Church and State in Croatia: Legal Framework, Religious Instruction, and Social Expectations

Between Distanced Church Religiosity and Intensive Personal Religiosity: Religious Changes in Croatian Society from 1999 to 2018

“…Nereligioznost, distancirana crkvenost i intenzivna osobna i institucionalna religioznost potvrđuju današnji gotovo teorijski konsenzus da su suvremeni društveni procesi izrazito kompleksni te da su na djelu paralelni procesi sekularizacije, religijske pluralizacije i religijske revitalizacije (Beyer, 2006(Beyer, , 2013Casanova, 2018 etičkim pitanjima (pobačaj, homoseksualnost, obiteljski odnosi, seksualni odgoj i slično), što izaziva snažne ideologijske prijepore. To se, primjerice, vidi kod pitanja o reviziji Ugovora sa Svetom Stolicom te pitanja ravnopravnosti vjerskih zajednica (Marinović Jerolimov i Marinović 2012;Zrinščak, Marinović-Jerolimov, Marinović i Ančić, 2014;Staničić, 2018). Osim toga, religioznost je i snažna osnovica društvene mobilizacije dijela vjernika proteklih godina, a što se vidi, primjerice, u organizaciji referenduma o definiciji braka, organizaciji "hoda za život", molitvenim skupinama ispred bolnica, protivljenju ratifikaciji Istanbulskoj konvenciji i sl.…”

Religious nationalism and religious governance: Overlaps and divergences. The case of Croatia

“…Formally, such instruction was open to all religious communities, but none of them, except the CCC could organize this in practical terms. This was the area where the “most visible changes of the position and the role of religion and Churches in the public sphere in Croatia” (Zrinščak et al, 2014: 138) occurred. The reason as to why it was important to have Catholic religious instruction in schools was formalized in 1996, evident in the statement that the “Catholic Church in Croatia has irreplaceable historical and present-day role in cultural and moral upbringing of the people” (Tuis stolice, 1997: 168).…”

“…This contract was signed between the Government and the CCC in 1998. It stated that “Croatia would restitute the property taken by communist authorities after World War II, or would compensate it (in real estate or in money) when restitution would not be possible“ (Zrinščak et al, 2014: 135). Within this contract, it stipulated that the Republic of Croatia is obliged to: a) return the property (which can be returned according to law) divested during the Yugoslav communist regime; b) provide adequate substitution for assets that cannot be returned; c) reimburse in money the rest of the property which will not be returned (Zrinščak et al, 2014: 136).…”

“…It stated that “Croatia would restitute the property taken by communist authorities after World War II, or would compensate it (in real estate or in money) when restitution would not be possible“ (Zrinščak et al, 2014: 135). Within this contract, it stipulated that the Republic of Croatia is obliged to: a) return the property (which can be returned according to law) divested during the Yugoslav communist regime; b) provide adequate substitution for assets that cannot be returned; c) reimburse in money the rest of the property which will not be returned (Zrinščak et al, 2014: 136). Other religious communities were also allowed to have their properties returned that were taken by the communist regime, but their restitution fell under general law and not under the laws concluded with each (or any) of those communities.…”

Religious Pluralism

“…aljazeera.net/vijesti/hasanovic-hrvatska-primjer-zemljama-evrope (Accessed 15 September 2013). 3 More about that inZrinščak et al (2014).…”