OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search

The text below might contain errors as it was reproduced by OCR software from the digitized originals,
also available as Scanned original in PDF.

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 36-1-190
TITLE:             The Socialist State and the Churches in Hungary
BY:                
DATE:              1976-12-14
COUNTRY:           Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT:  RAD Background Report/256
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary--1976-1989, Church and State, Cultural Policy

--- Begin ---

RADIO FREE EUROPE Research

This material was prepared for the use of the
editors and policy staff of Radio Free Europe.

RAD Background Report/ 256
(Hungary)
14 December 1976

THE SOCIALIST STATE AND THE CHURCHES IN HUNGARY
(A translation: With comment by the Hungarian Unit)

Summary and Introduction: Gyorgy Aczel, who has been a deputy prime
minister since March 1974 and is responsible for the supervision of
cultural affairs, is the author of an article on Church-state relations
that appeared in the October 1976 issue of Vilagossag, the materialistic
ideological monthly. In it he sketched the historical development of
relations between the Hungarian state and the Churches and set forth a
basis for the co-operation between them that he said was not only
possible but also necessary. Since Hungary's population is more than
60 per cent Catholic, the co-operation he has in mind is mainly that
between the state and the Roman Catholic Church. This has, he says,
been the most difficult area in which to achieve progress. Excerpts
from Aczel's article are translated below.

* * * 

Succinctly expressed, the relationship between the Churches and the state
could be characterized by saying that the representatives of the socialist state
consider that it accords with our social conditions and our political principles,
while the representatives of the Churches believe that it corresponds to the
interest of the Churches and their vocation.

In practice this means that:

1. The dissociation between the state and the Churches is complete;

2. There are both national and international problems in whose solution
the state and the Churches have an interest;

3. Relations between the Churches and the state are regulated by
agreements;

4. The open discussion of ideological problems and differences and
the many forms of dialogue are both clarifying and conducive to
socialist national unity;


5. The state respects the internal rules of the Churches, while they
in turn value and recognize the socialist society and state on the basis
of their own dogmas.

[page 2]

The relationship is influenced today by many national and international
historical experiences. The historical lessons learned during the development
of Hungary and other socialist countries influence the current activities in
our socialist state. The Churches too have learned from their experiences and
also from those of Churches of other countries in connection with changes in
social systems. In socialist Hungary, moreover, the relationship between the
state and the Churches is inevitably linked with the present world situation
and global ideological and political conditions.

The problems of the last quarter of the 20th century have forced responsible
people all over the world to search -- in face of dangers of a magnitude never
before experienced -- ever more carefully for conditions that will guarantee
peace and social progress in a world which people of differing Weitanschauungen
are living and working together. Although the two world wars originated
in Europe and colonialization, the slave trade, and many other manifestations
of inhumanity started out from there along their destructive roads -- despite
this, or possibly because of it, on no other continent have the thinkers
searched so feverishly for a common denominator that will somehow unite in action
peoples of different ethnic backgrounds, language, religions, and Weitanschauungen....

The desire for coexistence and co-operation has deep roots in European
tradition, but a consciousness of recurring dissension is also part of that
heritage. This continent has had to suffer the struggles between Rome and
Byzantium, the pope and the emperor, Catholicism and Protestantism, and also
much carnage among the nations when the banners of the armies engaged in
destroying each other were often blessed by the priests of the same Church.....

This duality is a historical fact, regardless of the reasons that may
explain it. In our Marxist opinion the roots of this dual tradition are to
be found in the struggle between the ruling and oppressed classes which
fundamentally influenced -- indeed, determined -- the world's perspectives,
including those of our continent. But it is also clear that, along with these
terrible catastrophes, there has always existed (and at times flourished)
an eagerness to prevent war and to guarantee peace....

A nation that oppresses another cannot be free. This fact cannot be
disregarded, and thus it follows that Europe could not be free and peaceful
while the European powers were: able to increase their wealth by exploiting
the cheap manpower and raw materials of certain non-European nations. Today,
however, the common guarantee of social progress and peaceful coexistence has
become possible -- even at the price of political struggle and ideological
debate -- and in the world of today a tolerable and decent life is possible.
This is a new development in history: the new forces that freed their countries
from capitalist exploitation are now exerting a massive influence on behalf of
progress....

Today the nations of the world face tasks that -- again despite ideological
divergences -- compel all well-meaning people to concentrate their forces on
bridging over political, social, and economic differences.

In Hungary it was 1945 that opened the road on which Marxists and believers,
democrats, socialists, and communists could progress together -- not only to
heal the wounds caused by the war but also to create a fundamentally new
society. Although there had already been a certain degree of co-operation
between the Marxists and some of the progressive clergy, we had difficulties
[in the early days] in making use of the new potential.

[page 3]

The explanation of this is to be found partly in our own historical past.
The spokesmen for the capitalist countries ... are inclined to forget that in the
case of Hungary the French (and indirectly the British) bourgeoisie's armies
offered support to the counterrevolution in defeating the first socialist regime,
the 1919 Hungarian Soviet, and in silencing Hungarian bourgeois radicalism and
democracy and forcing their representatives into exile. Thus not only was the
country's feudal structure ... maintained between the two world wars but, within
the extremely narrow framework of the then existing order, the potential for
social reform was stunted and progressive elements within the Churches were frustrated.

As a result of the twists of historical development, the leading forces
in the Catholic and to some extent in the Reformed Churches were the beneficiaries
of this situation: the Catholic Church, owned the largest estates in Hungary, and
the Churches ... supported the struggle against liberal democracy and communism...
In this kingdom without a reigning monarch their power and influence increased
between the two world wars because of their membership of the Upper House and
their rights dating back to the Middle Ages. Thanks to these, they influenced
the decisions of the state power itself. This makes the opposition of the primate,
Jozsef Mindszenty, more comprehensible. Referring to feudalistic traditions and
setting himself up as the leading public dignitary, he was equally opposed to
land reform liquidating the large estates, replacing the kingdom by a democratic
republic, and the separation of state and Church -- that is to say, to all
those steps that led to democratic change and that had been implemented by the
bourgeoisie in Western Europe long ago.... The leaders of the other Churches
also showed hostility to change, but not of the same dimension....

The struggle for democratic and social change sharpened the differences
prevailing among ordinary believers, and the Churches had to choose their own
earlier social attitudes and the sympathy of the majority of their followers.
Thanks to the influence exerted by the attitude of the great majority of the
churchgoing working people, the clergy who did not want to be cut off from their
flocks gradually gained the upper hand in the leadership; they considered the
well being of their congregations of such importance that they refused to
absolutes the ideological differences that divide the believer from the
non-believer. These more progressive Church leaders moved increasingly nearer to
the idea of socialist and democratic national unity.

In this field too Hungarian history has naturaly its positive traditions
The memory of progressive, indeed revolutionary, Christian movements could not
be obliterated from the consciousness of the Christian community by the more
retrograde leaders of that period....

After 1945 these memories started to revive. In addition the Churches thought
it expedient to pay some regard to the Hungarian historical antecedents of the
democratic ideas of religious forbearance and liberty of conscience....

These traditions helped the leaders of the Reformed Churches and the
Jewish denominations in 1948, followed by those of the Catholic Church in 1950,
to sign an agreement with the state within whose framework they recognized, on
a basis of the separation of Church and state, the legal order and Constitution
of the Hungarian People's Republic. Simultaneously the state guaranteed the
free profession of religion, and contributed to the creation of adequate living
conditions and social security for the clergy, the protection of religious
monuments, and the restoration of churches of historical value.

[page 4]

Parallel to this process of consolidation the Constitution of the
Hungarian People's Republic laid down the principles of religious freedom
and liberty of conscience....

These developments attracted international attention. It was not by
chance that the most significant figure in the theology of the Protestant
Church in the 20th century, Karl Barth, studied various aspects of the
situation of the Hungarian Protestants in the years following World War II....

We should not forget, however, that in the 1950s it was not possible to
make uninterrupted progress. The atmosphere of the cold war made the application
of the proper principles much more difficult. From the Catholic side the pressure
of the retrograde forces became clearly perceptible... At the same time
sectarian uncertainty, dogmatism, and the personality cult dominated Hungarian
political life. In such an atmosphere the methods of ideological confrontation
were often used in the political struggle against reaction and in matters affecting
religion.

These negative tendencies tended to strengthen each other and other factors, 
which led to the 1956 counterrevolution, also encumbered relations between state
and Church.

Following the counterrevolution the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party
and the revolutionary worker-peasant government started a vigorous struggle against
sectarian dogmatism and revisionism, and gradually restored the national and
international prestige of Hungary's socialist leadership. The party ... not
only declared but also insisted in practice during the process of building
socialism on the political unity of workers with different Weltanschauungen....
In this situation it became possible for persons with differing views of life
to work together toward shared objectives and against the dangers that threatened
all alike.

National unity created under such conditions does not have to mean a kind
of homogeneity: this is the dialectical unity of diverseness in which
ideologically, the hegemony belongs to Marxism-Leninism.... The representatives of Marxism
must therefore work and struggle continuously to make the tasks facing them 
understood, to debate then as widely as possible, to elaborate the true
alternatives in a scientific and creative spirit, and to implement political
decisions resulting from democratic debate.... There can be no real progress
here unless one succeeds in making use of the plans and proposals of all
society's creative forces in formulating economic, political, and cultural
objectives; unless one can direct -- in spite of the existence of differences
of Weltanschauung -- common activities designed for the good of every worker
in a socialist direction.

Let me quote Janos Kadar, First Secretary of the HSWP CC:
It is impossible to see into people's souls. But I do believe that in
our country there are quite a number of people with [genuine] religious
feelings. When we speak of joining forces and of socialist organizational
unity, we are thinking of them too: all of us must hold together. That is
is why I am glad that in connection with the 30th anniversary of the

[page 5]

liberation the Churches acted in a patriotic spirit and, in concord
with their own intentions and objectives, helped, this anniversary
to be worthily celebrated. Here the most effective support came not
from the professional politicians but from the ordinary believers. In
the past 30 years the scruples and inner conflicts over whether to side
with the political forces working for the benefit and happiness of the
people or with the Church have been dissolved. This is of great
significance from the viewpoint of our past and our future.

This policy was not developed because of some kind of tactical calculations
or in the furtherance of some sort of manipulative concept. The great objectives
in the development of Hungarian society, like the other great problems of the
world situation, postulate such co-operation. Indeed, rallying such forces is no
easy matter. The Marxist party is acting rightly if it truly seeks this practical
co-operation as unequivocally as it perseveres with its scientific, dialectical,
and materialist Weltanschauung. It seems that the leaders of the Hungarian
Churches are aware of the fact that the implementation of the great historical
objectives of society is not only for the good and happiness of their congregations
but also expedient for their own purposes. This is why the clergy are increasingly
providing active support for individual tasks in the building of socialism which
are placed above mere loyalty and the recognition of the status quo apparent in
the socialist social order. ... .

John XXIII made it clear that believers should co-operate with those
holding different ideas....

All this cautioned the clergy and the laity that the supernatural dimension
of faith does not mean that they can exempt themselves from the responsibility
of the "here and now"; that they must, while engaging in the struggle against
the inhuman world of exploitation and class oppression, opt for another, better,
and freer alternative; that they should choose in Hungary the road on which, not
without difficulty and some mistakes, we are shaping a more human life by building
a more developed socialist society. Or as the Church would put it: the believer
must practice both his love of God and his love of humanity. ...

The Marxists, starting from essential basic principles, are eager to see
this practical rallying of forces which spans over differences in Weltanschauung.
In our century it was Lenin who first represented the policy of a hand extended
to the ordinary believer (before Thorez and Togliatti) and who considered it
necessary to write an article on the "decent priest" who took a stand with the
movement and who protested against a policy that would result in the workers
being divided according to their faith in God and not their participation in strikes.
Janos Kadar's well-known paraphrase of a declaration from the New Testament was
also aimed at the general rallying of forces; those who are not against us are
with us, he said, and ordinary believers can therefore take their stand alongside
us. We do not agree with those who recognize someone as an ally of the Marxists
only if he agrees with them on every point -- including ideological ones.

The Marxist policy of alliance is constant because its supporters aim
in the ideological dialogue with their allies to understand both their partners
better and to ensure that the scientific Weltanschauung is propagated outside
the party as well as inside it.

[page 6]

The Marxists precisely because they respect the genuine convictions of
their allies, also consider it natural that the Churches should continue the
propagation of their religious views and consolidate the faith of their followers.
In the ideological sense, of course, there is no peaceful coexistence, which
means that we can never become reconciled to ideological indifference and its
demoralizing effect. Co-operation ensures that the confrontation of views is
sincere and arising from honest conviction. In addition it is a fact of experience
that the better the practical relations between the believers and the Marxists , the
more profound the dialogue on ideological questions will be.

Practice has shown that what is necessary is also possible: differences of
Weltanschauung do not exclude practical co-operation between believers and
nonbelievers.... Differences of outlook do not exclude the possibility of
the two groups agreeing on all those problems whose solution they consider
important for their well-being and social progress. Some might reply that
divergent ideological bases lead to debates not only in the philosophical but also
in the political and moral spheres. This is of course true, but -- as shown
by the experience gained in our country -- the debate is not then between enemies 
but between people who are progressing along a common road, who interchange their
views on a basis of diverging Weltanschauungen but start out from a common 
responsibility, and who are enriched by interchange.

Socialist democracy -- whose development the 11th HSWP Congress pushed
into the limelight -- demands a frank exchange of views, a readiness to convince
rather than to defeat the other side, in which each participant is enriched,
and which leads to the deepening of human relations, the improvement of
arguments, and -- last but not least -- a better foundation for the decisions
taken. This democracy postulates freedom of thought and therefore ensures the
possibility of personal and institutionalized religiousness and the freedom of faith. . .

The Marxist considers it permissible to debate ultimate ideological issues
through the propagation and confrontation of ideas and not by having recourse
to force. It is not tactical considerations that hold him back but the principled
viewpoint to which Engels referred in his debate with the Blanquists and
Duhring: atheism cannot be declared a "compulsory article of faith."

Ideological argument, and therefore the debate between scientific
materialism and the religious outlook, should be aligned with the struggle for
the realization of humanity's great historical objectives. This must be done 
with great circumspection, since the Churches themselves are now arguing about
the concrete content of those moral values that play a role in the regulation
of actions. It is not our task to answer the questions raised by the Churches.
Bu it is noteworthy that new features are emerging in their internal debates. . . .
We do not dispute -- indeed, we affirm in Engels's words -- that "it is
in Christianity that for the first time every person's negative equality before
God as a sinner was expressed, in the narrower sense the equality of all the
children saved by God through Christ's mercy and blood." But the Christians
themselves are aware of the fact that the elemental idea of equality was pushed
into the background as Christianity developed, while in the theory of modern
socialism the new demand for real earthly social equality was revived -- not in
the form that we are all the same but as a demand for freer evolution guaranteed
by the equality of various human potentials. Can a religious person be indifferent
toward this great objective if he wants to fulfill his human destiny?

[page 7]

The Gospels formulated the requirement that the believer must acknowledge
the state power. But in our socialist life the problem was not presented in
that form -- render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; instead it was
affirmed that the burden of active service to the community must be shouldered,
since the community is no longer an amalgam of oppressing and oppressed classes
and those state and social organizations that are active in the common cause
can and should be supported.

The assertion of the principle of liberty of conscience considerably assists
this activity in our country where a wide circle of citizens with differing
Weitanschauungen and attitudes work together in public life. We could quote the
names of religious men and women who hold important positions in the National
Assembly, in the county and village councils, in the Patriotic People's Front,
and in the National Peace Council. . . .

Hungarian conditions are naturally not free from problems and contradictions.
There are differences of views between the Churches and between the Churches and
the state, and it is natural that not all problems can be solved satisfactorily.
But patience on both sides helps us to bridge the gaps that exist.

This patience has to be shown at several levels -- for example, in relations
between people of different ideologies, religious and nonreligious, in daily
life.... These relations prove people's willingness to co-operate in dealing
with essential problems, if only because the overwhelming majority of people
in organizing their life and work, listen to the voice of genuine need and
the common interest.

The ideological basis of social action is naturally not a matter of
indifference to the Marxist, but he is aware that there are large numbers of
people in a socialist society (including the believers) who, although they agree
with the practice of socialism and support its building, do not accept its
Marxist theory. These people, thanks to their work and their attitude, can
and do enjoy the esteem of those around them and of the community as a whole.
The other plane of relations is that which exists between the state and the
various Churches as institutions. The democratic separation between the state
and the Churches asserted the sovereignty of the people's state in public life
and guaranteed to the Churches the undisturbed continuation of their devotional
work; it also excluded the possibility that anyone should be legally discriminated
against or given preferential treatment because of belonging (or not belonging)
to a religious denomination. Naturally there are always problems related to
the guarantee of conditions for the Churches' activities that must be discussed
from time to time between Churches and the state organizations, and opinions
can and do differ on their proper solution. Experience has shown that a
patient exchange of views accompanied by a mutual respect for principles
can lead to a solution of such problems in a way that benefits the community.

The Hungarian state and the Churches in Hungary have relations with the
great Church world centers. Since the agreement signed with the Vatican in 1964
relations between it and the Hungarian government have developed steadily
which has made it possible for all Hungarian ordinary and archiepiscopal sees
to be filled, including the Primacy in Esztergom. It has also led to the
reorganization of the Hungarian Papal Institute in Rome and the settlement of
other problems.

[page 8]

With sufficient tact and patience, and a willingness to achieve mutual
understanding, the Vatican's legitimate demands and the prerogatives of the
Hungarian People's Republic can be reconciled both in the personal sphere
and more generally elsewhere. For decades the Hungarian Protestant Churches
have participated successfully and fruitfully in the work of the World Council
of Churches, the Christian Peace Conference, and other international organizations
that also negotiate from time to time with the representatives of the Hungarian
government.

The third level of these relations is that of theory. As is well known,
we do not believe it possible to obliterate the frontiers between conflicting
ideologies, to compromise between Marxist materialism and the religious viewpoint.
Marxism's concept of ideology, however, is not limited to the sphere of
Weltanschauung in its narrower sense; it also includes the area of social
interests, of all those ideas that play an important role in regulating political,
economic, and cultural actions. These ideas and norms can be partly
present -- with different emphases and deviations from sound philosophical
foundations -- in other ideologies. The fact that the Marxist is opposed conceptually to the
religious way of thinking and ethics does not exclude the possibility of a
measure of agreement -- quite apart from that which exists on economic and
political problems -- on such moral imperatives as "thou shaft not kill" or
"thou shaft not steal." ... In our discussions we can come close to each
other in these questions of principle even if, naturally, we do not forget that
behind them lie diverging principles and a background of differing Weltanschauungen.

But this divergence in Weltanschauung is also worth careful consideration.
Marx wrote in his Introduction to the Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy that
"to eliminate religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to insist on
the true happiness of the people." ... We are able to state in accordance
with this Marxist truth that today, based on assumed or recognized interests,
an ever-widening circle of believers are demanding -- in co-operation with the
Marxists -- the people's true happiness. These people feel themselves closer to
the humanist atheism of the Marxists than the attitudes of the hypocritical
idealists and the sanctimonious. A conceptual clash obstructs a practical joining
of forces between Communists and Christians, and there is the danger that they
will in the meantime neglect the great and common historical objectives that are
determined by current national and international social conditions in the shadow
of the danger of thermonuclear war. . . .

To sum up: two things seem to be certain: one is that the Marxist and the
Christian have to answer the same questions in the same world, and if they are
to remove the same threat of war they have to give their opinions in their own
way on the same socialist and capitalist systems. The other is that Marxism and
religion will have to live next to each other for a long time to come. Even if
their philosophies are irreconcilable, the representatives of the two systems
can agree about those talks which -- even in the case of diverging
Weltanschauungen -- they must undertake for the people's happiness on behalf of humanity and in order
to extinguish the flames of hatred and war. Our experience has shown that this
is not only essential but possible, not only possible but essential.

- end -

  OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search