PARTIAL COMPENSATION FOR INJUSTICE INFLICTED UPON RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS BY THE COMMUNIST REGIME

CHURCH PROPERTY IN THE PAST

After the communist take-over, church property that was not used directly for religious purposes and which in part secured the livelihood of individual parishes and communities, was confiscated. This applied mostly to buildings used mostly for educational, social and charitable purposes, as well as some real estate (such as woods, fields etc.). Parishes, churches and community buildings remained under the ownership of the church and were not confiscated. Property confiscation however resulted in the establishment of a new law, according to which the State agreed to financially support church activities (clergy salaries, administrative expenses, moving expenses, others).
This law was renewed in 1989 and the State's obligation to pay for religious life, remained within it. Since that time, the State has covered only the barest minimum necessities, namely mostly clergy salaries. The remainder depends upon the national budget. A parliamentary ruling in the nineties, subsequently returned 170 buildings to the Church; remaining property was blocked and placed under the jurisdiction of a new law. Its purpose was to deal with injustices of the communist regime, determine future financial support of the Church by the State, eliminate the validity of the original law and release (unblock) all previous Church properties.

ATTEMTS BY THE STATE TO RESOLVE ISSUES OF CONFISCATED PROPERTY

Attempts by the State to address and resolve these issues, while accompanied by good intentions, were never completed. More pressing changes, associated with the transformation of the political system from totalitarian to democratic, resulted in postponement.
In addition, there was little pressure from either side to reach a solution, because the conditions of coexistence of Church and State were more favorable now than ever before, particularly during the communist regime. Hence no one appeared to be particularly eager to address the subject. So, although it was clear to all concerned, that a solution had to be found, pressure to do so did not resume until 2004, when the Czech Republic joined the EU.
At that time, financial resources became available from the EU budget, for the development of towns, cities etc.,and pressure to resume the debate about Church properties resurfaced. Obstacles arose from the presence within these communities of property, previously owned by the Church, which was blocked under the present law and therefore excluded from eligibility for restitution.
The closest opportunity for resolution occurred in 2007 - 2008, when debates between Church and State resulted in a draft of a new law that was presented to the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, the proposal ended there, because too many members of the coalition government refused to support it. The proposal in 2008, requested financial support only for confiscated property, for a period of 60 years. This was considered to be too extended a period of time and too heavy a burden for the national budget.


THE PRESENT SITUATION

The coalition government, elected in 2010, returned to the unsolved questions of restitution together with a constitutional court and decided to move forward and resume discussions about Church property. Referring to conditions agreed upon in 2008, a governmental committee produced a modified proposal in May of 2011, which was accepted by the Church in August 2011.
This new proposal for the resolution of injustice in the issue of property assumes the following:
- The total value of the wealth concerned is 134 milliard Czech crowns (C.c.)
- Real value applied to restitution of property constitutes 75 milliard C.c.
- In reality it is only possible to return such property to the Church and other religious groups that is at present. in the possession of the State.
- The value of property that cannot be returned is 59 milliard C.c.,with an annual inflational increment.
- The period of payment is determined at 30 years.
- The financing of religious activities (e.g. salaries, etc.)will gradually be phased out.The interim period during which this will o, ccur, will be 17 years, the first three of which will be fully covered according to the situation in 2010. From year 4, coverage will decrtease by an annual 5%.

The distribution of financial support (money) among individual religious groups had to be dealt with separately. The reason for this was, that in their dealings with the State, all groups had collaborated and acted as one, including the Federation of Jewish organizations. That had been one of the most important factors in assuring a successful outcome. This united approach has continued to the present and has met with respect and appreciation.

Since 1990, the aportionment of money has depended predominantly upon the number of clergy within each group. This led to dissatisfaction among those who had not increased the number of clergy, in particular the Roman Catholic , or the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren and others. Smaller religious groups have been adding clerical staff more quickly, which has resulted in some of them receiving disproportionately more support than others. So for example, there are those who have one state- supported employee per 30 members, while in other groups there is one cleric for 1450 - 2000 members. This was deemed untenable, so in 2008 a new formula was designed and prevailed until 2011. The majority of property, confiscated in 1948 by the communists, belonged to the Roman Catholic Church (namely about 96%). Despite this, the Roman Catholics declared that they would relinquish a certain percentage of such property in favor of smaller religious groups and the formula of 83% to 17% was established.

Not even this division reflected a realistic situation because of the differing proportions of real estate as opposed to money, to which individual religious groups were entitled. So while the total restitution to the Roman Catholic Church would comprise real estate only,other religious groups would be eligible for compensation in the following propotions: real estate in the value of 24 milliard Czech crowns (C.c.) and 59 milliard Czech crowns in money. Subsequently even this formula was reconsidered again because the Roman Catholic Church was aware that its own portion (83%) of the 83 : 17% formula would constitute real estate only, for which other religious groups were mostly ineligible. So the R.C. group submitted yet another proposal to replace the one from 2008, suggesting a ratio of 80% to 20%. The latter somewhat mitigated the Catholics' advantage and provided an increased award to the smaller groups.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The Ministry of Cultural Affairs together with the government of the Czech Republic are at present drafting a law to be presented to the Czech Parliament. It is expected that the coalition government in the House will be willing to accept and pass the draft of the law, while the Senate, with its Social Democratic majority, might reject it. While there is little doubt that the opposition recognizes the need to resolve these isuues, it appears that they are more inclined toward the populist rather than the factual view of issues.
The President's office did have representation during the above issues and the President was informed. According to his representative, the President had expressed preliminary agreement with the draft of the law which could be suggestive of the fact that its signing would not be delayed . It could thus possibly take effect by January 1st 2013.

IMPACT UPON THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH OF CZECH BRETHREN

Abourt two thirds of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren are already self supported from their own resources, as well as by random and designated donations from other countries. One third of the budget comes from the State. Eventually, it will become necessary to supplement this contribution which is decreasing throughout the interim 17 year period. It is assumed that the decrease in the State contribution will occur in parallel with the restitution of Church property. If this happens, then it may become possible for the Church to assume responsibility for its own budget, provided that a wise longterm investment plan for all returned properties is agreed upon by all parties within the Church. The latter might require some sacrifice on the part of some of our members, such as some changes in the structure of our church, a rational distribution/ relocation of some parishes around the Czech Republic. Within the next few monthes, possibly in 2012, the leadership of our Church is planning to contact its membership here, as well as its partners in other countries, with requests for help in the development of a work plan which would eventually result in a longterm, safe, effective and well directed financial system.

Such a plan would, in any event, give rise to a completely new concept, since the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren has never experienced a comparable situation. Despite any uncertainty which such a plan might evoke within our membership, we look forward to it from a human as well as a theological point of view. There is fortunately still sufficient time to prepare for such a transition. We trust in God's wisdom as we approach our new venture and hope for its success.

Joel Ruml,
Synodal Senior (Moderator) of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren