http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/stepinac.htm
ADVOCATE OF CHURCH AND FATHERLAND
(Speech of the Archbishop of Zagreb Dr. Aloysius Stepinac from the defendant's bench in Zagreb on October 3rd and 8th, 1946)
To all the charges laid against me here I reply that my conscience is quite clear, although the public may laugh at that. Let me say also that I have no intention of appealing the sentence on my own behalf. I am convinced that I can suffer not only mockery, contempt and denigration, but because my conscience is clear, that I am ready at any moment to die.
The expression "the accused Stepinac" has been bandied about here a hundred times. No one is so naïve as to ignore that behind "the accused Stepinac" sits here on the defendant's bench the Archbishop of Zagreb, metropolitan of Croatia and highest primate of the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia. You yourselves have so often appealed to the clergy here accused to say that Stepinac alone is guilty for the state of the nation and the clergy in general. For it is the clergy who you accuse through me. Citizen Stepinac could not have such an influence, but only Archbishop Stepinac.
These past seventeen months the fight against me has been waged in the press and public. For the past twelve months I have suffered as an internee in the confines of the archbishopric.
I am charged with having performed the baptism of Serbs. This is a misrepresentation of the facts for there is no need to baptize once more one who has been baptized already. The question here is rather one of conversion. I will not speak at length about that but will say that my conscience is clear and that history will bear me out. The fact is that I had to relocated the priest because the Serbian Orthodox population for hesitating to convert them to Catholicism menaced them with death. The fact is that during the war the Church had to compromise in order to render a favour to the Serbian nation with the intention of protecting it as best it could.
Mr. President has shown me a copy of a letter as proof that I was looking for the abandoned Orthodox (formerly Pauline) monastery in Orahovica to intern temporarily Trappists banished by the Germans from Reichenburg. I considered it my holy duty to help my Slovene brethren ousted by the Germans to obtain temporary shelter.
A more difficult case is my accusation as chaplain general. Mr. President asked me whether I did not consider it treason to the Yugoslavian state to retain that position under the government of the NDH. I was also chaplain general in the first Yugoslavia. For eight to ten years I tried to solve the question concerning my post as chaplain general, but it came to no definite solution. The question was finally solved in Yugoslavia with a concordat that involved many difficulties and although solemnly ratified in parliament carried no effect.
When the war between Yugoslavia and Germany was over I had to administer spiritual aid to the remnants of the Catholic soldiers of the former Yugoslavian army and of the newly created NDH. Although the state collapsed, the army still remained and we had to face the situation.
I was persona non grate both to the Germans and to the "ustase", being neither "ustase" nor under oath to them, as were your officials here now in court. The Croatian nation has declared itself by plebiscite in favour of a Croatian state. I would be a scoundrel should I ignore the pulse of the Croatian nation which was deprived of its rights in old Yugoslavia. I said that Croats were forbidden to be promoted in the army or enter into diplomatic corps unless they changed their religion or married an Orthodox woman. This is the factual basis and the background of my epistles and sermons. The rights, independence and liberty of the Croatian nation as I have outlined them are all in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Allies laid down at the Yalta Conference and in the Atlantic Charter. If according to these conclusions all nations have the right of their independence, why should the Croatian nation alone be deprived? The Holy See has so often emphasized that small nations and national minorities have the right to be free. Why should the Catholic bishop and metropolitan not say anything about that? If we must fail we will go down in the performance of our duty.
Do not think that the Croatian nation is satisfied with this trial. Still less can you pretend that the Croatian nation would not side with me. Should it have the opportunity to declare itself? I respect and will respect the will of my nation.
You accuse me of being an enemy of the state and of the people's authority. Today I acknowledge your authority. To which authority was I responsible before this? I must say it again that you are my authority only from May 8th, 1945 and before that no authority at all. Where can one in this world serve two master - you in the woods or they in Zagreb? Do I have to obey the government of the putschist Simovic (as you call him) abroad in London, or that one in Jerusalem; yours in the woods or this one in Zagreb? Is it possible to serve two masters? It corresponds neither to Catholic moral nor to international law and human rights. We could not ignore the authority here although it was "ustase". It was a fait accompli. You can call me to account only beginning with May 8th, 1945.
Regarding my terrorist activities you have no proof nor will anyone believe you. If Erik Lisak, Lela Sopianec and others came to me under assumed names, or if I received a letter, which I was unable to decipher, and if it is an offence that certain people came to me, I will accept the sentence with equanimity. If I have given a passport to Father Maric, I reproach myself in no way. My conscience is clear because I could still go to the other world with equanimity. Whether you believe me or not makes no difference to me. The accused Archbishop of Zagreb is ready not only to suffer but also even to die for his convictions. Bakaric, the president of the Croatian republic himself said to Father Milanovic, "We are convinced that the archbishop is behind these actions but we can not prove anything whatsoever!" For me this tells all.
And now what is the real conflict and why has it not come to a peaceful solution? The state prosecutore has so often stated that nowhere is there so much freedom of conscience as here in this state. Allow me to enumerate some facts from which one can conclude the contrary. I say it before all of you: the People's Liberation Movement has massacred 260 to 270 priests. In no civilized state in the world would so many priests be punished in such a ways for offences imputed to them. There is for example the case of the priest Bürger in Slatina, admittedly a member of the Kulturbund, on whom you passed the death sentence and whom you executed for having removed the sacred vessels. Yet this, as dean of the church in Vocin, was his sacred duty. You cannot content with the sentencing him to serve a term of eight years in jail. I say it again: in no other civilized state would the sentence have been met out in this manner. Father Povoljnak was executed without trial, like a dog in the street. The same methods were used against certain accused nuns. In no other civilized state would they be punished with death, but at the very most imprisonment. You have committed a fatal error in massacring priests. The people will not forget it. Here is your freedom such as it is.
Our Catholic schools built with so many sacrifices have been taken away from us. All activity in our seminaries has been thwarted. Had I not received from America seven wagonloads of provisions it would not be possible to start work this year. These are the children of our poor peasant people. You confiscated all our school property by force. You did nothing less than the Gestapo that confiscated all the property of the seminary in Mokricema. The Holy See issued many encyclicals concerning social reform. You ought to cooperate with the Holy See.
Our orphanages have been shut down. Our printing presses have been destroyed and I do not know where to find any. You have so persistently harried our press that it no longer exists. Is it not an outright scandal to say that the church is nowhere so free as here? The Dominicans have sent to press a holy booklet that I have spent 75,000 dinars to translate from French. When the booklet was printed only a few copies were turned out and they could not be obtained. How much wrong does this constitute? Is this the freedom of the press? The Society of St. Jerome has been disbanded and no longer functions. It is a grave offence for a nation to treat thus our major and oldest cultural institution. You have reproached me with the Caritas. Yet I say here that the Caritas has benefited greatly our people and your children as well.
Then there is the question of the catechism. You have decided in accordance with your doctrine that in the higher classes of our secondary schools catechism is a forbidden subject and in the lower classes it is an option. How could you give small children who are still minors such a choice as to decide themselves for catechism? How can you forbid those in higher grades, who already have the right to vote, freedom of choice as regards to catechism in schools?
Our Catholic hospitals run by nuns have so much trouble. Against the will and great majority of the people you have introduced civil marriage. Why did you not have a referendum on this matter? In the United States where the republic is more tolerant, this is acceptable. There the choice between civil and ecclesiastical marriage is up to the individual. We do not oppose civil control of marriage to a certain degree. Yet our people are indignant that they must go first to the civil authority and only after that to the church to be married. If you have asked for our counsel, we would have made a suggest...
Cardinal Stepinac: Fascist Saint?
29 Dec '05 07:012 edits
Back to Top