Religious contradictions

One of the highly prominent aspects of Slovak society is - despite a general secularisation trend in Western society - its religiosity. At least, having witnessed life in other countries, this given is quite striking, especially since it is in my eyes uncomfortably one-sided. 

In principle, I am open to people's diversity. Among my friends, there is hardly any major world religion, which is not represented. Living in a country where a different faith dominates has always been a reality and it has a certain charm as well. Keep you reminded of your own background. But when underlying currents are getting  out of hand, then it becomes  slightly disturbing

To a degree, I can find certain historic explanations. Slovakia's totalitarian past till 1989 explains a bit. And although this is often being used to explain the strong bond with the Catholic church, it is in my eyes not a satisfying argument at all. The truth is, that the influence of Slovak clergy may officially be detached from politics (a principle attributed to Locke, but traceable rather to Thomas Jefferson), the daily reality often shows that it is not necessarily clear.

Admittedly, one person's faith does to an extent influence his political thinking and performing. The clergy - and from their historical background, where they were to some extent literate and witnessing daily life in a time where aristocratic rulers had little interest in the fate of common man, it has perhaps created a specific tradition, where priests got political tendencies. 

Whereas a local priest Andrej Hlinka once propagated Slovak autonomy (already during the Austro-Hungarian domination, but equally during the first Czecho-Slovak Republic), another priest Jozef Tiso was leading a clerical-fascist puppet state during World War II. If it was a logical consequence of the Zeitgeist, I doubt it.

But coming to present day politics; an archbishop proclaiming that Tiso's state wasn't so bad after all, appeared perhaps in a few newspapers, but the archbishop remained an archbishop and lead his flock without any hindrance. (Imagine at how this would end if a German Bishop would dare to make such a similar statement). Interestingly, his successor now forbade him to ever come near the church or conduct masses, as a huge fraud is suspected. Seems that  ex-Archbishop Sokol was far from clean from other sides as well. One never stops to be amazed. In addition, another bishop last year explicitly criticised in his sermons one presidential candidate, which obviously lead to a preference shift in the final elections, as his views were broadly publicised in the media. In my view, utterly intolerable, but people meekly accept it.

What is a stark contrast, that the religiousness is always used into a certain direction: A European Court ruling to forbid catholic crucifixes in Italian public schools stirs totally unnecessary emotional debates in Slovakia, but when reminding people about very basic and simple christian values for the present day's politicians ("Thou shallst not steal", "Thou shallst not lie") in a time of the worst corruption in all Slovak's history, it suddenly is not an issue. When confronted, neither minister or prime minister have hardly ever admitted responsibility for any scandal. It's the fault of the others, the former cabinet, the journalists, the oposition, etc.

It seems that famous latin liturgical statements "mea culpa, mea ultima culpa" - a concept, which underlines man's humbling struggle with guilt - has vanished from the vocabulary of the people. Of the believing people, that is. Mr Fico's huge preferences - despite of all the stolen millions  of euros - is mainly attributed to the less critical electorate outside Bratislava that in effect would fall into that aforementioned category. To me, that is one of the gravest religious contradictions in Slovakia. But maybe, this is their version of the division between state and church. 

MS