Katholische Kirche und Ustaša-Herrschaft 1941-1944
The Catholic Church in the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1944

Summary/Abstract: The Independent State of Croatia was established from the ruins of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after the invasion of the German Wehrmacht on 6 April 1941. Recent research has focused on the role of the Catholic Church in wartime Croatia, while the state’s other religious communities – the Orthodox Church, Protestants and Muslims – have not yet been studied. Croatian historians have focused predominantly on Zagreb Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac. Stepinac was certainly the most active Croatian Church prelate. This was due, however, to the fact that from summer 1941 the expansion of war operations prohibited the other Croatian bishops from personally taking part in the work of the Croatian Bishops’ Conference. Accordingly, Archbishop Stepinac had to act as their porte-parole and make decisions on their behalf. His person has provoked discorded, contradictory judgments. Was he a collaborator of the fascist Ustaša-regime, as alleged by communist historians, or did he disassociate himself from the regime in time and protest against its crimes despite the risks of doing so? Post-communist Croatian ecclesiastical history points out Archbishop Stepinac’s numerous protests and interventions in favour of the victims of the Ustaša-regime. His beatification (in 1998) and the current canonization process have been cited as the most impressive evidence of the Archbishop’s correct behaviour despite all the temptations. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Croatia today is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Archbishop Stepinac’s answer to the specific challenges of the Ustaša regime was correct. This text takes stock of archival sources not yet or not completely consulted by the researchers. These new sources allow for a more distinctive answer to questions about the conduct of the Catholic Church under the Ustaša-regime, because they facilitate research on the behavior of the pastoral clergy. It is the aim of this study to show that the archive sources must be re-evaluated following the principles of „exegesis,“ but not of eisegesis, so that they may be read and perceived independently from personal wishes or frustrations.

• Details
• Contents