When the liturgy is served on Lazarus Saturday, April 27, the clergy of the Zvornik-Tuzlan eparchy will not mention the name of Vasilij Kachavenda for the first time, after 35 years. With the decision of the Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) "to accept the resignation of the bishop of Zvornik-Tuzlan", as the official statement of this church body reads, and to appoint Bishop Jefrem from Banja Luka as the administrator of the Diocese until the May Assembly, one of the more painful chapters in the recent history of the Church comes to an end. In recent weeks, videos have appeared in the media that show Bishop Kachavenda in a light, to say the least, unworthy of an archbishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The indignation of both the lay public and a large part of the clergy reached a point where it was no longer (was) possible to behave
as if nothing had happened. For years, there were only whispers about Bishop Vasilij Kachavenda in church circles. He was considered one of the "most powerful" bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the political and other connections he maintained contributed to his inviolability. As "Vreme" already wrote, after Patriarch Irinej was elected, the case of Vasilli Kachavenda was mentioned as a key one that will show whether the Church with the new patriarch at the head is able to solve the accumulated problems in its backyard.
INSIDE THE CHURCH: As "Vreme" learns, in the middle of last year, three students of the Cetinje Theological Seminary complained to their clergy about Bishop Kačavenda, whose Diocese they belonged to. The accusations were terrible, and the students were scared. They claimed that the bishop sexually assaulted them and was blackmailing them because they did not agree to his offers. The administration of the Cetinje seminary, fearing for its students, protected the identity of the three boys. Their statements were delivered to the Synod in full, but without mentioning their names. The names were hidden in the safe, and under the statements that were found in the Synod were the signatures of the rector of the Cetinje seminary, the students' clergy and their class teacher. Great support was also provided by the metropolitan of Montenegrin-coast Amfilohije.
Thus, for the first time, the silence about Bishop Vasilija Kachavenda was broken within the church walls.
An interlocutor of "Vremena" close to the Parliament points out that it was terrible when the priests realized that Bishop Kachavenda, having learned that several students from his diocese had spoken, could not even guess which students they were talking about. Namely, at that moment, 12 students from the Diocese of Zvornik-Tuzla are attending the Cetinje seminary. In other words, the mentioned three were obviously not the only ones with such an experience.
The whole case gets its continuation in the Synod. In the discussion about Bishop Kachavendi, which was also attended by some bishops who are not members of that church body, several bishops were harsh and insisted that one must persevere and that things should no longer be pushed under the carpet. They demanded that Bishop Kachavenda immediately retire or be relieved of his duties. On the other hand, another powerful bishop, Bishop Irinej of Bačka, insisted that the decision be postponed, according to the information obtained by "Vreme". Although some websites that represent the pro-Artemio trend see Bishop Bački as the main culprit for the "persecution of the innocent bishop" Kačavenda, it seems that the role of Bishop Irinej Bulović was the opposite. Namely, in church circles he is mentioned as one of the main, if not the main, reasons why things did not move faster and Kachavenda was given a deadline of May.
Last November, pressed by accusations and concrete evidence, the then bishop of Zvornik-Tuzla was forced to resign. The official explanation was that he was retiring due to illness, but that he was asked to stay in Bijeljina until May. The agreement was that he would leave, without much fuss, until the session of the Parliament. Just as certain bishops believed that the archbishop who they believe has a long "list of sins" should be dealt with more harshly, so Bishop Kachavenda, while packing, apparently thought that the departure he reluctantly announced could still be postponed. He influenced that in the Diocese of Zvornik-Tuzla the clergy "spontaneously" launched a petition to keep their bishop. Almost all the priests were on the petition, some certainly pressed by concern for themselves, personal gain or even true loyalty to the bishop, and some out of sheer fear. This fear is hardly surprising. Quite simply, trust in the church leadership has been shaken in many ways by silence and maintenance status quo. The clergy, based on previous experience, could conclude that their bishop would remain where he was, and that they would be collateral damage. However, three diocesan priests did not put their signature. As "Vreme" learns, one of the mentioned three unsigned spoke on April 22 before the Synod. The Synod had previously had the opportunity to review material, recordings and documents which, by all accounts, pointed to the guilt of their colleague. Now a living word was heard, coming from someone who has known Bishop Kachavenda for years. According to the interlocutors of "Vremen", what they heard once again left the bishops stunned.
Immediately after the session, information appeared in the media that Bishop Kachavenda had been relieved of his duties. And then came the announcement from the Synod accepting the resignation of the previous bishop of Zvornik-Tuzlan "to the service of an active diocesan bishop, submitted for health reasons (...) This changes the decision of the Holy Synod of Bishops from November 6, 2012, by which the resignation of the bishop Mr. Vasilija was accepted in principle, and he was asked to remain in the service of the diocesan bishop until the regular session of the Holy Synod of Bishops in May 2013, in order to complete the started projects." and the citizens of the Zvornik-Tuzlan eparchy began to offer their information, knowledge, recordings about acts unworthy of the rank of bishop, such the announcement seems grotesque. Apparently, this "euphemism" about Vasilij Kachavenda's illness came from the pen of the spokesman of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the bishop of Bačka. But perhaps he had in mind what Metropolitan Amfilohije explained a day later: "Bishop Vasilije was dismissed for health reasons, and for the Church, health reasons are both moral and spiritual, not just illness."
OUTSIDE THE CHURCH: In the past weeks, the daily press raced to publish transcripts of the conversation, short recordings of Vasilije Kačavenda kissing a young man. A few years ago, Hierodeacon Seraphim, now Bojan Jovanović, went public with numerous accusations against Bishop Kačavenda, which went as far as the accusation of the murder of the young theologian Milić Blažanović. Such accusations should certainly be found in court, where it would be determined how much truth there is in them. Because either Bojan Jovanović should answer for the terrible slander or Vasilije Kačavenda should be in prison. Attorney Duško Tomić is handling this case on behalf of the family of Milić Blažanović. According to some Bosnia and Herzegovina newspapers, Bojan Jovanović was also questioned before some members of the Synod in the case of the former bishop of Zvornik-Tuzlan.
INSIDE THE CHURCH - THE DAY AFTER: What will be the final "fate" of Kachavenda when it comes to his canonical status is not yet known. For now, for the sake of clarification, he has been relieved of his duties, but not dismissed. In other words, Vasilije Kachavenda no longer manages the Diocese, but remains in the rank of bishop. Before the lay public gets angry again, it should be noted that the Synod is not a body that can make decisions about the final status of a bishop, but it is done by the Parliament, as the highest organ of the Church where all the bishops are gathered. The start of the spring session is scheduled for May 21. For now, it is quite certain that Bishop Kachavendi will not be allowed to stay in Bijeljna, and information has appeared in the media that he will move to the Šišatovac monastery. The same monastery was also mentioned in the case of the excommunicated Bishop Artemija. However, it is unlikely that these speculations will come true. By the way, Bishop Kačavenda has an apartment in Belgrade, and he may stay there.
Finally, in addition to the confiscation of the diocese, it is possible that Bishop Kachavendi will also face an ecclesiastical trial.
Unfortunately, the Church decided to react according to the emergency procedure when it was already boiling. But it should be emphasized that the struggle of bishops and clergy to call Kachavenda to account has been going on for months in the Serbian Orthodox Church. Even, already angry and worried that nothing would happen again, the clergy began to create their own association - the brotherhood of Serbian Orthodox priests (the condition for membership is that they had not previously been members of the pro-communist Association of Priests), which would be a counterweight to the arbitrariness of the bishops and their inefficiency.
There is no doubt that the Church remained silent for too long while individual bishops did what they wanted, without fear or consideration. Likewise, it cannot and should not be denied that the silence contributed to mistrust in the Serbian Orthodox Church, and strong and justified public resistance towards certain church structures, but also unjustified towards all others who behave worthy of their calling.
When Patriarch Irinej came to the throne of the Serbian Orthodox Church, he was met with numerous difficulties, expectations and criticism. The problems that he is trying to solve now, with the support of a large part of the Parliament and the clergy, have accumulated over the years, both during the active activities of the late Patriarch Pavle, and even more so during his illness. No matter how slow the solution may seem from the outside, something is still moving. The former Bishop Artemije was dismissed. The former bishop of Zvornik-Tuzlan is moving from his palace in Bijeljina after 35 years of serving the Diocese. If there is truth in certain accusations against him, the civil court should act. One of the interlocutors of "Vremen", otherwise a priest, very directly points out that now: "When one of the most powerful bishops, Kachavenda, 'fell', we were all relieved." It will be easier to 'remove' the 'smaller fish' as well, such as Bishop Pachomije, Filaret, Antony from Moscow."
All this gives hope that the Church, even if slowly, has begun to return to what it was and should be.
