The news that the prosecution in Slovenia has raised indictment against the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) Porfiri, and following the lawsuit filed by the former Ljubljana parish priest Željko Lubarda due to mobbing at the workplace, she initiated the question of whether it is even possible to try Patriarch Porphyry before a secular court in another country, but also reminded of a legal precedent, when a bishop SPC due to mobbing was tried and sentenced before a secular court in Serbia. Also, for the umpteenth time, the question of the limits of episcopal authority over priests and their families was raised.
In this case, Lubarda claims he was subjected to long-term pressure because he refused to testify falsely to cover up financial malfeasance in the church treasury. He points out that the "inhuman abuse lasted for years" and that in the end he and his family were left homeless. The case refers to the period when Patriarch Porfirije was the Metropolitan of the Zagreb-Ljubljana Metropolitanate of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
CAN I? TAMO JUDGE THE PATRIARCH
In principle, despite his title, Patriarch Porphyry de facto does not have immunity that he could invoke in the case of a trial in Slovenia. According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic immunity is reserved for diplomatic officers and members of their families accredited in the receiving country. Religious leaders, such as the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, are not automatically covered by that status, as it refers to official representatives of states.
Issuance of diplomatic passports in Serbia is regulated by the Law on Travel Documents and accompanying decrees of the Government of Serbia. Although these passports are issued to the highest church dignitaries to facilitate travel, the passport itself does not guarantee immunity from prosecution abroad unless the holder is registered with an official diplomatic mission.
When it comes to territorial jurisdiction, a basic principle of international law states that a state has full jurisdiction over all citizens on its territory who do not enjoy immunity. And since the patriarch of the SPC does not have the status of a head of state or an accredited diplomat, he is subject to the local laws of the country in which he is located.
At the same time, the internal church regulations, i.e. the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, unequivocally define the patriarch as the supreme head, for whose canonical or ecclesiastical offenses only the Holy Council of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church is competent. However, that jurisdiction refers to the order within the Church, and not to the criminal-legal responsibility before the secular courts, which is what we are talking about in the case of the lawsuit against Patriarch Porfirio before the Slovenian court.
What might that trial look like? There are several ways. The first implies that, for some reason, he is on the territory of Slovenia, and then the Slovenian law and order authorities can detain and prosecute him directly. Another scenario could be a trial in absentia, because the Criminal Code there, under certain conditions, allowed it, if that person is not available to state authorities, and is accused of a serious crime.
Of course, the possibility of Patriarch Porphyry voluntarily appearing before the Slovenian court should not be completely ruled out. However, that scenario seems unimaginable for a number of reasons, one of which is that some of the faithful would have a hard time accepting that the patriarch was judged by "some Catholics over there".
Finally, the fourth scenario, which is even less imaginable, would be the extradition of Patriarch Porfirio to Slovenia, if it would at all costs want to try him in his presence and issue an international warrant.
However, the Constitution of Serbia expressly states that a citizen of Serbia cannot be expelled or extradited to another country, except in accordance with international agreements. Although there have been deviations from this principle - for example in the case of the trial before the Hague Tribunal - it is unthinkable that Porfirije will be extradited to Slovenia for at least two reasons. First of all, the crime for which he is accused is not nearly as serious as the one for which he was tried in The Hague, and besides, what is even more significant for the establishment in Serbia, such treatment of the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, whoever he is, would represent a national humiliation and cause difficult-to-understand reactions of many citizens of Serbia.
Patriarch Porfirije was previously heard as a witness in the proceedings before the Labor and Social Court in Ljubljana based on the lawsuit filed by priest Željko Lubarda against the SPC, i.e. Church Municipality of Ljubljana, due to accusations of abuse at work. From the minutes of the hearing, it can be seen that during the hearing he denied that he had any role in putting pressure on Lubard and that he transferred the responsibility for the priest's working relationship to the church municipality in Ljubljana.
"I think that in this particular case the employer is the church municipality, and not me personally," said Porfirije in his testimony before the court. When asked about his relationship with Lubard, Porfirije said that their contacts were rare, that they never discussed problems, and that he did not put any pressure on Lubard or participate in the alleged abuse.
"I never personally addressed Mr. Lubardi nor did I pressure him to move to the territory of his parish," Patriarch Porfirije said at the time.
THE CASE OF VILADIK NIKANOR
The filing of the indictment against Patriarch Porfirio reminded us of a legal but also social precedent from 2016.
At the end of January of that year, the higher court in Pancevo passed a verdict in which Bishop Nikanor was convicted of mobbing the former Omolje priest Tomislav Živković.
Živković was one of 14 priests of the Diocese of Banat who sent a letter to the then Patriarch Irinej and the Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, in which it was stated that Bishop Nikanor "leaves priests without salaries and parishes, calls them thieves and criminals, threatens them and blackmails them".
"More than 28 able-bodied priests ended up on social assistance of 12.000 dinars because of him. There are countless examples of his arrogance, anger, and even physical attacks on priests and deacons," the priests wrote at the time.
The court found that Bishop Nikanor insulted and abused Živković, sent him threats that included threats of dismissal, and that he took away his parish without justifiable reason.
It was the first verdict for mobbing brought against an SPC dignitary before a secular court in Serbia, but Bishop Nicanor appealed it to the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, denying the accusations and trying to challenge the jurisdiction of the secular court over relations within the Church. In March 2016, the High Court in Pancevo annulled that first-instance verdict and returned the trial to the beginning.
However, already on April 5 of the same year, "Večernje Novosti" announced that Živković gave up the court proceedings after the "suggestion" of Patriarch Irinej.
photo: dimitrije goll / tanjugUNTOUCHABLES: The Patriarchate Building
THE BOSSES ARE USED TO BE "EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING"
The case in which Patriarch Porfirije is facing the possibility of proceedings being initiated against him due to mobbing, which is in extreme opposition to Christian values, left a bitter impression on part of the public in Serbia - first of all among those who naively believe that such things do not happen in the Church. However, connoisseurs of church affairs have known for a long time that cases of mobbing against priests that come to the public are unfortunately only the tip of a huge iceberg, about which little is said.
Religious analyst Draško Đenović, commenting on this case, says for "Vreme" that Patriarch Porfirije, even while he was the Metropolitan of Zagreb-Ljubljana, "was used to everything being fine in Serbia."
"He does not understand that things are a little different in the West, that the SPC is not the main church, but one of the churches. Serbian bishops in the world, until they are banging their heads against the wall, often behave as if they are in Serbia," says Đenović.
The fact that Patriarch Porfirije claims that Lubarda's direct employer was not him but the church municipality is not an argument for Đenović.
"Neither the church municipality nor the church board hires priests. Actually, according to the law it is like that, but in practice, what the bishop says is the law. Church municipalities often protest about the transfer of priests, but in the end it is what the bishop says, and not what the church municipalities want," Đenović points out.
When asked how relevant it is to accept some statements that in the Serbian Orthodox Church, that is, in the majority of its dioceses, there is a single mind that does not tolerate criticism, Đenović answers that the bishop is "a king in his own territory".
"If a bishop doesn't really complain about other bishops, he decides on his own in his territory and no one will interfere in his running of the eparchy because other bishops don't want anyone to interfere in running the eparchy either. They have all the power. I would like to see someone tell Irinej Bulović that he can't do something in the Bača eparchy. Simply, each bishop is everything in his own territory," says Đenović.
These words of Đenović should be viewed in the light of the fact that for priests and religious teachers the Church is the only employer, which is the first thing that puts them in an unenviable position. Then, at will, bishops can move priests around the diocese, which some of them used according to the principle of reward and punishment - richer parishes for the most obedient, and if someone dares to resist, the question is where and how they will end up. Second - some of the bishops do not have the slightest sense of what family life means. That is - what does it mean to move a priest from a city where his wife works as a doctor or teacher and the children go to school, to a place that is far enough away that the priest has to quit his job, and the children have to give up part of their education, training... For example, a bishop who rules in Bosnia and Herzegovina forbids priests to work at all. Thirdly - considering that the association of priests gained a very negative reputation from the communist period, when it was a means of the state to control the Church, there is no body that would really defend the priest against the arbitrariness of the bishop if it is a person who abuses his power. Because it has been seen in the last year or two - even if the patriarch and the Synod act - as in the case of Metropolitan Justin, it is still done for some different motives and reasons.
BELIEVERS ASK NOTHING
photo: tanjug / rade prelić...
Finally, to return to the last case, Đenović believes that if proceedings against Patriarch Porfiri are initiated before the Slovenian court, there is little chance that the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church will respond to the court's summons.
When asked whether the eventual process against Patriarch Porfiri will affect the believers in Serbia, Đenović answers in the negative.
"Porfirije is neither the first nor the last bishop who was on trial for mobbing, nor is the priest who lost his job because of this case the first, and he will not be the last. It is an established practice, and Porfirije can get away with the fact that he is no longer in charge of Slovenia because he is no longer the metropolitan of Zagreb-Ljubljana. The faithful, if they could, would have protested while what Porfirije was accused of was happening. Honestly, who in the church asks the grandmother about church politics? Nobody. That case it cannot possibly affect the few believers of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Slovenia, nor the believers in Serbia", says Đenović.
It reminds of the recent case of theologian Blagoj Pantelić, who was excluded from the SPC church community by the decision of the church court at the end of January. He reminds that Pantelić has a master's degree in theology and that he did graduate from the Faculty of Theology, but that he was not an official of the Serbian Orthodox Church, but an "ordinary believer".
At the time when this text was going to press, information appeared in the public that two believers from the Šabac eparchy were previously asked to recognize the voice of their priest who was recorded by someone, that is, to confirm that he "spoke against the state" at the liturgy, which they refused. The competent bishop Jerotej allegedly punished the aforementioned believers with a two-year ban on the priest entering their house to consecrate water, consecrate the cake... If this is true, the question remains what the bishop - otherwise known, as experts in church affairs claim, for moving priests according to his chieftain - has in store for the said priest, as well as the question of whether there will be anyone to defend him from that punishment.
Đenović, however, believes that the case of Patriarch Porfiri was "released to the public" in order to shift its focus from the local elections or the anniversary of the biggest protest in the history of Serbia, which was on March 15. When asked if this means that church affairs and problems are harnessed to divert attention, Đenović concludes with the question: "Are you saying that something happens in the SPC without the state, and that something happens in the state without the SPC?"
