominated by the wishes, choice and machinations of the Archbishop of Vrhbosna, Šari - and who from the very beginning of his inauguration began to impose Archbishop Stadler's politics on the Franciscans in Herzegovina and their parishes. Already in 1943, he conducted an official visit (ad limina) to Rome and instigated an investigation by the Congregation regarding the issue of parishes. In fact he attempted to show that the agreement between the Province and Bishop Miši was "ob vitium subriptionis et obreptionis" (because of the disclosure of the truth and exposure of lies) to be invalid. However, he did not receive the response he desired. He then, upon being dismissed from gaol, when he visited Rome again in 1958, once again instigated the same issue. All this took place behind the backs and without the knowledge of the Franciscans who were in fact quite ignorant to all this. When in 1962, someone unofficially advised the Franciscans what ule's intentions were, the Deputy Provincial, Dr. Jerko Mihaljevi forwarded Bishop ule with a written request to clarify the matter. The Bishop replied on 31March 1962, stating, "Most respected! Is it necessary to shame ourselves before the Holy See unnecessarily exposing these matters? - We immediately require at least another 100 priests, taking into consideration that we have a number of priests who are old or ill. If we succeed in introducing Religious Instructions in schools then we would immediately require 150 priests. This however, is a number which we cannot hope to achieve in the next 30 years taking into consideration that many of our priests today will have died in that time. Therefore our generation will not have the opportunity to look for new positions but rather to fill and maintain those in existence now. So let us leave this problem to the new generation which will succeed us once we a well in our graves." After this, Bishop ule went to Rome to attend the sitting of the Synod and once again, without the knowledge of the Franciscans, initiated the issue regarding the parishes affirming that he was in a poor state because he did not have anywhere to place his priests, even though there were nowhere enough secular priests by far to cover the parishes he had already been granted at his disposal and these were in fact catered for by Franciscans. All this was made public in the autumn of 1964, when the Holy See sent its Apostolic Visitator to Herzegovina. The visitator was none other than the Archbishop of Belgrade, Bukata who was assigned to investigate the validity and rightfullness of Bishop ule's request. Naturally, the Franciscans felt they had been betrayed. They lost their faith in Bishop ule. Custodian Mihaljevi stated, "Believe in man!" Later he wrote, "This statement (cited response to Bishop ule by Custodian Mihaljevi - author's note) needs no explanation. It speaks for itself. If we were to identify it with its real name, we could be nothing but shocked!" The Apostolic Visitator Bukato came to Herzegovina, stayed a few days with bishop ule, visited some parishes and conducted a brief visit to the Provincial of the Herzegovinian Franciscans, Friar Zlatko ori. After that, he submitted his report to the Holy See. We do not know what the report contained nor what his recommendations were. We can only guess by the response, a Decree by the Holy Congregation for Spreading the Faith dated 18 March 1965, which revoked the Agreement signed in 1923, and which directed Bishop ule and Provincial ori that in the autumn that same year, they come to Rome before the Congregation and decide upon a new division of parishes. The meeting indeed took place however, an agreement was not reached regarding a new division of parishes. Negotiations continued in Herzegovina but the agreement was not forthcoming. In fact, an agreement could not be made, because Bishop ule asserted that the revokement of the Agreement of 1923 ipso facto (the revokement itself) meant that all the parishes went to him in addition to the 25 which by the Decision by the Holy See of 1899, remained with the Franciscans. On the other hand, the Franciscans claimed that the revokement of the Decision of 1923 itself, did not mean that the parishes now belonged to the Bishop but rather that this meant that a new division was required which after all stood written in the Decree itself. 5. The Decision by the Holy See to Consign Five Parishes Even though the Franciscans put forward their suggestions for a new division of parishes, Bishop ule continued to refuse their proposals counting on the Holy See to finally make the decision he was waiting for. On 21April 1967, the Holy Congregation for Spreading the Faith issued a Decree by which it requested the Franciscans, as a sign of good will and prior to a final decision being reached, to consign five parishes to the disposal of the Bishop. These being, Crna, Gradac-Blizanci, Grljevii, Grude and Mostarski Gradac! The Franciscans submitted an appeal and requested that a final agreement be reached regarding the distribution of parishes and only then should any parishes be consigned. Nevertheless, the Apostolic emissary for the then Yugoslavia, Cagna issued a Decree dated 13 November 1967, which ordered that the handover of the said parishes be conducted within six months, that is, no later than 13 May 1968. 6. The Fruitless Agreement of 1968. This decision caused great dissatisfaction amongst the Franciscans and their faithful, which had in the meantime, come to know about the agreement. Aware of the danger and of the unaccountable reaction of the Franciscans and their people the Provincial of the Herzegovinian Franciscans, Dr. Rufin Šili, by his authority vested in the Provincial Capitulate of May 1967, commenced negotiations with Bishop ule. He wanted to reach a final agreement about the new distribution of parishes, which would be acceptable to the Franciscans prior to "D" day, that is 13 May 1968. He thought he would be able to calm down his friars and would then ask for a postponement of the impending execution until the Franciscans had time to prepare their faithful for the handover/takeover. However, Bishop ule felt that he was in a better position and so he dictated the conditions. By this token he put the 25 parishes which were guaranteed to the Franciscans by the Decision of the Holy See of 1899, together with the parishes which according to the Decree issued by the Holy See in 1965, were to be re-distributed. This in fact, was a trap. Namely, in the draft agreement Bishop ule did not want to specify the ownership procedure to the Province of those parishes which were left to the Franciscans, not even the 25, that is, whether these too would be validly united with the Province as were the other 25 pursuant to the Decision of 1899, or on the other hand, were they all, including these 25, being placed in their care - temporarily or permanently, that is for a determined period. He claimed that it was best to leave it to the Holy See to decide which parishes were to belong to the Franciscans. Naturally, he counted on the Holy See deciding in his favour. In this way, he actually wanted to bring into question the ownership of the 25 parishes, which until then undoubtedly belonged to the Franciscans and were validly united to their Province. In an effort to avoid a greater evil, which he presupposed, Provincial Šili consulted with a legal advisor in Rome and as such accepted this condition. Negotiations were held secretly. In the end, Šili and ule came to a decision about the distribution of all the parishes in Herzegovina. It appeared that the danger had been avoided. When Bishop ule's secretary delivered the final text of the draft agreement one evening for signing, Provincial Šili asked is it the same as we previously agreed in writing with Bishop ule. When he received a positive response, he signed the text without even reading it. However, his own secretary read the text later that evening and realised that Bishop ule had at the last moment thrown in a clause by which the Provincial could lose his own residency and parish in apljina. Warned about the clause, Šili revoked his signature in writing that same night because the Provincial Capitulate of 1967 gave him the authority to discuss all parishes which by the Decision of the Holy See of 1965, were determined to be re-distributed excepting two parishes which were adjoined to Franciscan residencies - the one in apljina and the one in itluk. 7. The Outbreak of the "Herzegovinian Affair" Provincial Šili was deeply disappointed and concerned. Atrocity was inevitable. This, namely occurred just prior to the deadline to hand over the five parishes as a sign of good will. He convened a meeting of the elders and conducted all the written formalities regarding the handover/takeover of the five parishes and advised all those who needed to be, the current parish priests of the said parishes, Bishop ule, the Supreme Authority of the Franciscan Order in Rome and the Holy See. When on 12 May 1968, the Franciscans departed from their parishes their faithful said their goodbyes with pain in their hearts. In three parishes, (Crna, Grude and Mostarski Gradac) the people did not allow the secular priests to take over the presbytery or church. This was the birth of the painful "Herzegovinian Affair". For the past twenty-eight years, this affair has from time to time smouldered and other times erupted. There were occasions when the church entrance was bricked up, the secular priests driven out and the nomination of unfavourable new parish priests to take their place. There were massive public protests held by the faithful. Often enough the Communist police were called in to protect the Bishop from the masses. In 1995, a protest organised in Mostar turned into a firebomb, so to speak. Violent incidents were even recorded committed by individuals against the Bishop. Anyone who has any feeling for their Church must feel regret for what has happened. Violence against anyone, and most especially against the highest representative of one's Church, must be condemned even though the bitterness felt by the faithful can be comprehended. 8. Longterm Negotiations Despite all this, negotiations did not cease. Negotiations were held in Herzegovina and in Zagreb (in the Archbishop's Court and at Bishops' Conferences), and finally in Rome (at the Congregation for the Evangelization of the People and at the Vatican State secretariat). Immediately following the occurrence of the "Herzegovinian Affair" in 1968, commissions were appointed to conduct negotiations, which consisted of Franciscans and diocesan priests. However, an agreement was not forthcoming even after several years of negotiation because the two sides stood firmly on opposite sides with uncompromising attitudes. The Franciscans continued to support the idea that it was necessary first to come to a general agreement about the parishes, which would be acceptable to them. In this way the Franciscans would be given an opportunity to prepare their faithful for the imminent transition to secular priests, which meant giving enough time for the people to be calmed down and peacefully accept the change. The diocesan side placed a pre-condition to any further negotiations demanding that the Franciscans immediately enable the said three parishes to be taken over, that is, the three parishes which the Franciscans placed at the disposal of the Bishops and which they vacated on 12 May 1968, but where the people did not allow the secular priests to enter. As far as the remaining parishes, mentioned in the Decree by the Holy See of 1965, which were to be redistributed the diocesan side firmly stood by their idea that they were automatically handed over to the Bishop at his disposal by the very fact that the Decree was issued and now the only question was how to technically arrange for the hand over of these parishes. At the same time the diocesan side was very "generous" in considering to leave one or two parishes to the Franciscans. The Franciscans foresaw that this was a perfidious way of eventually doing away with the Province and were not prepared psychologically to engage themselves with the people and to depart these parishes leaving them to secular priests. Nothing changed in Herzegovina, not even after the arrival of Assistant Bishop ANI who was assigned to negotiate with the Franciscans on behalf of the diocesan authorities. From the very beginning he presented the hard core attitudes of the Bishop. Towards the end of the very first meeting he attended, he demanded that the Franciscans sign the following statement, "Seeing that we were not able to come to an agreement, we have decided to let the Holy See decide and we will accept such a decision no matter what that decision may be." This was not accepted by the Franciscans. Nevertheless, all the following meetings of the negotiation team which were attended by Bishop ani ended in the same manner. Naturally, he counted on the fact that the Holy See would decide in his favour. Later he bragged that this was the purpose for him to visit Rome on more than 70 occasions. 9. The Holy See's Decree "Romanis Pontificibus" of 1975. It was evident that the Holy See wanted an agreement to be reached. As such in 1972, it sent its Apostolic Visitator to Herzegovina. The Bishop of Burgenland in Austria, Msgr. Stefan Laszlo was assigned the task to head further negotiations. He showed a little more understanding towards the Franciscans but was too concerned with the inflexible, unchangeable attitude by the diocesan side. This is the reason why negotiations held under his auspices (in Mostar, Zagreb and finally in Rome) ended the way they did. The result of these negotiations was a decree by the Congregations for Evangelisation of the People or for Spreading the Faith known as the Romanis Pontificibus and dated 6 June 1975. The Decree satisfied all of the demands set by the diocesan side and which had been presented during the negotiation session with the Congregation for Evangelisation of the People, excepting the demand that the Bishop, without prior approval of the Holy See, can establish a parish in Ljubuški and Radišii, which would surely have resulted in the annihilation of the then second largest, and now the largest Franciscan parish in Herzegovina - the monastery parish in Humac at the very edge of Ljubuški. The dissatisfaction felt by the Franciscans with this - in their opinion, founded on untruths, injustice and quite damaging - Decree could not even be calmed down by the Apostolic Visitator, Bishop Laszlo who had invited their representatives once again to Zagreb that same year. 10. The Franciscans Refuse to Actively Participate in the Implementation of the Decree In the spring of 1976, elections were to be held for the Capitulate of the Herzegovinian Province of Franciscans, which was to elect the new administration in the Province. Provincial Šili could not be elected again as he had already served two terms. The Holy See postponed executing the Capitulate and requested the current Provincial administration that they formally and unconditionally" pass "a statement about the acceptance of the decision brought by the Holy See within 20 days". After holding a survey amongst the members of the Province, the Provincial administration on 10 May 1976, forwarded a letter directly to Pope Paul VI in which amongst other things they stated, We, friars of the definitorium of the mentioned Franciscan province, (...) concerned for the good and peace in the Church and amongst God's people in Herzegovina and completely aware of the possible repercussions solemnly state that we a prepared for our faith, the Gospel, Church and Holy Father, if necessary, to share our own blood as did so many of our brethren throughout our history and in recent times; only in the most recent past, 70 brothers from this Franciscan province gave their lives or served over 200 years of imprisonment serving as witnesses to God, which cannot be falsified nor can their faith and love towards their religion, the Gospel, their Church and the Holy Father. Nevertheless, while we recognise and express our faith and faithfulness and above all our loyalty, at the same time we fully aware and with full responsibility on behalf of our monastic province which we lead and before God's people which has been entrusted to the pastoral care of our brothers in the same monastic province, before Christ's Church and before You, Holy Father, state that the Decree, "Romanis Pontificibus" evidently contradicts the truth, offends natural justice and directly opposes good souls and has tarnished the reputation of the Church. It contradicts the truth: because it presupposes and on four separate occasions refers to a non-existent mutual agreement between the two sides based on our words which were taken clearly out of context and cited; what is more, we feel betrayed; namely, the Decree denies us that which the Holy See, through its Apostolic Visitator, the most Reverend Stefan Laszlo had guaranteed as a condition sine qua non; It offends natural justice: because without any explanation, the Decree condemns our Monastic province to a gradual extinction; at the same time, we Franciscans should leave our homes and churches without any guarantees for the future; It directly opposes the goodness of our souls: because an attempt to implement the Decree at any cost would be against the will of God's people and would cause great detriment towards saving the souls of God's people in Herzegovina, a deed which will not be repairable; It harms the reputation of the Church; because throughout the entire text it calls upon the authority of the Church, the Holy See and Your Holiness, which is an attempt to - although unsuccessfully - cover up the non-evangelic motives behind this affair and by its actions destroys the reputation of the Church, the Holy See and the Holy Father. As such we feel bound by our conscience to undertake the stand that we cannot and will not; no we cannot take responsibility for the repercussions which will surely follow if we were to approve, accept or implement the Decree for all the reasons we have briefly noted above… Holy Father! Even though we cannot implement the said Decree, as it stands now, we firmly believe that we are doing good for the general well being of this particular Church. For our non-approval, unacceptance and non-implementation of the Decree does not mean an alternative but rather a postulate of our faith and love towards our religion, the Gospel, the Church and the Holy Father… Holy Father! Once again we take solace with Your Holiness (even though we are not sure this letter will even reach Your hands; for we have never received any confirmation that Your Holiness received any of our previous letters), we nevertheless most humbly appeal to You, Father of all Christians and the Pastor of God's Flock, do not allow that this Decree, written by man, be more important than the good souls of God's people in Herzegovina or the fate of this martyrous monastic Province." 11. Sanctions (penalties) We are not aware whether this letter ever reached His Holiness. Nevertheless, Rome's response to the letter is well known. The harshest sanctions (penalties) were imposed: the Provincial administration was removed from their posts, while the Supreme General of the Order in Rome was given authority to administer the Province directly, that is, via his delegate or deputy delegates and advisors. The election Capitulate has not been held to this day. There were prohibitions from accepting new recruits to the noviciate, or to order new Franciscans and their taking their final vows. Bishop ule issued his own sanctions: he did not issue any Cannon missions to the jurisdiction of Franciscans who did not apply for the same from him personally and at the same time withdrew jurisdiction from all Franciscans within the diocese if indeed they had any, including the Deputy of the Delegate-General who was the administrator of the Province. He stated that he was not sure that any Franciscan what so ever could be given jurisdiction from him or be assigned a Cannon mission. That same year, that is 1976, the new Apostolic Visitator - a Zagreb Jesuit, born in Herzegovina, Father Vladimir Vlaši with the task to visit all the Franciscans in Herzegovina in an effort to find those who would accept the Decree so that they could be nominated as the new administrators of the Province and be assigned to implement the Decree. He visited all the members of the Province and spoke with them and even conducted a written survey regarding the (non)acceptance of the Decree. He then sent a report to Rome stating that the Franciscans thought exactly the same way as their deposed administration, that is, that for the same reasons the administration noted, they could not accept the Decree nor engage in its implementation - all except one Franciscan who is not quite well of mind. As a result, the Holy See extended its sanctions and ban to hold the Provincial capitulate elections for the Provincial administration. The Province was still administered by the General of the Order via his delegate in Rome and Deputy Delegate in Herzegovina. Execution of the Decree was then withdrawn from the auspices of the General's deputy delegate and his advisors for the Herzegovinian Franciscans and assigned personally to the General of the Order and his council. 12. The Mostar Affair Nothing changed with the arrival of Bishop ANI at the helm in September 1980, who immediately after his inauguration in the Franciscan monastic church in Mostar announced that he was going to establish a cathedral parish in Mostar and that he was going to carve up the Franciscan monastic parish so that four-fifths of the faithful would belong to the cathedral parish and one-fifth to the Franciscan monastic parish. His explanation for this decision was that the Franciscans had agreed. This immediately caused a negative reaction amongst the faithful in the church. When the parish priest of the Franciscan monastic parish cautioned the Bishop while still in the church, that his explanation that the Franciscan had agreed to this, was not the truth, the Bishop withdrew any jurisdiction and Cannon mission away from the parish priest with effect in the entire diocese. What was the real issue here? Throughout the entire time of negotiations since 1965 when the Agreement of 1923 was revoked and a redistribution of parishes ordered until 1975, when the Decree by the Holy See Romanis Pontificibus about the final resolution to the conflict over parishes in the Mostar-Duvno diocese were held, the Franciscans put forward their proposal for the distribution of parishes: they cited the names of parishes which they had founded and served until then but were prepared to give up with the condition that they be left with the remaining parishes. In this context, there was often mention of parishes that were yet to be founded. The Franciscans believed that it would be simpler if the Bishop were to set up new parishes rather than confiscate already existing Franciscan parishes. After this, the diocesan side always asserted that the Franciscans had agreed to give up some parishes and that these be founded as new diocesan parishes however, they never referred to the pre-condition that the remaining parishes remain with the Franciscans permanently. This presentation of the argument was also used to dupe the Holy See in 1975, into adopting it. The Decree Romanis Pontificibus, on four separate occasions referred to the "mutual agreement of both sides", as it ordered that certain Franciscan parishes should be offered to the Bishop at his disposal. However, there never was any such agreement. It was only a proposal put forward by the Franciscans but contained a specific pre-condition or rather, laid down a certain price. This was presented to the Holy See as approval on the part of the Franciscans failing to mention the pre-condition, that is the price of such an agreement. The Holy See accepted this argument and ordered that the Franciscans hand over these parishes without the diocesan side being obliged to fulfil any pre-conditions. This would be the same as if you offered someone a house for one million dollars while they told you that you were prepared to hand over you house - without any payment. In this regard, the Provincial administration in a letter sent to the Pope in 1976, noted that the Decree, Romanis Pontificibus was contradictory to the truth. The same thing occurred when the cathedral parish was founded in Mostar. The Franciscans at one time proposed that the Bishop take over the greater part of their parish under the condition that they be left the majority of their existing parishes. The diocesan side did not accept this proposal. Bishop ani nevertheless took over four-fifths of their parish with the explanation that they agreed to this but he never once mentioned the pre-condition they proposed but rather continued to seek those parishes they demanded as a pre-condition to the agreement to be left to them permanently. He in fact considered these parishes as his own! The people of Mostar and the Franciscans did not accept this division of the Franciscan parish in Mostar and Bishop ani did not succeed in implementing this division not even until the end of his mandate as bishop. This was the beginning of the Mostar Affair, which is continuing even now. This unresolved state in Mostar awaited the new Bishop, Dr. Ratko PERI, who took over the diocese in 1993. During the trying and bloody battle for the survival of Croats in Mostar, he established four secular parishes within the intended cathedral parish. During the fiercest battles and destruction of the Franciscan monastery and when it was almost impossible to reach, several Franciscans took refuge in an outer suburb Cim, so that they could serve their people. Bishop Peri however, prohibited them from living there because it was located within the area of a secular parish. After being threatened with the harshest of sanctions via Rome and when in 1995 the situation had calmed down somewhat in Mostar, the Franciscans moved back to the demolished monastery and the people of Mostar reacted harshly against the Bishop and on occasion exuded violence against him. A great deal of Mostar was left without any regular pastoral care. This situation was reflected in the recent elections held in Mostar when in the most Croatian section of the Mostar suburbs of Ilii and Cim, as a sign of protest, the people only participated in the elections at a rate of less than 40%. 13. The apljina Affair And so the Franciscans were pressed back to the very outskirts of Mostar. Yet, Bishop Peri did not stop there. He demanded the immediate retreat of the Franciscans out of apljina. He threatened with the harshest sanctions via Rome (in the same manner that the international community has been threatening Croatia with sanctions if it does not accept its conditions). Finally, the General of the Franciscan Order in April 1996, formally and legally handed the parish to the Bishop. The Franciscans were ordered to hand over their residency and church to the newly nominated secular parish priest on 12 May 1996, and to leave apljina. That day, the people blocked the path to the church and the Franciscan's residency and did not allow the newly nominated secular parish priest nor the bishop's Vicar-General from Mostar, nor the Franciscan's Delegate-General from Rome nor representatives of the Franciscan Province in Mostar to enter nor the apljina Franciscans to leave. After that Bishop Peri cancelled the Sacrament of Confirmation which was to have been held on 30 June 1996, in apljina. After serious pressure and threats of the harshest penalties from Rome on Sunday 14 July 1996, the Franciscans said their goodbyes to the faithful and on the Feast of St. Elijah on the 20th of the same month, they left apljina. They were greeted by several thousand faithful. Since then the church bells have been quiet, the church door is bricked in and the "wall will be taken down when they who built the church return, that is, the Friars", is written above the main entrance to the church and the faithful gather in the church yard when mass is scheduled and only pray the Rosary. 14. The "Alleviated" Implementation of the Decree of 1975. The Mostar and apljina incidents were a good starting point to head off in the direction of a positive solution to the conflict between the Franciscans and secular priests over the redistribution of parishes in Herzegovina. Namely, even after the Decree Romanis Pontificibus was issued in 1975, the Franciscans did not cease with negotiations and discussions. Apostolic visitators continued to visit Herzegovina, as did delegates of the Franciscan's General in Rome. They all tried to convince the Franciscans that it was unrealistic to expect that the Holy See would revoke its Decree, nevertheless at the same time they were during its implementation prepared to alleviate some points of the Decree in favour of the Franciscans (this is referred to as the modality of implementation). Educated by bad experience in the past as a result of "Dananian" promises, the Franciscans were sceptical toward this proposal and so they waited to see how this alleviation would be felt upon the first partial implementation of the Decree. The first phase of the partial implementation of the Decree was the division of the Monastic parish in Mostar. The Bishop had seceded four-fifths and founded four new parishes - all secular. The alleviated implementation of that decision would be in that for example, the Bishop would hand over one or two fifths back to the Franciscans. However, he did not even wish to consider this possibility! The second phase of the partial implementation of the Decree was the handover of the apljina parish to the Bishop for his free disposal. In all the negotiations ever held, apljina was the hardest apple. When Bishop ule was once asked why he insisted on apljina so much he replied, "All the surrounding parishes are mine and so it would be handy for my parish priests to be able to gather in apljina at the regular meetings of the Deanery. The same question was posed to the Franciscan Provincial. He replied, "With the loss of apljina the already minute area of our province would be significantly decreased. The eastern border of the Province is being moved in the south to the Ljubuški - Veljaci line" (which was backed up by a map of the Province). There were several opportunities to actually implement the Decree with its alleviated form regarding apljina. One possibility was that the Bishop found a second secular parish in apljina because it was large enough to support at least two parishes. At one time in 1968, Bishop ule actually agreed to this proposal but then he feared that the Communist authorities would not allow the construction of a new parish (a church and presbytery) so at the last moment he threw in an extra clause in the draft agreement: if he was not able to establish a new parish within five years in apljina then he would automatically be handed over the exiting Franciscan parish. According to the draft then, the Franciscans still stood to lose apljina. For this reason this agreement, as was mentioned earlier, fell through. As new circumstances cast off the danger that the civil authorities would not allow the establishment of a new parish, the Franciscans suggested to both Bishop ani and Bishop Peri that they found a new, second parish in apljina and with that leave the existing parish to them. A second proposal was put forward when this one was refused. The Franciscans proposed that they remain in their residency as a monastic community without a parish in apljina and that the Bishop take over the entire parish and build a new parish church and presbytery. The third proposal, when the second was not accepted, was the latest proposal by the Franciscans that they be allowed to remain in apljina as a monastic community without a parish in some other house which they would build and their current residency and church would be handed over to the Bishop as the centre of the new parish. However, Bishop Peri would not hear of this. He ardently demanded that the Franciscans not only leave their residency and church but to completely leave the territory of apljina. With this he was not trying to implement the alleviated Decree with regard to apljina but what is more it was even harsher that the Decree itself: he was demanding of the Franciscans that which was not even directly noted in the Decree, which ordered the Franciscans to hand over their parish at the liberty of the Bishop, but it did not make mention that they as a monastic Order had to leave the territory of apljina! This meant that all the promises which had been given to the Franciscans from Rome about the alleviated implementation of the Decree was another misused occasion to resolve the "Herzegovina Affair" or at least to move from a stale point towards a positive direction. C. HIDING BEHIND THE DECREE OF 1975. The diocesan side continually asserts and repeats, "That is how the Holy See determined!" What they want to say with this is that this very fact is good and should be implemented without criticism. 1. Who is Behind the Holy See's Decree of 1975? Let us first ask who in fact is in the background of this decree and who really drafted it? The above historical review relating the issue of parishes shows that it is evident that since 1943 until 1965 and in 1975, Bishop ule certainly exerted a great deal of effort towards obtaining what he wanted from the Holy See. He not only exerted a lot of effort with the Holy See but also placed a great deal of pressure on the Holy See and threatened that if his requests were not met that he together with "his" secular priests would completely leave the Herzegovina and transfer to the Zagreb Archdiocese! He often repeated this threat during negotiation sessions with the Franciscans. In a letter to Friar Dominik Mandi written on St. George's 1965, he admitted that he had made this "proposal" to the Holy See! When we consider that Bishop ani had boasted that he had made over 70 visits to Rome regarding this issue then it is clear who convinced the Holy See to adopt such a decision. How else would the Holy See even know where Crna, Grude, apljina and other small towns were, if they had not been receiving any information from Herzegovina itself? These towns are just as foreign to the Holy See as would be some remote African or Irish towns. The Decree was more than likely on the major part composed in Mostar and after a long time of pressure and efforts to convince the Holy See, it finally gave its signature to the Decree. As such this decision, whether it finally is a good one or not, is the mastermind of the Mostar bishops, ule, ani and Peri. Naturally the Holy See is also responsible but this responsibility does not diminish the primary responsibility of the Mostar bishops. Let us call to mind how St. Augustine responded to the Jews who were stating that they had not killed Jesus but rather that Pilot was guilty, "He is guilty because he condemned him, but are you innocent, you who compelled him to do so?" 2. The Unquestionable Obedience of the Mostar Bishops Towards the Holy See? The Herzegovinian bishops often stressed obedience as the supreme principle of conduct within the Church. In practise however, they themselves at times, did not adhere to this principle but rather when it suited them. When Bishop ani, for instance, came to Mostar as the Assistant Bishop he immediately embarked on convincing the Herzegovinian Franciscans to disobey their lawful Provincial Šili, with the intention of better achieving his aims. He did not succeed in this. When he took over the diocese that is in 1988, a group of Franciscans did not accept transfers, which had been assigned them by the Provincial administration. Bishop ani backed them up in their refusal. He even forbid in writing that they be transferred! They who were disobedient were allowed to keep their jurisdiction and Canon mission yet he refused to issue these to those who were lawfully, pursuant to decision of the Provincial administration, to succeed them. This same practise was continued by the bishop's successor, Bishop Ratko Peri. The Herzegovinian bishops demanded that the Franciscans hand over parishes which belonged to them in accordance with the Decrees of 1967 and 1975, yet he continually refused to take over the parishes of Glavatievo and Nevesinje, which were assigned to him in the Decree of 1923, and which the Franciscans had been offering for quite a while. The bishops were not prepared to implement the Decree of 1975 in its literal sense. The Franciscans offered Bishop ani that upon carving up the monastic Franciscan parish in Humac he found new secular parishes in Zvirii-Bijaa and Crveni Grm as determined in the Decree of 1975. Nevertheless he refused this and demanded that the heart of this same parish - Ljubuški and Radišii and that he be allowed to found a new secular parish in these towns even though this is the one thing that was explicitly forbidden in the 1975 Decree! Bishop Peri at all costs demanded that he be given Mostar and apljina yet he refused to take over the parishes in Jablanica and Blagaj which had been virtually completely ethnically cleansed by the Muslims but which nevertheless were to belong to him in accordance to the same Decree of 1975! These few examples clearly show that the Herzegovinian bishops are not exactly marked by uncompromising obedience to decisions adopted by the Holy See even though they demand this same obedience of the Franciscans. 3. The "Goodness" of the Decision by the Holy See of 1975. Nevertheless, if the Holy See did actually make a decision as is noted in the Decree is this necessarily good and just? Even though we are obliged to adhere to decisions made by the Holy See, they need not always necessarily be right and just. There are a few examples in the history of the Church, which shall easily convince us that these decisions are not always necessarily right. In 1415, the Church Synod in Constanza decided to have Jan Hus burned at the stake. Today the Church is ashamed of this decision and rightly so, because this was an atrocious crime. A similar decision was made to burn Savonarole or the condemnation of Galileo's findings. The Church has in modern times, repented for its actions. The supreme criteria to evaluate the ultimate goodness or ultimate evil in behaviour including decisions made by the Church according to the unanimous opinion of Church teachers, "the good of the faithful" or the "salvation of souls", as is noted in the codex of Cannon Law (salus animarum suprema lex in Ecclesia esto). Anything that is opposed to this must be denounced, as should anything that cannot be incorporated in this supreme law of the Church. In principle, everyone accepts this rule. Whoever would bring it into question would immediately show that they were a "mercenary" and that they were not "interested in their own flock". It is not enough however, to just accept this rule for the sake of it. It contains something holy, something exclusive. It cannot tolerate other Gods around it. These other Gods are by the way wishes, which often oppose that "supreme law". Is not one of these wishes for example, the desire to expel the Franciscans from those regions where they are now? Can this desire be placed above the need to "save souls" and can both these issues be referred to in the same breath and same tone? Everyone needs to decide towards his or her own conscience - does one's behaviour serve towards that supreme goal. While trying to evaluate this response one needs to keep in mind one's "spite" and "uncompromising attitude at whatever cost" and then to admit one's own pride, selfishness, self-confirmation, desires and power. Everyone in Herzegovina is bound to ask themselves this question; the bishops, secular priests and the Franciscans. 4. The "Justice" of the Decision by the Holy See of 1975? The question still remains - are matters to be left only to paragraphs on paper or should justice be involved. As followers of Christ, being decisively in opposition to legality, should not be considered a minor matter. If the diocesan side is in the right, if Church regulations support this, does this mean that everything has been resolved? We are aware namely, that law and justice do not always go hand in hand. The Romans expressed this by saying, "The highest law is sometimes the greatest injustice" (summum ius summa iniuria). This "Herzegovinian Affair" should be investigated to see if this is perhaps not the same case. We are not referring to the violation of the paragraphs because they themselves leave provision for this, but rather the violation of justice and the violation of goodness. If this is the case, where is the violation? When the Herzegovinian Franciscans in 1844, seceded from the Bosnian Province, they virtually came on bare ground. They did not have any houses, nor churches, nor any inventory what so ever. They found themselves in a new homeland and were almost like survivors after a shipwreck; they virtually owned nothing but the shirts on their backs. Also there was only a small number of them then in 1844, eighteen in all. When we look now and see what this small community has achieved in the past one hundred and fifty years, with its efforts, denouncement, art, love and apostolic ardour, we can be nothing but awed. If we look at the Schematism of the Province in 1977, we can see that the number of priests had grown to 200 as well as another 54 clergymen and 11 recruits and 5 holy brothers. This is all so despite all the calamities faced during the Communist rule. In Herzegovina alone these people have built a huge number of monasteries as part of parishes or subsidiary churches. During the period of 13 years (between the publication of two Schematisms - 1964 and 1977), they built 40 new churches and refurbished virtually all the old churches. They built several monasteries adjoining some churches, numerous presbyteries, schoolrooms for religious instructions and support buildings. They had their own Classical High School and Theology School, a printing house and several collections. The most renown is the museum in Humac, which is oldest known museum in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Another of these is their library in Mostar). Outside Herzegovina, the Province has two monasteries in Croatia (a wooden monastery in Slano and the newly built monumental monastery and church in Zagreb). There are monasteries located in Austria and Germany where they serve six German parishes and two Croatian missions. In Switzerland there are two Croatian missions with 12 friars. Especially significant is the Custody in America with one monastery, a residency and fifteen parishes and missions in the USA and Canada. And finally, the Province has five missionaries in Africa and two in Albania. Has not the mustard seed grown into a large tree? Anyone who knows what it means to build just one house or church - especially during those times when our people had not gone to work abroad and when a peasants toil was frugally paid - they will understand the scope of what has been achieved. Many a builder while building a church built himself in it. The diocesan side has a habit of commenting (in typical Communist style), that these massive and numerous buildings were built by the people and not the friars and that these buildings were built for the use of the Church and not the friars. This is not entirely true, but even if it were true that the friars built these buildings together with their faithful. The huge efforts made by the friars however, is undoubted. The truth is that the people helped build the said buildings for the use of the "Church" but ask these same people did they give their donations and money so that they could be evicted from these same buildings and their gifts confiscated from those they were intended? It appears that the diocesan side is asserting that "we are the Church, the friars are not nor are the people!" The Herzegovinian Franciscans were - and still are - valid pastoral workers expressed in their efforts and the quality of their work. It is enough to note just one detail from the Schematism of 1977, that the Franciscans held religious instructions in Široki Brijeg in 108 sections and in Mostar in 110 sections. Try and find a similarly large town served by whichever Croatian diocese where during the Communist regime, Religious Instructions was taught in so many sections! The same situation existed in smaller towns where the absolute number was not so high but was, if looked at relatively. This work was not rewarded in anyway. They did however receive an "award" to be prohibited from working in many towns, an award issued by the official Church. In the past fifteen years, the Franciscans have been taking care of the pilgrimage in Meugorje. We are not concerned here with the issue of the validity of the visitations which are claimed to exist there. All we want to do is highlight the heroic efforts lodged in spiritually serving the masses of pilgrims, a number - which by some accounts - has far surpassed 10 or even 20 million. Can we turn a blind eye to all this work? Does this not have any weight as far as the Bishop is concerned? Along their basic pastoral work, the Herzegovinian Franciscans have assigned themselves to their people in a multitude of ways. If we just look back a little in the past, we will see that during the Turkish rule, the Herzegovinian Franciscans educated the people and naturally all this without any payment. They saw to make premises for schools available as well as alphabet boards. We all know the wonders that Friar Didak Bunti conjured up in teaching peasant children to read and write when at the same time at the turn of the century, despite all its financial and other resources the State left most of the population of Herzegovina to be illiterate. It is a well-known fact but probably worth mentioning, because too often we forget Fr. Didak Bunti and his brothers saved thousands of Herzegovinian children from death during the First World War. Did he not along with his brothers try and economically advance their faithful? We have only noted a few of his efforts. The list goes on and on. Is it right and just that a well-built and furnished building should be demolished when we are not even sure what the new building will even look like? In whose interest can it be to see that the Herzegovinian Franciscans be left to die out? This is surely not in the interest of the Croatian and Catholic being. The Province which produced Friar Petar Bakula, Friar Paškal Buconji, Friar Didak Bunti, Friar Dominik Mandi, Friar Rufin Šili, Friar Ferdo Vlaši (who are just a few of the most renowned), is the fertile mother of the greats within the Croatian people and Catholic faith. If it were not for them or the huge number of their brothers, the Catholic Church and Croatian people would surely to a large measure be poorer? CONCLUSION The Franciscans were expelled from eastern Herzegovina in the first half of the 17th Century by the Bishop of Trebinje-Mrkanj who did not even sit in his diocese. He expelled the Franciscans and left the diocese without any priests! We know what the fate of that diocese was, some fifteen thousand Croat Catholics before the War for the Homeland! During the latest war, the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno pushed the Franciscans back from the Neretva river towards the west. This is the case for virtually the whole of Mostar and a wider area of apljina. When this is added to the fact of the virtually complete ethnic cleansing of Croat Catholics by the Muslims in the regions around the Neretva river from Glavatievo through Konjic and Jablanica to Mostar and Blagaj so that the Franciscans will probably not be able to survive there, then we can obtain a vivid picture of the geographical map of the territory of the Province of the Herzegovinian Franciscans. This is a region covering a few points (near ekrka in Mostar and in Šurmancima, a village in the Meugorje parish) and which touch the Neretva river. When and where will this drive toward the west cease? What will the map of Croat Catholics in Herzegovina look like after the final end of the War for the Homeland and following the forthcoming general elections or the disentanglement of the current political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Today in August 1996, when we have almost completed this text, the internal situation of the Church in Herzegovina has warmed up to the point of being red-hot. At a time when the existence or rather survival of the Croats in these regions is at stake, once again old misunderstandings and ambitions have flared up, as have old passions which lead to new conflicts and which have existed for more than one hundred years. It is difficult to comprehend the attitude of the Mostar Bishop Peri who is literally driving out the Franciscans from the greater part of Herzegovina, from Mostar and apljina and is demanding them to convince the faithful to admit that it is a good thing they are leaving and that secular priests are finally coming! Maybe the people would be satisfied that they could both share the same space during these most difficult times and together as brothers in every sense of the word, they serve as an ideal for their suffering people,to whom, it seems, in principle, are not so concerned about which servant of God serves them, since is the survival of the people in question and not a struggle for parishes. We must not forget the victims of the War for the Homeland! Over 12,637 people were killed in Croatia and more than 20,000 were injured while in Bosnia-Herzegovina 9,639 Croats were killed and 14,563 were wounded. Of the total number of those killed or wounded in Croatia, more than 50% were of Herzegovinian origin! And today following so many victims, to enter into new conflicts which could lead to more blood shedding for this already victimized Croatian people in Herzegovina is truly a question of responsibility and morals for all those who would inspire such a conflict. Therefore, it seems, that it is now the last opportunity, that all who are called, those who are responsible and those who could contribute to an end of these tragic conflicts among the Croatian people, come to the negotiating table. Those called iclude Croatian leaders since the seeds of this evil were originally sown among the Croatian people by the leaders of the occupying forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who did not favor the Croatian people at all. The Croatian hierarchy of the Church is also called since it is undebatable that some Croatian hierarchs, in resolving the question about the allocation of the parishes in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the last one-hundred years, were not always guided by the ultimate low of salvation (good) of souls of the (Croatian) people of God in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Franciscans are called since they too are obligated by the same ultimate law of the salvation (good) of souls. It is really necessary to repeat one more time that in the interest of the salvation (good) of souls and in the national interest od the Croatian people, taht all who are called upon to come to the negotiating table, and along with the gratest scrifice, they come to a decision that will not be a sad extension of the "spite" that has continued for the past one-hundred years, but will instead guarantee peace and the future of the Croatian people and the Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina? ADDITION: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BISHOP AND AUTHOR about the contents of the book THE MOSTAR-DUVNO & TREBINJE MRKANJ DIOCESES DIOCESAN CHANCERY OFFICE OF MOSTAR (Tel: + + 387/88/323-944; fax: + + 387/88/324-328) Mostar, 10 April 1998 Prot. no.: 334/98 Friar Viktor, we at the Ordinary received your "Truth About the Herzegovinian Affair". The History of the Tragic Conflict Between the Bishops and the Franciscans in Bosnia-Herzegovina", Zagreb, 1998, which was sent to us by K. Krešimir d.o.o. What an imaginative title, my dear man of God! Not to mention the spirit in whic it is written. Following Mihaljevi's "grey" version, here now we have your "white" version." You are going to compel us to have to bring the entire truth to the public. Allow me to review some of your points which I underlined as I read them. Who could answer the whole lot?! 1) YOU: "Nevertheless, when the Franciscans offered 12 existing parishes in western Herzegovina to be at the disposal of the local Ordinary and the secular clergy, the agreement was ratified on 17 July 1899", (p.25). Transeat that Glavatievo and Nevesinja are not entirely in "western Herzegovina"! THE TRUTH IS: In addition to the 12 established parishes a further 12 "Paroeciae novae pedentim erigendae in dioecesi Mandetriensi pariter pro libera collatione Ordinarii", are also listed by name. The events surrounding both categories are tragic. 2) YOU: "…the Province's administration came to an agreement with the bishops, Friar Alojzije Miši … to grant them the 15 parishes which were already established and which they served in addition to a further 12 parishes which were to be established in the near future. The agreement was ratified by the Council of the Holy Congregation on 22 June 1923." (p.26). THE TRUTH IS: The rescript (or as you put it: decision) lists 27 "paroeciae quae iam ab ipsis Fratribus administratae fuerunt", consisting of 14 existing and 13 non-existing parishes. Put it aside that then, of the 13 non-existing parishes to this date only the Crna parish has been established! This is probably what you mean by: "which was to be established as soon as possible." It is also true that an indult was issued "ad nutum S. Sedis", which vitally influences the entire affair, yet you did not note this. 3) YOU: "In 1942, namely, the new Bishop of Mostar, Dr. Petar ULE, was a non-Franciscan - nominated by the wishes, choice and machinations of the Archbishop of Vrhbosna, Šari - and who from the very beginning of his inauguration began to impose Archbishop Stadler's politics on the Franciscans in Herzegovina and their parishes." (p.27). THE TRUTH IS: To sign an Agreement which was to solve the century old problem about the parishes in Herzegovina without reading it could only have been done by someone who is not serious, irresponsible, unreasonable, just as is stated in the reply: "absentia mentis"! "Once again, I state, perhaps it was wrong of me and not normal, but it happened", on 20.4.1968, Provincial Šili wrote to Bishop ule regarding his revokement. 9) YOU: "However, his own secretary read the text later that evening and realised that Bishop ule had at the last moment thrown in a clause by which the Provincial could lose his own residency and parish in apljina. Warned about the clause, Šili revoked his signature in writing that same night because the Provincial Capitulate of 1967 gave him the authority to discuss all parishes which by the Decision of the Holy See of 1965, were determined to be re-distributed excepting two parishes which were adjoined to Franciscan residencies - the one in apljina and the one in itluk." (p.31). THE TRUTH IS: Don Marko continues: "The agreement is dated 20.IV, because it was intended to be sent to Belgrade that day, however, early in the morning about 7 a.m. of 20.IV, a brother layman from the local monastery, where the Provincial resided, brought the letter to the Ordinary in which the Provincial revoked his signature to the agreement and demanded that the agreement not be sent but destroyed, as if had not been written or signed". Apart from that, you "ad nauseam" repeat "draft agreement", and this is not only when you refer to it as the "final draft agreement" but also as the "signed draft agreement". Is a signed agreement still a "draft"? You who are an attorney play with such senselessness as if we were all "pupazzi"! Friar Viktor, if the issue was about one point, namely apljina then it would have been "necessary to sit at the negotiation table", as you state in the final sentence of your "Truth" (p.54), like a suggestion of salvation now, thirty years after you participated in destroying the agreement signed that night (or was it just YOU?). So then sit down and resolve this particular point but do not destroy the entire agreement, especially since the issue here, as you put it, is regarding some sort of "draft agreement"! Bishop ule wrote to Provincial Šilic, on 20.IV.1968, "The agreement was destroyed, one which were worked on together for so long and one which you proprio marte on holy Thursday announced to the priests gathered …2) As far as apljina is concerned you never once with one word mentioned that your hands were tied." That is the TRUTH about the beginning of the "Herzegovinian affair." 10) YOU: "Violence against anyone, and most especially against the highest representative of one's Church, must be condemned even though the bitterness felt by the faithful", (p.32). THE TRUTH IS: You show some understanding towards the bitterness felt by a group of incited faithful, but you are not sorry that all this violence has been localised amongst individual members of your community who for years now have been living under sanctions and from whence for years they have been inciting the people. You know best what your role is by writing in this way. 11) YOU: You wrote that Bishop ani "from the very beginning presented the hard core attitudes of the Bishop", and that any negotiation held ended with, "Seeing that we were not able to come to an agreement, we have decided to let the Holy See decide and we will accept such a decision no matter what that decision may be", however, "this was not accepted by the Franciscans". (p.33). THE TRUTH IS: You wrote correctly here. I just want to add, in this case the Bishop's stance is the Church's stance! The stance taken by the Franciscans in this case is not in line with the Church! You are more than likely aware that some Franciscan fathers requested that someone outside Herzegovina come to Mostar rather than a local boy. Bishop ani was on several occasions told in the Vatican, "that Father Šili requested that he be nominated as Assistant Bishop to Bishop ule and that the entire affair would be immediately resolved but if he wasn't then let all the guilt be placed on him", wrote Msgr. ani in his Memoirs. There, you were given a man "in keeping with your heart", and now you are blaming him in this way! Yet you are probably proud of your statement, "the Franciscans did not accept"? 12) YOU: Pastor Vlaši DI, reported to the Holy See about his visitation in 1976, that all the Franciscans think like the deposed Provincial administration, that is, that they could not accept the decree for the same reasons nor could they be engaged in its implementation - all, "except one who is not quiet sound of mind" (p.38). THE TRUTH IS: I am not familiar with what P. Vlaši reported but by going by what you write it is evident what the administration and its community were like. It is well known that the administration and community in 1997, were of a completely different attitude with regard to the decree. Cannot it be denied that they are "of sound mind"? 13) YOU: Turn to the Mostar incident, where you mention the current bishop who "established four secular parishes within the intended cathedral parish", (p.40). THE TRUTH IS: I cannot understand that you are not familiar with the fact that as the Ordinary, Bishop ani established parishes on 6 January 1993, and that the hand-over/take-over was conducted on 1 August that same year in Mostar. 14) YOU: "After being threatened with the harshest of sanctions via Rome and when in 1995 the situation had calmed down somewhat in Mostar, the Franciscans moved back to the demolished monastery and the people of Mostar reacted harshly against the Bishop and on occasions exuded violence against him" (p.40). THE TRUTH IS: Some Franciscans have unfortunately still not withdrawn from the Franciscan monastery but are continuing their activities which denounces your claims. The people too readily react the way the priests advise them to even if this may be "harsh". I believe there is no need for me to explain this to you! Even some of the faithful have come to us and have told us just who and in what way the people have been incensed to violence. 15) YOU: With regard to the "apljina incident" everything that you wrote about the "Franciscan residency", cannot hold water. When in the autumn of 1996, the Franciscan side were asked by Nuntio Monterisi to show the Bishop's approval or "beneplacitum" by the Holy See, the Franciscans had nothing to produce or show. You are quite aware that there are no valid papers yet you consistently use the term "residency", believing perhaps that if something is repeated often enough especially on paper then it may even become accepted as the - truth! 16) YOU: Say that the Franciscans "…suggested to both Bishop ani and Bishop Peri that they found a new, second parish in apljina and with that leave the existing parish to them. A second proposal was put forward when this one was refused…", (p.43). THE TRUTH IS: What are we to do, Friar Viktor with the "secretary" if he cautions us that the "Provincial Capitulate of 1967", does not authorise anyone to "negotiate" regarding the two parishes "which are joined by the Franciscan residency - in apljina and itluk"? (p.31) Or is your desire that the diocesan side too ignore the Pope's decree? 17) YOU: "How else would the Holy See even know where Crna, Grude, apljina and other small towns were, if they had not been receiving any information from Herzegovina itself? (p.45). DISCOVERY! 18) YOU: "The Herzegovinian bishops demanded that the Franciscans hand over parishes which belonged to them in accordance with the decrees of 1967 and 1975, yet he continually refused to take over the parishes of Glavatievo and Nevesinje, which were entrusted to him in the 1923 Decree, and which the Franciscans had been offering for quite a while" (p.46). THE TRUTH IS: I'm shocked that you are not aware of the "Decree" issued by the Mostar-Duvno bishop, the Franciscan Alojzija Miši, no. 534 dated 15.IV.1925, which states, "For very significant reasons which are equally important for the diocesan and Franciscan provinces, we exchanged the Gabela and Glavatievo parishes Episcopalis liberae collationis for Prisoje and Dobri so that Gabela and Glavatievo belonged to the Franciscan order while Prisoje and Dobri Episcopo liberae collationis". I am even more amazed that you can even call on that "Decree" as one issued by the Holy See when Bishop Miši changed, exchanged, muddled it without asking anyone! Who authorised him to amend the Holy See's "Decree"? 19) YOU: "Bishop Peri at all costs demanded that he be given Mostar and apljina yet he refused to take over the parishes in Jablanica and Blagaj which had been virtually completely ethnically cleansed by the Muslims but which nevertheless were to belong to him in accordance to the same Decree of 1975!" (p.47). THE TRUTH IS: You are shocked why I didn't jump to take parishes which the "Muslims virtually ethnically cleansed"! Jablanica and Blagaj. This is the first wind I have of any such thing! Is it possible that your brothers have presented the matter to you differently? It is true that some time before the war, I cannot recall the year exactly, I suggested that Nevesine and Jablanica, and not, Jablanica and Blagaj, be transferred to the diocesan administration. The propaganda machine wrote off to your administration that the diocesan side accepted in an effort to resolve point 4 of the Decree "R.P.": Jablanica, Nevesinje, Blagaj and Ploe-Tepii. As this signified more than the initial "crumbs", the Franciscans withdrew. We insist on the implementation of the Pope's decree despite the situation in Nevesine, Jablanica … 20) YOU: Rights - justice (pp.48-51). THE TRUTH IS: Instead of replying, I take the liberty to send you a copy of a letter which I wrote some time ago and sent to the Minister of Education and Sport, Ms. Ljilja, who stood in support of your Franciscan hypothesis of "rights and justice"! I wish you a Happy Easter and may all go well for you according to the Holy Spirit! + Bishop Ratko Peri Dr. Friar Viktor Nui Franciscan Monastery Herzegovina Province Avenija izviaa 2 10040 Zagreb Zagreb, 25 April 1998 Most reverend sir! I received your comments to my brief review of the history of the tragic conflict between the bishops and the Franciscans in Bosnia-Herzegovina "The Truth about the Herzegovinian Affair" (Published by: K. Krešimir, Zagreb 1998). You wrote it in the form of a personal letter addressed to myself personally and dated 10 April 1998. Nevertheless, seeing that the letter is written on official letterhead of the Herzegovinian dioceses and carries a registration number: (334/98), it must be considered an official letter. Because you forwarded it to several other addresses (I am not sure exactly how many), the letter takes on the attributes of an official circular. Nevertheless, this is not the most important factor. You refer to the title of my review as being "imaginative". No matter what you may think about it, the title together with its sub-title is entirely clear and they express the contents of the booklet. It is true, my review is not all-encompassing. But, I did mention this in a comment preceding the preface, announcing a more detailed all-encompassing researched edition. This review was intended and written as a popular edition with the aim of offering the background information about the historical circumstances surrounding the conflict over the parishes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and especially, about the attempts to resolve the issue of the division of parishes between the Franciscan Province and the Diocese and of course the conflicts which resulted - in Herzegovina. I considered this information a vital pre-condition to an explanation of the actual "Herzegovinian affair", as well as serving as an exhausted discussion about the individual rights it pertained to, and other issues that were therefore implicated. You objected to the spirit in which I wrote the review. From the context of your letter, I can only conclude that you consider this spirit as negative. This is so far the first objection to my review in this light. All the other comments which I have had the opportunity to come across, in fact evaluate the spirit and tone of my review in opposition to your views. I am worried with the repercussions of comparisons conducted by interested persons of the tone and spirit of my writing compared to the tone and spirit of your writing regarding the same subject, especially compared to your infamous, unminded homilies published in The Church on Rock, or for that matter in your comments to my review. You stated that I was going to force you "to come out with the whole truth in public" (you wrote "us", so I can only conclude that this relates to you personally, and not the diocesan side which you represent, as such I refer to "you" with a lower case letter). I am not afraid of the truth, because the truth can only liberate us all (cf. Jn 8:32). However, your statements would seem to indicate that I may have overdone matters with my public appearances regarding the "Herzegovinian affair", and that "you" and you have remained silent until now or in the least have remained restrained. The truth is in fact the opposite: I have come out in public after almost twenty years of complete silence, while in the meantime you (your predecessor, Msgr. Pavao ani, Don Luka Pavlovi and Don Antan Luburi and you personally) have on numerous occasions released articles both in the religious press and in daily rags! And now to turn to your individual objections: Ad 1) If the border between western and eastern Herzegovina is the Neretva river, then your "aren't exactly in 'western Herzegovian'" refers also to the parishes of Konjic, Jablanica, Drenica, Mostar and Blagaj. Nevertheless, all these parishes belong to the Mostar-Duvno Diocese and not the Trebinje-Mrkanj. There are no clearly defined borders between eastern and western Herzegovina. For this reason eastern and western Herzegovina are not geographical notions which carry a capital letter. It is true that by the Decision of the Holy See of 1899, in addition to the twelve already existing parishes, the bishop was given free access to twelve other parishes which were yet to be gradually established (pedetentim erigendae). I did not mention this in the cited text because this did not appear to me to be decisive enough to confirm the agreement between the Province and the Diocese with regard to the division of parishes and I did not have the intention to, in light of the context, to review the entire decision in detail. Ad 2) It is true that the Act issued by the Holy Congregational Council of 1923, in its form of a rescript which issued Bishop Miši with an indult in response to his request (authorisation), due to the lack of secular, diocesan clergy to transfer to the Franciscan the nominated parishes in which they held service anyway. This Act is registered in our archives as the "Decisio S. Sedis", even though because it is in the form of a rescript which responds to Bishop Buconji's request and in its first half confirms the agreement between the Diocese and the Province regarding the division of parishes, in its latter half it issues the Bishop with an indult that because of the lack of secular, diocesan priests, those parishes which were available could continue to be filled with Franciscans. For this reason the literature refers to these documents as decisions by the Holy See of 1899 and 1923. It is true that of the 13 parishes yet to be established which Bishop Miši entrusted to the Franciscans pursuant to the Rescript of 1923, only one actually was. But it is also true that to this date not one parish was established of the other 12 which by the 1899 Decision of the Holy See were to be done so as secular parishes (Podprolog and Zvirii). It is evident, that in 1899 and 1923, neither the Franciscans nor the bishops correctly assessed the demographic development of Herzegovina. I would not blame them for this because I am sure that they could not have foreseen that some very prosperous highland and cattle villages would in the near future remain virtually without any residence. After all, many existing, then very populated parishes are today unfortunately dying off. The "indult was not issued 'ad nutum S. Sedi'?, but rather it was issued in response to Bishop Miši's request and the indult (authorisation) was issued so that he could entrust the nominated parishes to the Franciscans with the condition that he entrust them "ad nutum S. Sedis". By implementing the Decree of 15 April 1925, Bishop Miši does not mention this condition. Nevertheless, this condition is not vital. The Holy See however, legally revoked this decision in 1965. This matter will be dealt with in more detail in the forthcoming extended edition. Ad 3) Bishop ule was entirely legally nominated by the Pope. Noone opposes this fact. However, his nomination was to have been preceded by regular procedure. Pursuant to this procedure, following the death of Bishop Miši on 26 March 1942, the Consultative Corps (which was substituted by the Cathedral Capitol) was to within eight days choose a Capitulate Vicar to administer the diocese until a new bishop was elected and inaugurated. However, Dr. Petar ule, a member of the Consultative Corps, in agreement with Archbishop Šari, disappeared. Following the death of Bishop Miši, he became indisposed and as such the Vicar-General, Friar Leon Petrovi could not convene the Consultative Corps to elect the Capitulate Vicar. In this way, the Consultative Corps lost its power to chose the new Capitulate Vicar as the eight days after the death of Bishop Miši had expired. In the meantime, Archbishop Šari made sure that on 15 April 1942, therefore in quiet an amazing short period considering the war circumstances and availability of communicating within them, the Holy See chose, and the Pope elected the new diocesan bishop who happened to be Dr. Petar ule. In the process, and one would hope it was not by oversight, not one Franciscan was consulted regarding this decision. This is what I referred to when I used the term "machinations by Archbishop Šari". As far as the letter which Archbishops Stepinac and Šari received in 1942, I do not know who wrote this letter nor what they were thinking when they wrote it. I nevertheless do not agree with their writing nor their judgement. Ad 4) The rescript (or decision) by the Holy See of 1923 was not revoked in 1965 because of "the cover-up of the truth and failure to disclose the truth", but because of "the new division of parishes", which had been entrusted to the Franciscans pursuant to that very rescript "ad nutum S. Sedis". The Holy See assessed that new circumstances (the presentation of the increased number of diocesan secular clergy), warranted a new division of parishes. So much about that for now. Ad 5) It is true that at the session of Cardinals of the Holy Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith held on 18 March 1965, a decision was passed to revoke the Indult of 1923, and that this decision was approved by the Holy Father during an audience on 22 March 1965, and that the same Congregation passed a formal decree in this regard on 26 March 1965. The revokement required to be approved by the Holy Father and this is why the Holy Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was required to revoke the decision another Holy Congregation had adopted - The Holy Council's Congregation, which was not the case with regard to the Rescript of 1923. As such there is not anything suspicious in that the Holy Father did not approve the Rescript of 1923. Ad 6) It is true that parishes are entrusted to monastic communities. Nevertheless, there are several ways to entrust parishes. Canon Law prior to the Second Vatican Council is one of the methods of entrustment and this was fully legal unification. The Council could issue these rights commencing with the motu proprio of Pope Paul VI Ecclesiae Sanctae on to the new Canon Law Code, presents only two ways of entrusting parishes: a) permanently (in perpetuum), or b) for a specifically determined period (ad certum praefinitum tempus). In this way, pursuant to these rights, parishes are entrusted to persons religious by agreement which need to be specified and need to note how the relevant parish is to be entrusted - permanently or for a specified period. However, the new, post-Council ecclesiastic legislature does not revoke rights gained pursuant to previously existing ecclesiastic legislature. Twenty-five parishes which remained with the Franciscans pursuant to the Holy See's Decision of 1899 were entirely legally united with the Province (or pro mensa Regualri Fratrum Minorum Provinciae Hercegovinae, which is how Bishop Buconji referred to them in his request to the Holy Congregation on behalf of the bishops and regular men religious). This was not changed by the Rescript of 1923 nor by the act to revoke that rescript in 1965, nor pursuant to new post-Council ecclesiastic legislature. Nevertheless, in his draft agreement about the division of parishes, Bishop ule includes these 25 parishes with those which needed to be newly divided and notes that these parishes too were being entrusted only to the Province without any explanation in which way they were being entrusted: permanently or for a specific period. Not only is this in opposition to new ecclesiastic legislature which required an agreement to specify details but it brings in to question the legal (which is still permanent) unification of these parishes with the Province and leaves the possibility that in a new division these parishes could be entrusted to the Province for only a specified time. This is what I meant by referring to it as a trap. I am firmly convinced that that draft agreement, even had not Provincial Šili withdrawn his signature and approval of it, would never have been given the necessary approval: Definitorium of the Province nor the Definitorium-General of our Order. Someone has the rights to a parish if they have legally gained this right (for example, they have been permanently entrusted to a particular religious community). The Holy See can grant a particular religious community exclusive rights to the spiritual care (just as did Pope Eugen IV by his Decree of 3 July 1446, when he granted the Franciscans with the Bosnian Franciscan Vicary). Historical rights is not a cannon law phrase. Nevertheless, if the Franciscans in Bosnia-Herzegovina for centuries took care of the pastoral needs of the faithful and established parishes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, then we can rightly refer to their historical rights to a parish: their rights to a parish have become historical. Around 1881, this right was no longer exclusive. Ad 7) It is evident that in their notes, Provincial Šili and the Bishop's secretary Marko Peri do not agree with the time of the signing of the draft agreement. However, this is not important because it does not change matters. Ad 8) You can think what you want about Šili withdrawing his signature. However, the fact remains that he did withdraw it when he discovered that Bishop ule had not included his request to amend the draft agreement regarding the division of the apljina parish, which he had requested in writing on 12 April 1968. Ad 9) The agreement between Bishop ule and Provincial Šili, even after its signing remained a draft agreement between the Diocese and the Province up until its ratification. This is not nonsense with which I am playing on and I certainly do not consider that you are all pupazzi. As far as our Province is concerned, pursuant to the regulations of the then legislature and pursuant to the Provincial Capitualte of 1967, which the newly-elected Provincial Šili was authorised to negotiate on behalf of, by no means authorised him without further consultation to conclude a final agreement with Bishop ule which would have needed to be approved by the Provincial Definotirium and the Definitorium of the Order. It is more than likely that the Bishop's signature required to be approved by the Consultative Corps. And finally, the agreement would have to have been submitted for approval by the Holy See who by its revokement of the Rescript of 1923 actually requested a new division of parishes. Until then, even without the withdrawal of the signature, it would have remained a paper tiger just like the Rescript of 1923 which remained just that until 15 April 1925 when Bishop Miši implemented it with his decree. Why Bishop ule and Provincial Šili did not continue negotiations is not entirely clear to me. I do know that Provincial Šili stated that there was no longer enough time (12 May was the deadline to hand over five parishes). Apart from that, as far as apljina was concerned, his hands were truly tied by an order issued by the Provincial Capitulate of 1967. On the other hand, Bishop ule in his letter following the withdrawal of the signature never offered to correct the issue over apljina. If he had not known previously that Provincial Šili's hands were tied by the order of the Provincial Capitulate, he did, once he received the letter regarding the withdrawal of the signature, but he never reacted positively to this fact. Truly the damages that a final agreement had never been reached are immeasurable. However, just like I have said before, the agreement did not fall through simply due to the withdrawal of that signature. It would have fallen through because of the infringement of permanently gained rights by the Province to the 25 parishes but also because of the undetermined manner in which the new ecclesiastic legislature did not define how further parishes would be entrusted to the Province. Pity, pity, pity… You are gravely mistaken when you accuse me of participating in the "destruction of the agreement reached that night". You evidently believe that I was that secretary who cautioned Provincial Šili that by signing the draft agreement the Province could loose its residency in apljina, which inspired him to withdraw his signature. I was not the secretary then nor did I read the signed draft agreement, so I could not have participated or influenced Provincial Šili to withdraw his signature. As such I would expect you to correct the injustice you have brought against me by claiming that I participated in "the destruction of the agreement that night". You are mistaken when you question whether I participated in "the destr |