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: 36-1-20
TITLE:             Situation of the Roman Catholic Church in Hungary: Chances of a Dialogue
BY:                
DATE:              1976-1-23
COUNTRY:           Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT:  RAD Background Report/25
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary--1976-1989, Church and State

--- 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/25
(Hungary)
23 January 1976

SITUATION OF THE ROMAN CATHILOC CHURCH IN HUNGARY:
CHANCES OF A DIALOGUE
(A Translation with Comment by the Hungarian Unit)

Summary and Introduction: The two articles from which excerpts
are translated below appeared in the April and November 1975
issues of Vigilia, the monthly of the Hungarian Catholic Action
organization.

The author, Bishop Jozsef Cserhati (b. 1914), has been
residential bishop of the diocese of Pecs in south Hungary since
January 1969 and secretary of the Bench of Bishops since 1972. He
attends Church-state talks at the highest levels and is known
as an advocate of co-operation with the secular authorities.
Cserhati has written several works on theology and numerous
articles on the position of the Church in the present age.

The title of the first of his two Vigilia articles is
"Religious Attitudes in Hungary After Thirty Years" and, as the
wording suggests, it was written to mark the 30th anniversary of
the end of World War II and the "liberation." It begins with a
review of the circumstances in which the war ended and goes on
to discuss the consequences of secularization; here,
surprisingly enough, he expresses no regret that the state has reduced
the communication media remaining in the hands of the Church
to a minimum. The translation below starts with his comments
on this point.

* * *

. . . The Church has had to acknowledge that the new society does not
wish to use its direct support in building the new order, and to accept that
the outward bases of its power have been impaired or lost -- and indeed that
these, as well as its material possessions, belong to the masses. The state
has preferred to retain in its own hands the direction of the masses in its
work of rebuilding and therefore has not allowed the old societies and
institutions to continue to operate. It has nationalized the schools and has
reduced the facilities for mass communication remaining in the hands of the
Church -- the press and book publishing -- to a minimum.

The results of secularization, a trend that has been making itself felt
for several centuries, became more and more evident in our country too,

[page 2]

although the pace of its advance here was slower; and liberalism,
indifferentism, and the loosening of the framework of guidance set up by the Church
became obvious here, as they were doing everywhere else in Europe.

The problem of secularization was subjected to penetrative analysis in
the Third Synod held in Rome in 1974. Its nature is constant throughout the
world, although its manifestations vary from country to country. In essence
it amounts to a disintegration of the reality grasped by faith and attained
and gauged by human intelligence. The synod stated that this could obviously
present a great danger to faith, but could simultaneously make possible the
perception of immeasurable positive realities and provide a new potential for
immersion in faith and the grasping of reality through faith. It has often
been said that the true nature of secularization in a scriptural and
theological sense is as old as Christianity. God, manifesting Himself in the Old and
the New Testaments, helps mankind, informs mankind, and reveals Himself and
His plans to mankind. Through this developed the spiritual process in
history and the spread of Christianity all over the world started to reduce
mankind's sense of helplessness in face of the forces of nature and became
instrumental in delivering mankind from the grip of sorcery and mythology. Two
main purposes can be identified in every secularization process: mankind
wants to get rid of fear and uncertainty and to rise above social compulsions,
while at the same time it strives for security and stable living conditions
-- in a word, for happiness.

It is very important to elucidate the concept of secularization, which
is much talked of today. As a process or intellectual trend, secularization
occurs simultaneously with the endeavor to separate various sectors of life
from religion or from religious control. Turning toward the world and
thinking of this kind do not in themselves mean secession from God, but are simply
a sign of a healthy interest in the world. It certainly does not follow that
as a consequence man is unsatisfied by or disobedient to God. It is more a
question of man's thinking and the world of action being nurtured primarily
from the individual consciousness and consciences. Modern man has the
feeling that life is summoning him continuously to adopt a personal attitude and
to make personal decisions. He has to shape his fate by himself alone. It
is in this sense that we speak today of immanent anthropology, humanistic
divinity, and "political theology." The hallmarks of secular thinking are
the empirical or experimental We1tanschauung and an acknowledgment of logical
and rational certitude as the criterion of truth. We rely on our own
intellects and believe that we must make our moral decisions on the basis of our
personal knowledge and our own judgment. Many of today's slogans are based
on this way of thinking: society has to be liberated from religious influence,
the state leadership has no use for religious norms, and the diversity of
religious Weltanschauungen has to be acknowledged. The separation of Church
and state, which the Church accepts in principle, must be included here too.

Any Church that holds a synod to determine the place and role of the
Church in the modern world cannot disregard the consequences of
secularization. Nothing would be more tragic than for the Church to misjudge the world
and its own role in it. Modern man cannot be looked at with the eyes and the
specific theology of the Middle Ages. Phenomena and factors unfavorable to
religion and the Church -- or indeed hostile to them -- have to be
acknowledged; these exist and are obvious and have a role in shaping man's life. A
knowledge of the concept and process of secularization helps to provide an
understanding of ideas that are decisive factors in the development of the
Hungarian Church's place in society.

[page 3]

If we are to see our specific Hungarian situation clearly, we must do
what was done by the Third Synod in Rome: with the help of directions
received from the council, it prepared a panoramic account of the Church today
and an analysis of secularization. The attitude often adopted in the West
-- that secularization in Hungary was produced or accelerated by outside,
chiefly political factors -- is mistaken. The main move toward
secularization in Hungary is more than 100. years old: it has shown itself and made
progress within the various social strata in different forms.

Any attempt to follow the development of Hungarian Church attitudes from
1945 to our own day in its various phases must start with the points discussed
above as a background. We begin with a Church consciously aware that it
stands on historical ground, that its existence and activity are guaranteed
by constitutional rights, and that this guarantee is reinforced by an ability
to identify itself with the state because it is the thousand-year-old Church
of Royal Hungary. Privileges and rights went along with this status: it was
compulsory to belong to one of the religions or denominations approved by the
state, religious instruction was mandatory, etc. It would be difficult to
establish the exact extent to which, behind all this, secularization was
penetrating and loosening up old ties, weakening religious conviction, and
transferring respect for religious life to another scale of values in the
masses, in the groups, and among individuals. Indifference and a sense of
exhaustion did not make their appearance suddenly and unexpectedly in 19455
they were already familiar. But it is also true that after the conclusion
of World War II secularization has continued and spread with accelerated force.

Today the Church still has its "masses," even if not in the old sense.
We find large numbers of practicing believers among them, but the so-called
Sunday and feast day Mass-goers can also be counted, as can the "occasional
Christians," and so on down to those sympathizers who still pay their Church
contributions; taken together, they make a colorful picture. We still have
many firm believers. But what about those who have become completely
estranged from the Church? Including the young people, there are some two
million of them. Youth's withdrawal from the Church and its rapidly growing
apathy toward religion are above the world average, but from the moral
viewpoint it seems that Hungary's young people are still saner than those in the
Western countries. ...

* * *

Cserhati goes on to analyze the people's democracy, socialist
society, and socialist development. He examines the situation
of the Hungarian faithful, who he says are displaying a
growing aversion to state interference in Church affairs. His views
here seem too optimistic and it is doubtful whether they are
borne out by the existing situation.

* * *

In the early days believers had difficulty in understanding the
separation of Church and state, the latter's occasional vigorous interventions, and
the fact that Church activities were the subject of state decrees. Later,
however, they became increasingly aware of the new realities and always
welcomed agreements between Church and state if these represented real progress.
I am speaking here of good Church members, who, like the clergy, were from

[page 4]

the very beginning anxious not to become reactionaries, either politically,
economically, or socially. The Church as a whole developed a positive
attitude toward the social reconstruction of the nation and to the great plans
that played such a part in its new economic system.

Much greater were the surges of reaction coming from organizations
professing other ideologies, or from those whose actions, measures, or groundless
misuse of authority suggested to many believers that in the eyes of such
persons the faithful could only be second-class citizens because of their
religious affiliations. Unfortunately there were also cases of administrative
abuses in the lower levels of the administration. Statements of policy, some
from the highest levels, generally discountenanced such abuses, and the
declaration of the first secretary of the HSWP during the recent elections and its
repetition soon afterward dispersed many doubts and uncertainties and
reinstated confidence and the conviction that believers can practice their
religion, attend church, and teach the faith to their children or register them
freely for religious instruction in the schools and Sunday schools.

Accuracy and openness require us to admit that the effect of these
negative manifestations was that the opposition of others was felt to be a threat,
and believers were above all concerned for their children. They sensed that
their religious beliefs set them apart from others, that their intellectual
and material progress was being obstructed, and even that it had become
difficult for them to decide freely on the future of the schooling and higher
education of their children. There is no doubt that in recent times much has
been done to stop abuses and remedy deficiencies. We all trust that the
promised -- and increasingly visible -- socialist democracy will have its
effects in this field too; in its unity it tries to weld together all the
members of the nation, and in this striving for unity the shared heritage of
mankind will be powerful enough to minimize the disagreements deriving from
divergencies of belief. Today we can say that relations in general are good,
despite the fact that new questions and problems can always arise between the
Church and the state which then have to be resolved.

The fundamental aim of the socialist state is to elevate and to fulfill
people; consequently our followers too regard the country's internal climate as
sound. At the same time they are aware that from the Weltanschauung viewpoint
we are living in a pluralistic society. An ideological struggle is taking place,
and even if the ideologies cannot be reconciled their representatives can
unite in the interests of the great objectives they have in common. If
everyone is to become the independent and creative master of his own life, and if
communal objectives are to be achieved, people must tolerate and respect each
other. Opposed ideologies must not try to suppress each other but, by
understanding and respecting each other, must stand in the same ranks -- the ranks
of common action. Our followers are aware, in accordance with the teachings
of Christ, that Christian life is authentic only when expressed in action and
not in words only. We have to bear witness if our creed is to have value and
validity; we have to understand others, to help them struggle jointly toward
a shared prosperity -- that is the second half of the main commandment in
Christian teaching.

It has been repeatedly declared by the state that existing differences of
Weltanschauung cannot be resolved; indeed the secular authorities say that
the discrepancies between scientific Marxism-Laninism and the religious
outlook -- that is to say, the idealistic Weltanschauung -- are irreconcilable

[page 5]

and insurmountable. When we speak of the good relations between the state
and the Church we have to remember that this relation and attitude contain
certain dialectical similarities and contradictions. Thus the state, although
it considers religion to be a private matter, expects believers to
participate in the building of socialist society. Here it sees the religious
Weltanschauung as no obstacle -- indeed, the state guarantees material support
and freedom of scope for the Church to propagate its faith and Christian
moral principles. At the same time the state does everything in its power to
shape the people's minds ideologically. . . .

* * *

Cserhati then deals at considerable length with the Second
Vatican Council of 1965. He expresses the conviction that the
teachings of that council received a stronger reflection in
Hungary than in many other countries. Today the Church is the
focal point of a consciousness that wishes to serve and not to
rule. What is decisive is the fact of the redemption made
possible through Christ and not the institution of the Church or
its legitimacy and recognition by outsiders. The institutional
nature of the Church is undeniable and is enshrined in dogma,
but today the emphasis within the Church falls on spiritual
life and the life of grace.

* * *

It is difficult to determine exactly where the Hungarian Church now
stands and where it is going at the present moment and at the current stage
of its development and reorganization. Some believe that in our country the
Church has passed beyond the phase of stagnating in conservatism and has
become moderately progressive. Naturally the traditionalists, here as
everywhere, long for the return of the old, securely settled Church living within
the comfort of its own organization. These people will continue to be the
butts of Marxist religious criticism, and those who believe that the Church
does not need to be reformed and that it is capable of fulfilling the demands
of today within its old framework and pastoral organization have not heard
what the council was telling them. The much-repeated accusation that in our
country the Marxists do not want a reformed Church because they can deal more
easily with a Church encumbered with the old feudal ballast is simply not
true. Our socialist state can talk comfortably with Christians who are
abreast of the spirit of the age and its demands.

The Church hierarchy is aware of how much more it has still to do to
propagate the teachings of the council. Indeed, very little has been done
so far. The bishops are increasing their efforts to raise the general
spiritual and mental level of the clergy to an adequate standard and to ensure
that they have a more up-to-date perception and critical erudition. The
revision of the old pastoral methods will become increasingly necessary to match
the new educational system introduced in the seminaries, and our religious
textbooks must be rewritten and polished up not once but many times. About
40 to 50 per cent of the Hungarian clergy have begun to understand the
intentions of the council and many of them are beginning to examine the nature of
that epochal event in the life of Church. Compared to what preceded it we
can speak in general terms of an improvement in standards, although it
cannot be denied that in many spheres a stiffening and deficiency of quality are
perceptible.

[page 6]

In recent times the Hungarian clergy has stood its ground commendably
both in its sense of vocation and in its work. Since the end of the war
approximately 200 priests (excluding monks) have left the service of the
dioceses and the number of priests has dropped to about one third of what it was.
The bishops and the hierarchy cannot be accused of being too orthodox -- a
point on which they themselves insist repeatedly both at home and abroad. As
for vague talk and accusations against the bishops, this is rather a matter
of fashion or of following fashion: in difficult times it is easy to blame
even the unpleasantness of the storm on the pilot. . . .

* * * * *

The Second Article

The title of Cserhati's second article is "The Dialogue of the
Church in Hungary." He regarded it as a continuation of his
first article, which evoked a wide response -- favorable and
otherwise -- in Hungary and abroad.

Cserhati starts by analyzing pluralism as a phenomenon of our
age. Looking to the future he claims that more could be done
to encourage mutual understanding. Catholics should be aware
of the aims of socialism and more opportunities should be
created for the masses to acquaint themselves with the positive
values of the Church, Christianity, and religion as a whole.

The author devotes a lot of space to the principle of
coexistence, which he considers a necessary feature of the present age.
He finds it difficult to answer the question of whether
Christian-Marxist coexistence is possible. On the level of principle the
degree of synthesis attainable can never amount to consolidation,
but the removal of practical obstacles is a feasible aim. It is
historically necessary, as well as an inexorable law of life,
that we should not murder each other or make the human race
disappear from the face of the earth; we must love each other in
principle and accept the facts of human nature in practice. It
is mistaken in many respects, says Cserhati, and unhelpful to
the future to speak in oversimplified terms about a capitalist,
feudal, and clerical Church or of a revolutionary state that
persecutes the individual for the sake of the collective and
tends toward totalitarianism. The only principle to be used in
judging the values in question is this: what are we worth as
human beings and what are we doing for our fellow men?

Any state that seeks to liberate its people and to promote their
development must -- through its internal order and
security -- ensure for believers the right to lead a religious life and to
do so not merely on grounds of constitutional legality. The
Church for its part must "create new conditions" in order to be
able to carry on a dialogue that will also help the state to
achieve its goals.

Dealing specifically with the dialogue between Church and state,
Bishop Cserhati states that dialogue is a fundamental task for
the present age and must continue.

* * *

[page 7]

. . . Dialogue is the path leading to the implementation of coexistence,
its servant and activator. . . .

We must look for the basis of this dialogue in the inevitable
recognition of the fact of coexistence and the evolution of the potentialities
concealed in it. In my view, coexistence is today being presented to us
philosophically and ethically as a novelty because the whole of humanity has
reached a new phase in its history and development, and is heading toward a
new destination. We can also say that it is ascending to new human and humane
heights -- the coming into being of the human community, the great human
family. To this end it is essential to take account of all human values and
the mobilization of all human values. . . .

Those engaged in a dialogue must inevitably acknowledge the reality of
pluralism as well as that of coexistence, for pluralism is a historical
imperative. Pluralism, even if it is a concomitant of human contingency and
limitation, is not a mark of incompleteness but stands for many hitherto
unsuspected values: not only do equalities develop into diversities, but what
is new is created out of these diversities. . . .

In this view coexistence as a potentiality and dialogue as a solution
are the proper tasks of humanity today.

The Christian Weltanschauung, the basis of which is transcendence, the
belief in a personal God and the immortality of the soul, cannot be compared
as a theoretical system with the doctrines of Marxism-Leninism ...in which
the primary reality is the material world and cognition is derived from
experience and the principles of action stemming from it. We have moved a long
way from the fundamental question: we recognize that we can never bridge the
two We11anschauungen theoretically. Opposites remain opposites, and here the
pluralist principle comes into its own. . . .

The inner dynamics of today's historical transformation are expressed
most plastically in the social science of Marxism; it presents us with the
fact of the revolution and the liberation of man as virtually a matter of
determinism. Where Marxism appears in the guise of a shaper of society, it
tries to draw everyone into this current with a cosmic-ethical compulsion.
Maybe this tendency lies at the root of the accusation that Marxism curtails
freedom. If socialist man aims to augment the sum of human happiness through
the revolution and shared work, Marxism also appeals to ethical man with the
demand that he do his best for the community. This desideratum could have
never been contested by a person with an honest attitude, and especially not
by a Christian -- although Marxist anthropology does not base itself on
personal freedom and responsibility but on revolutionary action by the community.


One question remains open: is it possible to live mentally and
psychologically in a perpetual revolution, or is it possible to revolutionize all
mankind and permeate it with a socialist consciousness that will enable men
to concern themselves with the cause of the community and not with their own
interests? According to Marxism, the ethical objective of the revolution
consists of making men selfless. Where the revolution is complete and where
outwardly there is nothing more to fight for directly, the direct personal
basis of the much talked of but often absent socialist consciousness should
perhaps be morally established. It would then be identical with a direct
ethical target and in this way the two interpretations can be brought closer
to each other. . . .

[page 8]

One of the difficulties in the dialogue between Christianity and Marxism
undoubtedly springs from their differing interpretations of the concept of
freedom. The difference here is so typical that it is striking in many
respects; for example, if we speak of communal consciousness and responsibility
in the traditional Christian sense, this is quite different from what Marxism
means when it talks of the socialist consciousness. . . .

After many circumlocutions on points of principle, we must declare
clearly on behalf of the Church what we, the laity and the priesthood alike,
expect from the continuation and intensification of the dialogue in our
country. . . .

In partnership or co-operation the Church has to pay especial heed to
three points in the present "engagement": first, it must maintain the essence
of its own reality and values; secondly, it must not identify itself with
communism or socialism as historical materialsim; thirdly, it must reserve
the right to proclaim and expound its opinions on ethical questions.

It goes without saying that the Church will accept and nurture
coexistence in our country without abandoning its own mission and that it cannot
accept historical materialism as a Weltanschauung. On the other hand, when
we turn to the question of the ethical and political principles of
socialism's system of society-building and its new economic structure, we must
make the following point: we wish to help with this task, because practical
measures that benefit human development and society -- labor organization,
cultural education, laws passed to guarantee the improvement of human life,
and appeals to join forces -- are not against Christian ethics and man's
eternal and supernatural objective. . . .

In the dialectical dualism outlined above the Church has to do

everything in its power to perform the spiritual mission conferred on it by God
and implemented in Christ. It must achieve its potential and insist on

being allowed to profess and propagate its teachings freely in its churches
and in the schools open to religious instruction; and indeed it is

guaranteed in the Constitution that it may carry out its religious exercises with
proper dignity and to the satisfaction of its congregations, and enjoy

freedom of religious instruction for the young in its churches. When the Church
continues its dialogue with the state to ensure the freedom to carry out this
religious and ecclesiastic mission, it finds itself historically on a road
which it must follow because of the historical compulsion of the trend toward
human freedom. In accordance with the principle of pluralism the Church

cannot contest the freedom and human values of those who are not religious and
who do not wish to be members of the Church. The road of human liberation
must be the road of common freedom, and we therefore trust in the democracy
that forms, with constitutional backing, the foundations and backbone of the
socialist state: the dignity of the human personality, human equality, and
independence. ...



The supposition that they must defend themselves continuously is the
regime's difficulty. By this we do not mean to assert that either Marxism
or the Catholic Church should give up teaching principles or truths, but we
are searching in the name of millions for a solution under which values
receive recognition for their power of creating and shaping reality. Even
a penetrative Marxist thinker cannot deny the life-shaping force of religion.
Any person firm in his faith looks for respect for his moral convictions and

[page 9]

an acknowledgment that he -- in the spirit of Christ's willingness to make
sacrifices -- contributes both his work and his own sacrifices for others,
for his fellow men, and for the whole of humanity. We are all aware of the
fact that the Church, by shouldering the burden of cultivating this dialogue
over the past 30 years, has earned much respect; we defended the virtues of
the great change that has taken place in our country even although (like the
outspoken Marxist) we were continually searching for more truth, and noting
mistakes and omissions. We stressed the good will of the builders of
socialism, the leaders of our State, and the wide strata of the masses and their
strivings for ethical purity. We helped the new Hungarian state to take
roots in the heart of the Hungarian people. While readily accepting
responsibilities and being willing to help, we were unable to ignore the mistakes,
the rejections, and the spiteful and suspicious judgments to which we were
subjected when individuals or smaller groups tried, often using methods that
were not quite democratic, to upset our dialogue. We ask for the recognition
of our moral volitions, for the continuance of the recognition of the
freedoms belonging to the essence of the Church; we ask too that the state
should have the courage to put its confidence in the Church which, in the
aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, wishes to serve in all lands the
new man and the new society. (066)

- End -

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