The main subject of the Montenegrin law is ownership of religious property. Although every single article of the law has legal deficiencies, the most significant problems are presented in Articles 62 and 63. These two articles state that three categories of property and land owned by religious communities—1) those built with public revenue, 2) those owned by “Montenegro” prior to 1918, and 3) those built with joint investment of citizens—no longer belong to the religious communities themselves but are now considered to be “cultural heritage” of Montenegro and are, therefore, to be owned by the state.
After a critical statement about the situation with the coronavirus, Vukašin Milićević, lecturer at the Theological Faculty in Belgrade, was banned from speaking publicly by the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In this interview, his colleague Rodoljub Kubat sheds light on the background and tensions around the Faculty.
1) The Serbian Holy Synod forbade the lecturer Vukašin Milićević to address the public. How has it come to that?
Let me remind you that the ban about addressing the public came from the Patriarch as the bishop in charge. The Patriarch is at the same time also the chair of the Synod. It is symptomatic that a public request for the Milićević ban came from the eparchy of Bachka, the bishop of which is also one of the members of the Synod. This is just one of the measures the ecclesial authorities have undertaken against the Orthodox Theological Faculty. Something like this could have been expected, however, for certain tensions have already existed between the Faculty and the part of the episcopate that forms the majority in the Synod. The reason for those tensions is the bishops’ discontent with the fact that free theological thought is arising at the Faculty. Of course, the free theological thought is nothing sensational. It is simply a more critical approach to theology, society, and Church life in general. But apparently even that is threatening. One gets the impression that the bishops would rather see the Faculty as a Higher Clerical School rather than a Department of Theology. Some of the teachers on the Faculty, of the bishops, and of the priests do not agree with that. Still, the former group has the majority within the Church institutions, and it uses that majority for imposing its regressive understanding of the point of academic training.