There is no rest, as long as it lasts... establishing the principles of the Church's life in civil society. The NGO "Atlantska Initiative" did the research "Orthodox Church, Montenegro and the Serbian World" signed by the authors Morrison and Garčević. And then one of them (Prof. Vesko Garčević) gave it interview "Voice of America", so all of this has become a public matter that calls for reading, and if anyone likes - for commenting.
1. One of Garčević's initial theses, which proves the specific and one would say negative influence of the Church (specifically - SPC) in Montenegrin society, states that some local "parties incorporate" segments of church ideology (I would say - teachings) "into their political activities" as would receive the support of the Church, and through the Church, the support of believing citizens. If there were no Christian Democratic Union in Germany; Union of Christian Democrats and Center in Italy; Croatian Christian Democratic Party in Croatia (all EU countries) and so many "popular" and "conservative" parties throughout Europe that promote "conservative politics based on Christian cultural values" (from the statute of the Norwegian Conservative Party, for example), one would think that Mr. Garčević "discovered America" in the middle of Montenegro. In this way, knowing (both he and we) that this is a Euro-Atlantic trend, it remains to (not) believe that this study wants to brand Orthodoxy as a less valuable spirituality, or some lower religious Christian option compared to so many others on our continent. , which are obviously involved in European politics.
2. Furthermore, in his answers to the questions of "Voice of America" prof. Garčević will say that the status of the SPC in Montenegro was not defined for a long time (!) which, according to him, turned the same Church into a "special factor that did not depend on the state of Montenegro".
My research question is: did this "undefined status" characterize only the Serbian Orthodox Church, or other religious communities in Montenegro? If the professor is referring only to the SPC, then it seems to me that it is not about a special (undefined) status of the Church, but on the contrary - about some special intentions towards the Church that he suggests to the state. Namely, all religious communities in socialist Montenegro were governed by one and the same law from 1977, so they were all equally (un)defined. In the 21st century, they all equally needed a new law. At the same time, everyone needed a contract with the state. Why would an atheistic state ideology such as SFRY, or a civil and multi-confessional one like today's Montenegro, seek to define any special status for the SPC, if other churches and religious communities would not have such a status? Or prof. Garčević, like the former DPS, is asking for two arsins: one for the SPC, and the other for the others.
And so he comes into contradiction when he says that the SPC in Montenegro "is on the one hand a foreign body, and on the other deeply incorporated into the being of the Montenegrin nation, state and citizens". What are these two sides, if we are talking about the one and only state of Montenegro? Of course, within Montenegrin society there are many "sides" of these or those traditions, customs, climate, mentality and identity, but if I understood the author correctly, he acts from the position of the interests and values of the civil state. And there can and must be only one.
If there is such a one, and if it is civil, where did some "foreign bodies" come from in it in the form of churches that have their (century-old) centers outside its borders (in the Patriarchate of Pec, in Belgrade or in Rome)? The legal status of the SPC as a Church "which is from Serbia and functions in Montenegro" could only be formulated at some congress of the extremely anti-church DPS, but not in the positive regulations of the state of Montenegro, which recognizes this Church, and always has recognized as an authentic and autochthonous Church of the citizens of Montenegro and their ancestors.
It seems that our professor is not dealing here with law, nor with the principles of democracy, but rather with mundane nationalist divisions.
3. Answering a question from "Voice of America", which contains a remark that Montenegro is a secular state, Garčević ignores that remark and talks about symbiosis or "synchronized action of the state and the church" in Russia and Serbia. And with an intonation that points to a desirable standard. Now I wonder if the "Atlantic Initiative" should interpret and indicate Russian or Serbian standards for us? And is Garčević advocating the thesis that constitutional secularism (which certainly does not exclude cooperation between church and state) imposes some kind of symbiosis between them? If he claims to impose, I wonder if that is a medieval or a modern political standard?
4. Garčević further accuses the SPC of the war in the SFRY, repeating the thesis from last year's statement by Đukanović and thus suggests to us the thought that perhaps he is the intellectual inspirer of these failures and embarrassments of the outgoing president. It was once a metropolis answered Đukanović, I would not waste any more words on that topic. However, here SPC complains that it has its own views on historical events. She is criticized for the fact that, in addition to her evangelical openness to the other and the new, she preserves the traditional view of the Montenegrin identity, which is inseparable from the Serbian one, and which at the same time respects the Montenegrin national uniqueness. This is the view shared by a significant number of Montenegrin citizens. Perhaps this is because this was the view and teaching of the Church in Montenegro centuries before 1918. and therefore the view of the ancestors of the current citizens, who always held to such an opinion of the Church. And - where is the problem? Certain political parties inherit their narrative from this and that tradition. Is the "Atlantic Initiative" in fact an initiative against the local folk tradition?
5. I also note that "AI" did not announce itself when high state awards were given to writers who wrote ugly and disparaging things about the Church and the Serbian identity in Montenegro. If then and in that they did not recognize the symbiosis of the state and the forces that work against religious freedom and civil rights, I wonder what this surgery means now that combines the incompatible: the literary work of the bishop's brother with the role and teachings of the Church itself? If harsh language towards dissidents is already a well-established criterion for adorning the Montenegrin literary order long before Milutin Mićović, then we can only conclude that the "brother of the bishop" from Nikšić was an obstacle for him to receive the award earlier, before some writers of a similar genre.
6. I think that it is not appropriate for a professor to recycle the story about how "in the modern civil state, the Government was negotiated in Ostrog". The much-talked-about meeting of the politicians of the new parliamentary majority, which none of its actors hide, took place in September 2020. At that time, there were not even the slightest indications of the composition and concept of the Government, which was agreed upon in October and elected only in December of the same year. So what was the topic - curious "scientists" ask? Do the critics of that meeting realize that the Church wanted to hear, from everyone and in one place, how they think they should solve the problem of the disputed law, now in the new convocation of the legislative assembly?
Anyway, the first feature of the civil state, which is supposedly taken care of by prof. Garčević, is the rule of law. That's why I ask, according to which law it is forbidden for people to meet informally, freely and friendly anywhere, including in a monastery? After August 30, 2020, was any Government session held in the monastery? Was the mandate given to Krivokapić by the abbot of the monastery or by President Đukanović? Has a law been passed that stipulates that every Montenegrin government has to negotiate in the monastery? Or, let's put it this way: what does Biden, the president of all US citizens, do every Sunday in church at mass? Why do he, and all his predecessors, take the oath that they will be "presidents of all citizens" with their hand on the Bible? What does the King of Great Britain do in the position of guardian of the Anglican Church? Why did Boris Johnson, the other day, also swear on the Bible? And all that in a modern civil state? That is, in the flagship states of the Euro-Atlantic political association.
In other words, according to AI, is the SPC some kind of lower or less valuable spiritual institution than the Roman Catholic and Anglican ones? Are fewer wars, or less violence and injustice in wars, started under the leadership of leaders who go to Roman Catholic or Anglican temples compared to politicians who attend Orthodox services? And is it, therefore, about the churches as the culprits of the war, or about the politicians who, occasionally, drop by the churches? And what is the story of the "Atlantic Initiative" and prof. Garcevic?
I have already written about Habermas and his post-secular observations. But let's change the book and broaden the horizon. To those interested, I recommend the consideration of religion and secular society by the North Atlantic, more precisely Canadian, philosopher Charles Taylor, who in his works "The Age of Secularization" and "The Diseases of the Modern Age", offers some visions that are alternative to the ossified beliefs that modern civil society must suppress the church and religion from its horizon if he wants to progress. On the contrary.
If we do not need an institutional connection between the Church and the state, we need a free coexistence of church and political topics in the public space, and mutual inspiration, according to the above-explained, obviously European, standards.
Bonus video:
