Introduction

The Catholic Church, like the administrative organisation of a state, has a complex territorial and administrative structure. Territorial forms and this spatial borders are defined according to the needs based on the historical legacy. However, in recent years, and particularly after World War II, this has primarily been based on congregation size and spatial size of a specific ecclesiastical administration unit. These territorial units have a range of functions, including education, culture, economics and/or administrative tasks. For this reason, the spatial organisation of these administrative units is based on the application of spatial concepts, in which transport links and accessibility of administrative centres are the prominent factors. These factors influence the decisions of the Church in Croatia, and ultimately the decisions of the Holy See regarding the forms of spatial organisation in a given area, i.e. whether new units should be established or terminated. Without regard to the titular administration given to certain (arch)diocese as honourable titles, though which in fact do not exist, the ecclesiastical administration is marked by 12 main forms of spatial organisation. These are: patriarchy (with metropolis status), metropolitan archdiocese, suffragan archdiocese, archdiocese directly under the Holy See, suffragan diocese, diocese directly under the Holy See, territorial prelate, territorial abbey, military ordinary, apostolic vicariate, apostolic prefecture and apostolic administration. In addition to these forms, there are also the forms of ecclesiastic administration that are not geographically limited, such as personal ordinaries and/or personal prelates. One such example is Opus Dei. From the above, in terms of function, with the patriarchies, of which there are nine in the world, the metropolitan archdiocese is the highest form of ecclesiastic spatial organisation. In terms of their characteristics, they have far greater authority and autonomy of action granted by the Holy See.

This paper provides an overview of the spatial organisation of the Catholic Church along the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea. The current knowledge and facts on the establishment of ecclesiastic provinces and their archdioceses and dioceses on the Croatian coast following the end of World War II are outlined. The circumstances and main properties of the present day spatial organisation in this area, which emerged during the most recent changes in 1969, are discussed. Numerous new facts and details that lead to these changes in the ecclesiastical organisation are examined analytically. Particularly emphasis was placed on the issue of the status of the Zadar Archdiocese. A comparison was made of the present position of the Zadar Archdiocese with other similar examples in Europe, i.e. with comparable examples from France and Italy. The discussion presents four specific possibilities for the resolution of the status of the Zadar Archdiocese, with special emphasis on the possibility of promotion into a metropolis centre, which in the ecclesiastic sense, would give this unit a significantly greater capacity for action in its territory.

Research methods and sources

Though the Catholic Church is a common topic in many research papers in Croatia and the world, few authors in Croatia have addressed its spatial organisation. The global literature contains substantially more on this topic. On the one hand, there are authors from the field of religious geography, who perform theoretical studies on this topic through the analysis of the most significant religious communities around the world, listing a large number of numerical indicators and facts on the organisational features of each, and providing examples for individual countries (Sopher, 1967; Park, 1994; Stump, 2008). On the other hand, there are numerous foreign authors who have focused on the Catholic Church, and dedicated their attention to specific examples of territorial reorganisation of the Church in certain countries, following the highly complex and specific historical circumstances underlying this task. Some, also dealing with the (arch)dioceses that are significant for this paper, or who had very specific circumstances of historical development, are worth highlighting. For example, there are prominent papers on the territories of the Berlin Diocese (Höhle, 1990; Bilger-Hanky, 1997), Strasbourg Archdiocese (Rapp, 1982), Udine Archdiocese (Cappelletti, 1851; Meroi, 2000) and many others throughout Europe and the world, though particularly for Italy. For this reason, a surprisingly small number of authors have dealt with this topic in Croatia, considering the size of the Church and its many-fold influences on social development. The Croatian literature includes M. Bogović (2009) and P. Peloza (1973), who discussed the establishment of the Rijeka Metropolis, F. Franić (1994) on the Split Metropolis, M. Oblak (2009) and P. Kero (2010) on the Zadar Archdiocese, and D. Nežić (1988) on the ecclesiastical administration in Istria. It should be stressed that all these authors provided an overview of the factual data on individual changes on the topics discussed, but did not enter into a deeper discussion on the essence of the causes of these changes, the circumstances for their emergence, and the manner in which the decisions on their implementation were made. To date, no author has performed a comparative analysis of the organisation of the Church in Europe or beyond, taking into account the universality of the Church, i.e. its global character.

This paper is based on an analysis of the literature on known concepts and historical events and processes that preceded the period of the current spatial organisation of the Catholic Church on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. A wide range of archive materials and documents of the ecclesiastical and state archives in Croatia, Rome and the Vatican were examined. Special mention should be given to the official decisions of the Holy See issued in the years of Acte Apostolicae Sedis, and documents of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome. Furthermore, church archive materials were examined to obtain a comprehensive overview of the work of the Bishop’s Conference in the then Yugoslavia and its bishops regarding the spatial organisation of the ecclesiastic organisation. Finally, the archive materials of the Central Committee of the Croatian Communist Union (Elaborati o Katoličkoj Crkvi, 1945-1970) and the Republic Conference of the Socialist Alliance of the Workers of Croatia (D – Dokumentacija Ideološke komisije Saveza, 1960-1969), which gives a clear outline of the stance of the state powers in Croatia and Yugoslavia and the position of the public on this issue at that time, were reviewed.

Study results

Soon after the end of World War II, the spatial organisation of the Catholic Church along the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea was far from defined, and in line with the post-war circumstances, required comprehensive changes. It should be stated that the Church, with regard to the top ranks, positioned itself truly rationally, to the fullest extent allowed by the war circumstances. For example, in 1945, all church administrative units, with the exception of the then Senj-Modruš Diocese, were under the direct administration of the Holy See. Given the events prior to and during the war along the Croatian coast, this could be considered, to say the lease, a compromise solution between two possibilities: that these units be ecclesiastical provinces[1] with Croatian metropolises, or ecclesiastical provinces with Italian metropolises. Given that either of these decisions would have only fanned the flames during the war conflict, the Church at that time took the only reasonable step.

As the then Senj-Modruš Diocese, seated at Senj, was part of the Zagreb ecclesiastical province, which also encompassed the Bosnia-Srijem Diocese seated at Djakovo, and the Križevci Diocese, i.e. the eparchy seated at Križevci and co-seated at Zagreb. At the end of World War II, the Croatian Adriatic coast included the Dubrovnik Diocese seated at Dubrovnik, the Hvar Diocese seated at Hvar, Split-Makarska Diocese seated at Split and co-seated at Makarska, Šibenik Diocese seated at Šibenik, Zadar Archdiocese seated at Zadar, Krk Diocese seated at Krk, Rijeka Diocese seated at Rijeka and the Poreč-Pula Diocese seated in Poreč and co-seated at Pula.

It should be stated that at that time, the decanates of Buje, Buzet, Kršan, Novigrad, Oprtalj, Pazin, Pićan and Umag, fell under the then Trieste-Kopar Diocese, seated at Trieste and co-seated at Kopar. Following the conclusion of the Paris Peace Treaties in 1947, and the establishment of the administrative Zones A and B, the Catholic Church established an apostolic administration[2] for the areas with majority Croat and Slovene population, with the Croatian area receiving its seat in Pazin, after which it was later named (Nežić, 1988). It is evident here that in this situation too, the Church did not extend for a final solution, right up until the signing of the Treaty of Osimo on 10 November 1975 (Osimski sporazumi, 1977), after which the Holy See issued the bull Prioribus saeculi on 17 October 1977 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1977, 689-691), listing the decision on the administrative unification of the then Pazin apostolic administration with the Poreč-Pula Diocese. Meanwhile, the areas of the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia that formed a separated apostolic administration, were raised by the same papal bull to the rank of a diocese seated at Kopar, thereby permanently dissecting these areas from Trieste as the seat of the former Trieste-Kopar Diocese (Vogrin, 2001).

In seeking resolution to the spatial organisation of the Croatian part of Istria, consideration was also given to reorganisation of the ecclesiastic organisation within the Krk, Rijeka and Senj-Modruš Dioceses, and the islands of Cres and Lošinj with the accompanying smaller islands, which until then fell under the Zadar Archdiocese, due to the fact that until the end of WWII, they were part of the Kingdom of Italy. Three proposals to amend the borders between diocese were composed by the Senj Diocese on 10 December 1947 (Bogović, 2009).

In the first proposal from 1947, which was subsequently accepted, the islands Cres and Lošinj, together with the islands Unije, Susak, Male Srakane, Vele Srakane and Ilovik, until then all together part of the Zadar Archdiocese, would re-enter the composition of the Krk Diocese, where they had been until 1918, together with Krk, Rab and the northwestern part of the island of Pag,[3] which continued to form part of the Krk Diocese until the end of WWII. The same proposal envisaged the formation of a unified Croatian Istria, and a unification of the then Rijeka Diocese[4] with the Senj-Modruš Diocese into the new Rijeka-Senj Diocese, seated at Rijeka and co-seated at Senj. In the same proposal, the Zadar Archdiocese was also planned to be reorganised and united, to again contain the central and southern parts of the island of Pag,[5] and the islands of Premuda, Silba, Olib, Ist, Molat, Zverinac, Sestrunj, Rivanj, Rava, Iž, Dugi Otok, Kornati, Vir, Ugljan and Pašman (Oblak, 2009).

In the second proposal, which was not accepted, the islands of Cres, Lošinj, Male Srakane, Vele Srakane, Unije, Susak and Ilovik were planned to be joined to the Poreč-Pula Diocese. The Krk Diocese would be terminated, and from it the islands of Pag and Rab would be joined to the Senj-Modruš Diocese, while the island of Krk would be joined to the Rijeka Diocese, which in turn would be enlarged to include the then areas of the Senj-Modruš Diocese to the line between the settlements of Brod Moravica and Novi Vinodolski to the east. However, this proposal was ultimately not accepted as the islands of Cres and Lošinj were poorly connected to Istria and the Poreč-Pula Diocese in numerous aspects, particularly the ecclesiastical one. This was one of the key reasons that resulted in the dismissal of this proposal for the reorganisation of the ecclesiastical administration.

The third proposal, which was also ultimately rejected, was similar to the second in that it envisaged the joining of the islands of Cres, Lošinj, Male Srakane, Vele Srakane, Unije, Susak and Ilovik to the Poreč-Pula Diocese, while in addition to the termination of the Krk Dioceses, its administrative area, together with the administrative area under the Senj-Modruš Diocese, would be united together into the new Rijeka Diocese. This proposal was also dismissed for similar reasons to the second proposal, through the primary barrier was the lack of adequate transport links. Namely, the Rijeka Diocese as proposed here would be truly dysfunctional, considering the transport links in place at the time.

In areas south of Istria, the ecclesiastical spatial organisation was also quite specific. As a result of the peace talks between the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, signed on 12 November 1920 in Rapallo (Tamaro, 1922; Rapallski ugovor: 12. novembra 1920.: zbirka dokumenata, 1950), by which the islands of Cres, Lošinj and Lastovo were handed over to Italy, the same were placed, by virtue of the Apostolic decision Jadren et Aliarium of Pope Pius XI of 1 August 1932, under the administration of the Zadar Archdiocese seated in Zadar, which was also annexed to the Kingdom of Italy (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1933, 75-77). It should be stated that the previous Zadar Metropolis was terminated,[6] due to the fact that virtually 96% of the former area of the Zadar Archdiocese remained within the borders of the then Kingdom of Yugoslavia, like all dioceses situated within the ecclesiastical province of the same name,[7] while the seat of the archdiocese and the metropolis of the same name fell under the power of the Kingdom of Italy. The Zadar Archdiocese was under the direct administration of the Holy See, like all its suffragan dioceses.[8] For that reason, it is evident that the Holy See adapted the pastoral activities to extraordinary circumstances of the border changes at that time, which separated the then Zadar ecclesiastical province and the Zadar Archdiocese into those areas that fell under the rule of the Kingdom of Italy and those still under the rule of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Despite a range of interpretations, the Holy See did not act to be benefit of irredentism,[9] of which it was accused in Communist Yugoslavia after 1945, as it had insight into the proposition of the ecclesiastical administration, which was supported by the fact that the Zadar Metropolis was broken down due to the dysfunctional changes to its borders, and the fact that the then separated parts of the ecclesiastic administration that remained within the Zadar Archdiocese were not annexed to another ecclesiastical province within the Italian state boundaries, but instead were placed under the direct pontifical administration.

Due to the same circumstances, the former area of the Zadar Archdiocese that remained in the Yugoslav state following the Treaty of Rapallo was placed under the administration of Šibenik Bishop Jerolim Mileta who served as its apostolic administrator. This situation remained in place until 30 April 1948, when Cres and Lošinj were returned to the Krk Diocese, and the Zadar Archdiocese regained its former borders. The exception was the island of Lastovo and the parish of the same name, which remained under the administration of the Zadar Archdiocese until 27 November 1950, when a decree of the Holy See at the urging of Dubrovnik Bishop Pavao Butorac placed this island and parish under the administration of the Dubrovnik bishop, leaving this administration in place until 8 April 1963 when it was permanently annexed to the Dubrovnik Diocese by virtue of Decree 243/63 of Pope John XXIII (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1963, 836-837).

After the end of World War II, the new circumstances required a new spatial organisation of the Catholic Church on the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea. The initial changes, immediately after the end of WWII were largely a return to the former ecclesiastical spatial organisation. The newly established borders primarily followed the lines that would later become the borders, particularly among the dioceses on the Istrian Peninsula. However, the administrative organisation in the (arch)diocese called for an additional and new solution, particularly since this is an area that covers 27,256 km² and at that time had a congregation of 1,074,900 faithful Catholics (Annuario Pontificio, 1951). However, at that time, this could only be a transitional state, as nine of the 12 (arch)dioceses of the then National Republic of Croatia, were placed under the direct administration of the Holy See. Adding to these all three dioceses of the National Republic of Slovenia,[10] all three ecclesiastical administrative units within the borders of the National Republic of Serbia[11] and the Bar Archdiocese and Kotor Diocese in the National Republic of Montenegro, it can be seen that 17 ecclesiastical administrative areas, of the total 24 in the territory of the entire Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia, came under the direct administration of the Holy See after the end of WWII, which at that time was a rarity. In addition to the ecclesiastical areas within the Zagreb ecclesiastical province, which then comprised the Zagreb Archdiocese, Bosnia-Srijem Diocese and Križevci Diocese, there were only four additional (arch)dioceses in the FNR Yugoslavia that formed a single ecclesiastical province: Vrhbosanska, which included the Vrhbosanska Archdiocese, and the Banja Luka Diocese, Mostar-Duvno Diocese and Skopje Diocese.

This began the long-lasting process of amending the ecclesiastical borders in very complex circumstances, under pressures of the new authorities in the just established Communist regime in Croatia and the then Yugoslavia (Akmadža, 2004). The state pressures and opinion that the direct administration of the Holy See over the (arch)dioceses in Croatia and Yugoslavia was explicit evidence of irredentist tendencies of the Vatican and the Pope was clearly evident from the relations of the highest ranks of the Communist government, and the statements of the highest ranking statesmen. A clear example was certainly the conversation between then Prime Minister of the National Republic of Croatia, Vladimir Bakarić, with Franjo Šeper on 7 March 1954, soon before the latter was appointed the archbishop coadjutor of the Zagreb Archdiocese, i.e. as a replacement for the then imprisoned Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac (Razgovori s predstavnicima državnih vlasti, 1954). In the discussion, Bakarić clearly states that the Holy See is an instrument of the Italian foreign policy, thereby making it known that the position of the state authorities is that the Church in Croatia and the then Yugoslavia were also instruments of that same policy. These positions were also equally evident in the then main party bodies in Croatia, for example in the ideological and political committees of the Party (Elaborati o Katoličkoj Crkvi, 1945-1970) and following from that in broader social structures, organisations and association (D – Dokumentacija Ideološke komisije Saveza, 1960-1969). Such a stance was clearly seen in the public opinion, which the ruling regime created through its official journals and press. This further deepened the pressures on the Church, and later would prove to be completely irrelevant, as changes were implemented in the late 1960s.

The greatest changes to the spatial organisation of the Catholic Church in Croatia were made in the 1960s. These changes were preceded by those in Slovenia, when a decision of the Holy See on 22 December 1961 established the Ljubljana Metropolis, raising Ljubljana from a diocesan centre to an archdiocesan centre (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1962). With that decision, Ljubljana and its suffragan diocese Maribor ceased to be under the direct administration of the Holy See. A later decision of the Holy See to terminate the apostolic administration for the Croatian and Slovenian parts of Istria on 17 October 1977 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1977) resulted in the establishment of the Kopar Diocese, also as a suffragan diocese of the Ljubljana Archdiocese. This outcome largely set the stage for the changes in Croatia.[12]

The requirements for drafting the proposal to be forwarded to the Holy See, with recommendations on how to most adequately resolve the ecclesiastical organisation on the Croatian coast of the Adriatic, were actualised in early 1965. At the regular session of the Yugoslav Conference of Bishops in Zagreb on 19 January 1965, a Committee for the demarcation between dioceses (Zapisnici zasjedanja Biskupske konferencije, 1960-1969) was appointed by a vote. This Committee included Križevci Bishop Gabriel Bukatko, Poreč-Pula Bishop Dragutin Nežić, Djakovo-Srijem Bishop Stjepan Bäuerlein, apostolic administrator for the Slovenian part of the Trieste-Kopar Diocese Janez Jenko, and Šibenik Bishop Josip Arnerić. This Committee was formed at the initiative of the Holy See to examine all proposals, and to forward the agreed proposal to the Pope for the final decision.

The fundamental determinants in place during the adoption of the final proposal of the spatial reorganisation of the Church, upon which the activity of the Committee was based, were the implementation of the council decisions and decrees as contained within the document Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI, published as Ecclesiae Sanctae (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1966) on 6 August 1966. This document stated that this process must include the fair consultation of all interested parties, and all active ecclesiastical persons in the area where the intended changes to the spatial reorganisation would occur. It also stressed that the process required obtaining the opinions of lay-experts, who were experts in specific issues considered key in the functioning of the planned new dioceses, archdioceses and ecclesiastical provinces. It should also be noted that the pressures of the state structures towards finding a solution for the ecclesiastical organisation in Croatia were significantly decreased thanks to the Protocol between the Government of the SFR Yugoslavia and the State Secretariat of the Holy See, signed on 25 June 1966 (Osobna ostavština Franje Šepera, 1966). This document marked the first time the state authorities recognised the exclusive jurisdiction of the Holy See and the Pope over the Catholic Church in the then SFR Yugoslavia, and with it Croatia. This legally disabled any direct intervening of the regime into the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the spatial organisation of its pastoral activities.

The establishment of the Rijeka ecclesiastical province ran smoother. From the beginning, the process was truly democratic. Bishop Josip Pavlišić, then administrator of the Rijeka Diocese and auxiliary bishop of Senj-Modruš Diocese sent out a questionnaire to the clergy in the territory of the then Rijeka and Senj-Modruš Dioceses (Peloza, 1973; Bogović, 2009). Ultimately, the will of the majority was respected. A minority did not agree with the unification of the two dioceses into a single Rijeka-Senj Archdiocese and Metropolis, with the rightful complaint that this decision neglected a large part of the Lika region. This area was then poorly connected with Senj, in which diocese it then belonged, but was even more isolated from Rijeka. The proposal of the majority was ultimately accepted, though improvements for the Church in the Lika region did not arrive until 25 May 2000, with the establishment of the Gospić-Senj Diocese (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 2000). The Committee’s final proposal, which was ultimately accepted by the Holy See, was adopted with a secret ballot during the Yugoslav Conference of Bishops, held from 18–20 July 1968 (Zapisnici zasjedanja Biskupske konferencije, 1960-1969). Of the 24 (arch)bishops present, 20 voted in supported of the Committee proposal, three abstained, and one voted against. The accepted proposal was then forwarded for final confirmation to the Holy See, and this confirmation was received in the bull of Pope Paul VI Servus Servorum Dei ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, issued on 27 July 1969 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1970). This bull also fully accepted the proposal of the Committee and Yugoslav Conference of Bishops, thereby establishing the Rijeka Metropolis, consisting of the newly established and promoted Rijeka-Senj Archdiocese, the Krk Diocese and Poreč-Pula Diocese.

The resolution of the ecclesiastical administration in southern Croatia, however, was much more complex. Numerous different interests and positions on this issue were in conflict. On the one hand, the majority of the Dalmatian dioceses were in support of the establishment of a metropolis seated in Split, calling upon the ancient history of this ecclesiastical centre, and on the objective of the Concordia between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1935), which was subsequently retracted due to the interventions of the Serbian Orthodox Church that countered its establishment (Matković, 2003). On the other hand, the intention to make the Zadar Archdiocese the seat of the metropolis, once it became whole again following the end of WWII, was considered my many church officials, laymen and particularly the state structures and public opinion to be an option following irredentist inclinations by Italy (Razgovori s predstavnicima državnih vlasti, 1954.). Indeed, this was not acceptable to the local Church in Zadar. Strong debate followed as to whose historical right was stronger, and which of these two centres would have priority in the establishment of new ecclesiastical provinces. In that situation, the Zadar Archdiocese and Split-Makarska Diocese tried to win over the majority for support. In the meantime, a proposal was made to unit all the (arch)dioceses in Croatia into a single Croatian ecclesiastical province seated at Zagreb. However, this would truly be unrealistic and unaligned with the principles of the organisation of ecclesiastical provinces, which would be given national significance. It was considered that the existence of multiple metropolises in Croatia would stimulate regionalisation, which according to the same opinions, supported those aspiring for Croatian territories. Taking the surface area of Croatia into account, the number of Catholic followers and the transport connections and accessibility at that time, such a province would truly have been dysfunctional.

The decision was finally passed, as with the Rijeka Metropolis, at the session of the Conference of Bishops from 18–20 June 1968 (Zapisnici zasjedanja Biskupske konferencije, 1960-1969). In the secret ballot, of the 23 (arch)bishops present, 15 voted for Split as the seat of the metropolis, while 8 gave their vote to Zadar. This result brought with it multiple consequences. Namely, neither side received the necessary two-thirds majority vote, meaning the final decision had to be requested from the Holy See. The Holy See took view of the fact that a decision was made to establish the Rijeka Metropolis on the one hand, while on the other respecting the fact of disagreement within the Conference of Bishops, it was pressed to find a solution that would satisfy both sides. This would require recognising the decision of the majority of (arch)bishops to make Split the seat of the ecclesiastical province, while not offending the other side. The final decision was issued in the bull of Pope Paul VI Servus Servorum Dei ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, of 27 July 1969, the same bull that established the Rijeka Metropolis (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1970). In the decision, the Split-Makarska Diocese was made an archdiocese and the seat of the Split Metropolis, which included the suffragan dioceses of Šibenik, Hvar-Brač-Vis, Dubrovnik and Kotor. With this decision, these dioceses ceased to be under the direct administration of the Holy See. The Zadar Archdiocese did not lose its status, instead its apostolic administrator Marijan Oblak was appointed archbishop Imediate est subiecta Sanctae Sedi. Such a decision was not a complete solution to the spatial organisation of the ecclesiastical administration, but the Holy See did not in any case damage the local Church in this decision. The decision itself had a significant influence on the relations between the bishops and archbishops. There are clear indications that the opposing opinions of the bishops, i.e. the new Split-Makarska Archbishop and Metropolitan Frane Franić on the one side, and Zagreb Archbishop and Metropolitan Cardinal Franjo Šeper on the other, resulted in great distance between them. In the available literature, there is no reference that Cardinal Šeper ever openly supported either of the options, however, Archbishop Franić was unable to come to terms with the fact that Šeper gave his vote to the Zadar Archdiocese, together with his auxiliary bishops, suffragan bishops and the Banja Luka Bishop Alfred Pichler, which was sufficient to sway the final outcome in which Split did not succeed in obtaining the necessary two-thirds majority vote, by which all the (arch) dioceses would form a single metropolis seated in Split (Zapisnici zasjedanja Biskupske konferencije, 1960-1969; Franić, 1994). 

It should be stressed that the Holy See aimed to establish an ecclesiastic administration to the satisfaction of the local Church in Croatia. After long discussions, due to the opinion of the majority of the Catholic episcopates, it was finally decided to establish the Split Metropolis, and this decision received the support of the Holy See. Indeed, this did not fully resolve the issue of the ecclesiastical administration on the Croatian Adriatic coast. This issue is still current today. However, the Holy See did not in any way have a crucial role in determining the current situation. The Holy See does not issue decisions that would be contrary to the position of the majority of the local bishops and archbishops. Therefore, in order to make new changes, an agreement has to be made in the local Church, i.e. among the bishops and archbishops in Croatia.

Discussion

The position of the Zadar Archdiocese, which is under the direct administration of the Holy See, is not an isolated case. This is evident in comparisons of the spatial organisation of the Church in Croatia with that in other countries. Not taking into account the many different forms of ecclesiastic administration that are exclusively and always under the direct administration of the Holy See[13] throughout Europe and the world, there are numerous dioceses and archdioceses that are also under its direct administration, and there are still three of the total 42 territorial prelates. Those are the territorial prelate of Santo Cristo de Esquipulas in Guatemala (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1957) as of 16 September 1956, and the territorial prelates of Tromsø and Trondheim in Norway (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1979) as of 28 March 1979. The Jerusalem Patriarchy is also under the direct administration of the Holy See as of 4 October 1847, when it was reinstated. The reason for this is that Jerusalem is a significant city, and the centre for Christians and Catholics of all orders. At the global level of the spatial organisation of the Catholic Church, there are a total of 22 archdioceses, including the Zadar Archdiocese (Table 1), and 47 dioceses (Table 2) that were under the direct administration of the Holy See in 2015 (Annuario Pontificio, 2015). Of these, 29 dioceses (61.7%) and 12 archbishops (54.5%) are situated in Europe. This clearly shows that this form of ecclesiastical administration is most common on the European continent, primarily due to historical circumstances and similar contexts.

Considering the specific historical development and significance of the Catholic Church in social systems, the territorial organisation of the Church in Croatia is most comparable to examples within Europe. Four main groups can be identified based on the circumstances in which the diocese and archdioceses in these areas can under the direct administration of the Holy See. The first group includes the Italian (arch)dioceses that are not part of the Roman ecclesiastic province, and are found in the Lazio province and the neighbouring Toscana, Umbria and Campagna provinces. These were primarily established during ancient times or in the early Middle Ages, and have traditionally been under pontifical administration and never joined any of the subsequently formed ecclesiastical provinces. The two exceptions in Italy are the dioceses of the Italo-Albanese order on Sicily (Piana degli Albanesi) and in Calabria (Lungro), which are under the direct administration of the Holy See due to the very small congregations and active clergy (only about 30,000 faithful in each). Based on that characteristic, these dioceses fall into the second group together with other dioceses in countries with a relatively low share of Catholics. These are the dioceses of Nikopol, Sofia-Plovdiv, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Reykjavik, Chisinau, Oslo and Stockholm and the archdioceses of Bar, Athens and Rhodes. The third group include the (arch)dioceses situated within very small countries or territorial units. These are, for examples, the diocese of Gibraltar and the archdioceses of Luxembourg, Monaco and Vaduz. All of these, though in terms of the small congregation size and surface area were not included into one of the ecclesiastical provinces in the neighbouring countries due to their historical specificities. The final group are the archdioceses that are under direct administration of the Holy See due exclusively to their historical circumstances. This final, fourth group of (arch)dioceses is certainly the most significant for the issue of the spatial organisation of the Catholic Church on the Croatian Adriatic coast. Namely, all seven dioceses and all three archdioceses have the same reason for their direct administration by the Holy See, based on the historical circumstances of their establishment and changing of borders. Of all the (arch)dioceses in this fourth group, six are located in Switzerland. Due to the specificity of the historical context, the confederate status and ethnic and language specificities, the Holy See created six dioceses and two territorial abbies of the territorial administration in Switzerland, all of which are direct administration, as defined through the papal encyclical Commissum divintus of 17 May 1835, Etsi multa luctosa of 21 November 1873 and Graves ac diuturnae of 23 March 1875 (URL 1). Together they form the Swiss Conference of Bishops, but without the establishment of metropolises or joining to other metropolises in neighbouring countries, and to this day have remained under such direct administration of the Holy See.

The next example of an archdiocese under the direct administration of the Holy See due to historical circumstances of border changes is Alba Iulia in Romania (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1991). This ecclesiastical administration area is situated in the historical Erdel region, which was part of the Hungarian kingdom from the 11^th century until it was conquered by the Ottomans in 1526. Then it was a semi-independent princedom, until the Treaty of Karlowitz of 1699, which brought it under Habsburg rule until the end of World War I in 1918. Due to the ethnic diversity in the region, and the very large number of faithful who are not of Romanian nationality, this area was placed under the direct administration of the Holy See and remains so to this day. Initially, it was called the Transylvania Diocese, but the name was changed to Alba Iulia on 22 March 1932, and on 5 August 1991, it was raised to the level of an archdiocese.

The most similar examples to the Zadar Archdiocese are the Metz Diocese and Strasbourg Archdiocese in France, in the present day provinces of Lorraine and Alsace. Both were established in the 4^th century, with frequent changes of secular rulers. Over history, these regions were ruled by the Franks, Holy Roman Empire of the German People, French Kingdom, then after the Franco-Prussian war they again became part of Germany until the end of World War I, when the Versailles Peace Treaty returned them under France, where they remained until 1940 when they were occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany. In 1944, they were again returned to French rule. Due to such frequent changes of countries and rulers, these dioceses are comparable with the Zadar Archdiocese, whose seat Zadar and its surrounding areas very frequently changes the national and legal framework over the same time period and particularly over the past 100 years, which largely resulted in the same status pertaining to its ecclesiastic administration. Just as the Zadar Archdiocese, though under the direct administration of the Holy See, was a full member of the Yugoslav Conference of Bishops, and since 1991 a member of the Croatian Conference of Bishops, such were the Metz Diocese and Strasbourg Archdiocese, though under direct administration of the Holy See, were both full members of the French Conference of Bishops.

From all these examples listed here, both at the global and even more so at the European scale, particularly those that are similar to the example of the Zadar Archdioceses, it is clear that its current position, in which it is under the direct administration of the Holy See, is present elsewhere outside of Croatia and that this is not an isolated case, but is in fact present in virtually all of Europe.[14]

Essentially, there are several possible scenarios for the spatial reorganisation of the Catholic Church on the Croatian Adriatic coast. In line with this, there are also multiple possible scenarios for the position of the Zadar Archdiocese in the future organisation of the Church. The first scenario is the maintenance of the status quo, i.e. that the Zadar Archdiocese continues to keep its current status of an archdiocese under the direct administration of the Holy See, which is not the intention of the local Church in Zadar, given its intent to raise the archdiocese to the level of a metropolis (Zapisnici zasjedanja Biskupske konferencije, 1960-1969).

The second scenario is that Zadar becomes a suffragan to one of the existing adjacent metropolitan archdioceses. Such a structure is actually very common in France and Italy. For example, of the archdioceses in France, Sens is suffragan to Dijon, Cambrai is suffragan to Lille, Chambéry is suffragan to Lyon, Aix and Avignon are suffragans to Marseille, Albi and Auch are suffragans to Toulouse, while Bourges is suffragan to the Tours Metropolitan Archdiocese. In Italy, there are also such examples, with the archdioceses of Trani-Barletta-Bisceglie is suffragan to Bari, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi is suffragan to Benevente, Ferrara-Comacchio is suffragan to Bologna, Crotone-Santa Severina is suffragan to Catanzaro-Squillace, Lanciano-Ortona is suffragan to Chieti, Rossano-Cariati is suffragan to Cosenza, Camerino-San Severino Marche is suffragan to Fermo, Manfredonia-Vieste-san Giovanni Rotondo is suffragan to Foggi, Brindisi-Ostuni and Otranto are suffragans to Lecce, Capua and Sorrento-Castellammare di Stabia are suffragans to Naples, Monreale is suffragan to Palermo, Urbino–Urbania–Sant’Angelo in Vado is suffragan to Pesare, Acarenza te Matera-Irsina is suffragan to Potenza, and finally, Amalfi–Cava de’Tirreni is suffragan to Salerno. All these archdioceses, like the Zadar Archdiocese, were metropolises during the past, but due to the circumstances and historical events, lost this status. Of course, such a solution was also possible for Zadar, but there is a relatively low likelihood of this, given the events that followed after the end of World War II and given the fact that had such a decision been planned, it would have been made much sooner (Zapisnici zasjedanja Biskupske konferencije, 1960-1969; Franić, 1994; Oblak, 2009; Kero, 2010). However, the local Church in Zadar did not accept the possibility of being suffragan to the Split Metropolis.

The third scenario is the establishment of the Zadar Metropolis, which would receive one or more of the neighbouring dioceses as suffragans, such as the Šibenik or Gospić-Senj Dioceses. As in the second scenario, this would be difficult to achieve, as this proposal was posed earlier, but did not receive the support of the ecclesiastical structures of these dioceses which become suffragans to Zadar. This scenario implies a sub-scenario for the possibility of establishing a new diocese seated at Nin, which would be suffragan to a newly established Zadar Metropolis. This possibility was mentioned by the top church officials just prior to the organisational changes implemented in 1969 (Zapisnici zasjedanja Biskupske konferencije, 1960-1969), but was not considered upon more detailed analysis. The fact that Nin has no true function as a centre among the neighbouring decanates and parishes presented a problem with this proposal, and would have made such a proposal difficult to implement.

The fourth scenario based on the historical events and circumstances that have followed the resolution of the spatial organisation of the Church on the Croatian Adriatic coast would be the establishment of the Zadar Metropolis without suffragan dioceses. This possibility is realistic and achievable, considering the significance of the Zadar Archdiocese over history, and would not require changes in the position and spatial organisation of the neighbouring dioceses. However, which is most significant, is that such solutions already exist in the Church. There are four such cases. One example is the Kottayam Metropolitan Archdiocese of the Siro-Malabar order in India (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1924). The second is the Saint-Boniface Metropolitan Archdiocese in Manitoba, Canada (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1916). The third is the Corfu-Zakynthos-Kefalonia Metropolitan Archdiocese in Greece (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1919). And the fourth and final example is also the nearest geographically, and the historically most comparable, the Udine Metropolitan Archdiocese in Italy (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1933). This metropolitan archdiocese was established on 6 July 1751 in the area of the then reformed Aquileia Patriarchy, in which the Udine Metropolitan Archdioceses was formed in addition to the Gorizia Metropolitan Archdiocese. For a short period following the Napoleonic Wars from 1818 to 1847, it lost this status and was reduced to the rank of diocese. From this point forward to the present day, it has held the status of a metropolitan archdiocese, but without suffragan dioceses. Without a doubt such a solution is also feasible for the Zadar Archdiocese, which regardless of whether it would have suffragan dioceses or not, could be raised to the rank of a metropolitan centre. This possibility has not yet been taking into consideration, as the solution to date has been almost exclusively sought through the designation of dioceses that would be suffragan to the Zadar Metropolitan Archdiocese. Given its significance, both historical and current, Zadar would thus receive the status it deserves. This above all ensues from its functions as an ecclesiastical centre, through the educational, theological and cultural aspects and many resources of this centre, which clearly outline its importance over a relatively large geographical area in terms of population density and the share of the Catholic congregation. Nor is the socio-political function of Zadar as a city insignificant, thereby further emphasizing the need to raise its status to a metropolitan centre of the Catholic Church.

Conclusion

The historical circumstances have had a strong influence on the present day spatial organisation of the Catholic Church on the Croatian Adriatic coast. The frequent changes caused by changing borders had a crucial impact on later efforts to resolve the issues of organisation of ecclesiastical provinces after the end of World War II. This procedure was very long and complex, as those involved had very opposing opinions on the relations of Split and Zadar as ecclesiastic centres. Finally, the most significant changes were made in 1969, with the establishment of the Rijeka and Split Metropolises with archdioceses, with the neighbouring dioceses become suffragan dioceses, while the Zadar Archdiocese remaining under the direct administration of the Holy See to the present day, exclusively as a compromise solution by the Pope. The new spatial organisation established in 1969 was exclusively the consequent of the lack of agreement among the local Churches in Croatia, i.e. its bishops and clergy. Namely, since the necessary two-thirds majority vote could not be achieved in resolving this issue, the Holy See was left with no other option that to respect the decision of the relative majority, while also not damaging the side left as the minority. For these reasons, the Zadar Archdiocese has remained under the direct administration of the Holy See to the present day, and was not joined to the Split Metropolis. Giving consideration to the spatial organisation of the Catholic Church around the world, and above all within Europe, it is seen that this position of the Zadar Archdiocese is not isolated, but is relatively common, as shown in some examples, such as the Metz Diocese and Strasbourg Archdiocese in France, which are similar and comparable for historical reasons.

There are four possible solutions to this issue. The first is keeping the status quo. The second is that the Zadar Archdiocese retain the status of an archdiocese, and becomes suffragan to one of the neighbouring metropolitan archdioceses, which is unlikely and unfeasible, as otherwise this would have already been carried out. Another unlikely option is the establishment of the Zadar Metropolis, with the joining of neighbouring dioceses as suffragan. The final and most appropriate option, which exists elsewhere, is that the Zadar Archdiocese becomes a metropolitan archdiocese, but without suffragan dioceses. The best such example is the Udine Metropolitan Archdiocese in Italy, which has no suffragan dioceses. This would not alter the territorial organisation of the Catholic Church on the Croatian Adriatic coast, the Zadar Archdiocese would obtain the status it has historically, but above all the status is deserves as an ecclesiastical centre, and socio-political centre on the Croatian Adriatic coast. With that, it would receive the status of a metropolitan centre, without changing the borders of its neighbouring dioceses, archdioceses and metropolises. With this option, no other party would be at a loss, and the territorial organisation of the Catholic Church in Croatia would largely reflect the functional system of the Croatian regions.

Notes

* This work has been supported in part by Croatian Science Foundation under project no. 3481 (Croatia in the 20th century: modernization in the context of pluralism and monism)

[1] To promote common pastoral action, depending on the local circumstances, multiple neighbouring (arch)dioceses are joined together into ecclesiastical provinces in a given area. The administration over a specific ecclesiastical province is carried out by the Assembly of that province, under the guidance of its metropolitan (Zakonik kanonskog prava, 1966).

[2] An apostolic administration is an ecclesiastic area of administration that due to special and important reasons (i.e. political) is entrusted to pastoral administration by an apostolic administrator who acts as a prelate appointed by the Pope (Zakonik kanonskog prava, 1966).

[3] Area of the present day town of Novalja.

[4] The Rijeka Diocese then encompassed only Rijeka and Opatija with the surrounding settlements. It was established on 30 April 1920 as an apostolic administration, and then following the Free State of Rijeka in 1924 and its annexation to the Kingdom of Italy, was raised to the rank of a diocese on 25 April 1925.

[5] Area of present day Town of Pag and the municipalities Povljana and Kolan.

[6] Zadar was the centre of the ecclesiastical province, and a metropolis from 1154 when it was established by Pope Anastasius IV in the Licet universalis Ecclesiae pastor (Opći šematizam Katoličke Crkve u Jugoslaviji, 1975).

[7] The Šibenik, Split-Makarska, Hvar, Dubrovnik and Kotor Dioceses entered into the composition of the Zadar Metropolis in 1828 pursuant to the papal bull Locum beati Petri in which Pope Leo XII ruled on the comprehensive reorganisation of the Catholic Church in the area of the Kingdom of Dalmatia, which was then situated within the Austrian Empire, later the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. 

[8] Suffragan dioceses are specific dioceses within an ecclesiastical province headed by a metropolitan, which is administered by the Assembly of the same province or metropolis (Zakonik kanonskog prava, 1966).

[9] Irredentism, from the Italian irredentismo, is a movement that arose during the period of the unification of Italy in the 19th century, with the aim of joining together areas considered Italian (Šepić, 1975; D’Alessio, 2001).

[10] These were the Ljubljana and Maribor Dioceses and the apostolic administration for the Slovenian part of the Trieste-Kopar Diocese, which all together were brought under the direct administration of the Holy See.

[11] The Belgrade Archdiocese was then under the direct administration of the Holy See, as were two apostolic administrations for Bačka and Banat within the Yugoslav borders.

[12] In the meantime, changes also occurred in other parts of the then SFR Yugoslavia. For example, on 25 January 1968, the apostolic administration of Bačko was terminated, established in 1923, and in that area the Subotica Diocese was established, thereby ending the process of separation from the Kaločka Archdiocese (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1968).

[13] These include all the territorial abbies outside of Italy, apostolic exarchates, ordinaries for the Eastern Rites orders, military ordinaries, personal ordinaries, personal prelates, all apostolic vicars except Rundu in Namibia established on 13 March 1994 and is part of the Windhoek Metropolis, all apostolic prefects with the exception of the Marshall Islands, which as of 23 April 1993 are part of the Agaña metropolis on Guam, all apostolic administrations with the exception of Atyrau in Kazakhstan which is part of the Astana Metropolis, and the Southern Albanian administration which is part of the Tirana-Drač Metropolis, and the personal apostolic administration São João Maria Vianney in Brazil. In addition to these there are the independent missions ‘Sui juris’, with exceptions in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. These are the missions of the Cayman Islands, which since 17 July 2000 is part of the Kingston Metropolis on Jamaica, the mission Turks and Caicos which since 22 June 1999 is part of the Nassau Metropolis on the Bahamas, the Funafutia mission which since 26 June 1992 is part of the Samoa-Apia Metropolis on the island nation of Samoa and the Tokelau mission, which also since 26 June 1992 is part of the Samoa-Apia Metropolis.

[14] Despite the principle provisions of the Holy See from 1983 that “As a rule, exempt dioceses are no longer to exist” (Zakonik kanonskog prava, 1966).