“Unity” Established by Force: The Bulgarian Government Raided Freedom of Religion And Democracy
By Viktor Kostov
About a month ago I asked for titles related to freedom of religion and church and state relations in one of the bookstores for legal literature in the Sofia University. The saleswoman, with red-dyed hair and heavy make-up, looked at me as if I were a lower species and literally turned her back to me with the words “I sell only legal literature! All kinds come to this store!” I tried to explain to the lady that the subject I am interested in is actually law of the highest, constitutional order. She answered that she is not even interested in knowing what I have to say and pointed me toward the exit. It may sound unbelievable, but this is a true story.
Also true is the sad realization that ignorance, especially of the arrogant kind and which takes pride in its own self, bears the bitter fruit of a job poorly done. Such are things with church and state relations and freedom of religion and the Law on Religious Confessions in Bulgaria today. The bitter fruit of the hastily put together Religious Law and the disregard for freedom of religion came to a head on July 21, 2004, when the prosecutor’s office raided the so-called “alternative Synod” of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
“Return of communism,” “unseen aggression,” and “brutal actions” described the situation, by the supporters of the alternative Synod and its leader, in which Orthodox priests where driven away from their temples where they minister. Unfortunately, this aggression was only a matter of time, given the fact that the state, represented by the executive branch and in part by the legislature, took one side in the argument between the two fractions among Orthodox Christians.
Why couldn’t it happen any other way? Because political interests were again radically involved in an internal religious affair. In the new democracy, it turns out, prosecutors are still bound by the law to the extent to which it is interpreted by the ruling political party. The prosecutor’s office is part of the broken-down Bulgarian justice system, in which your chance to predict the development of a legal case, on the basis of the facts and the law, is minimal. The combination of factors, among which is the mood of the young female judge, just out of law school, or of the clerk at the registrar’s desk who patronizes attorneys and calls them “colleagues,” makes the system unpredictable for the regular applicant. Is it possible in this heavy-to-move, hardly working system to conduct a coordinated campaign, in one single night, and in the whole country, unless the prosecutors’ offices have acted by a clear and insistent political order. Inokentii (the alternative Synod patriarch) insists, that the Chief Prosecutor Filchev, has personally gathered and instructed the prosecutors from around the nation how and when to act. The prosecutors’ statements that they just followed the law, engaging the police in the takeover of 250 properties, can sound credible only because of the position of these people. However, if we put two and two together, and look at the picture beyond the dust that the prosecutor’s office is throwing in the public’s eye, it becomes clear that not the law, but a political assignment is what has put the rusty machinery into action.
There are several arguments for this statement:
1. The Bulgarian Law on the Religious Confessions does not enlist special rights for the prosecutor’s office to intervene. In other words—the prosecutor has not read his or her law books or purposefully tries to sway the public—bad in both cases. With this in mind, the statements that the prosecutors, who locked out priests and laypeople from their places of worship, are “just doing what the law says” sounds ridiculous. A reason, for the prosecutor’s office, to intervene in the worship services, interrupt them, drag people out and seal the properties, without giving the slightest concern to the way such actions would effect believers, is in not found in the Religious Law. At the same time, the law upholds guarantees for the protection and the sanctity of the right to freedom of religion. Why didn’t the prosecutor decide to uphold the law in that part, which protects the believer and his beliefs? Why did the prosecutor not think about the damage to be done to the souls of the people, if he/she would seek only for the formal grounds for the execution of the political order? The answer is obvious: the purpose of the prosecutor was to protect himself, and his job, not the law or the citizens. The fulfillment of political assignments by the prosecutor’s office is a bad sign for the return of Soviet-type methodology of state rule.
2. The grounds for action of the prosecutor’s office and the police in Sofia was not the Law on Religious Confessions but a complaint by patriarch Maxim of “intrusion”—the legalese for “someone has settled into another’s property and does not want to leave.” The prosecutors should have had a different approach in this case of “intrusion” alleged by Maxim. This case was not about a domestic dispute, a drunken brawl or the eviction of old renters in favor of the new owner. The case affects the rights and legal interests of people as they relate to the freedom of religion and are protected by the law of highest rank. Ministers and believers in the whole country are affected. The reading of the Law on Religious Confessions, of the constitution of Bulgaria and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ratified by Bulgaria and in effect in Bulgarian law) in this case was mandatory. A careful reading would have made the prosecutor’s office realize the delicate situation it finds itself in –
That it is in danger of violating the constitution, the Convention and even the Law on Religious Confessions, regardless of how bad it is. We all had to listen, instead, to the stubborn assertions that the law was upheld. Unfortunately, it could not have been any other way, because the letter of the law was obviously a good reason not to apply the spirit of the law, which is to do justice based on truth and impartiality.
3. Highly organized effort. The attorney for the alternative Synod, Ivan Gruikin, rightly noted that in its effort against crime, the prosecutors enthusiasm for upholding the law is much less vehement and uncoordinated as opposed to the struggle against the “dangerous” believers and priests (after all, they could say a prayer or conduct a liturgy). A serious effort of the whole state prosecution institution is necessary in order to force priests and worshipers from 250 Orthodox churches and properties from all over the country, only within a few hours, to interrupt their services, expression of faith and fellowship with God. The freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and the feelings of people in this regard, which are protected not only in the LRC but in the Bulgarian Constitution as well and in the European Convention, were trampled on in a reckless manner.
4. The Directorate “Religious Confessions,” which is with the executive branch of the government, in the face of professor Zhelev, did not intervene to prevent the hasty actions of prosecutors and police. The Directorate has the duty to do that according to LRC (art. 35, para. 7 “observes the upholding of religious rights and freedoms by the responsible state officials” or “observes that officials do not violate the order of religious rights and freedom.” Just to the contrary, Zhelev expressed opinions in favor of the recognized-by-the-state, i.e. the ruling party, synod of patriarch Maxim. His words, quoted in several online news publications were: “Lets hope that the priests (of Inokentii’s synod) will come to their senses and will return into the canon of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.” Such an attitude is an impermissible taking of sides by the state in an argument which the state cannot solve. It only confirms the impression that Zhelev, the prosecutor’s office and the police are working together for one of the parties in this church dispute. The director did not see a problem that worship services are being interrupted, that priests are being dragged to the streets by force, that there are confused, upset and hurt people, who do not really understand what, in the world, is going on. The Directorate “Religious Confessions” called for the return to the true faith, instead. Just like a director should do.
What is the reason for this blatant failure of the post-communist democracy in Bulgaria? The government leaders’ flirtations with the Orthodox Church and that of the Orthodox Church with the government played a bad joke on everyone. Bulgaria has a years old tradition imported first from the Byzantine Empire, then cultivated in a Russian and Soviet fashion, and re-imported from the north. This is the doctrine of “symphony between church and state.” If you ask well-informed Orthodox believers they would object that this is a doctrine that is typical for Eastern Orthodoxy. They would say that the Eastern Orthodox church does not seek recognition from the state. Simultaneously from history and from contemporary events, we see that the Orthodox institution has liked the support of state authority and the reverse, the state authorities have liked the support of the masses secured by the respect shown to the Orthodox church, and this has been a priority in government policy. In this respect, the state needs a united church and the church needs a strong state authority to back it up. At the same time, neither of these is needed in the contemporary free civil society.
The symphony doctrine, however, does not work well in the environment of post-communist democracy aiming at the western European, and to some extent to the American, model of free market and personal freedom. It is impossible for the government to secure the freedom of religious choice if at the same time it is striving to establish a single religious institution as its own political choice. There are two possible models of church-state relations, which are at odds at this very moment in the Bulgarian society. The first model is the one of the Russian-Byzantine practice where state-czar (president)-fatherland-people are one, and anyone, who is not of the Eastern Orthodox confession and does not support the king is a national traitor. This is the model of the historical heritage. The second model allows people to freely believe in God, to associate because of their faith and preach it, while the government guarantees them liberty, as far as they do not commit crimes and do not hurt or kidnap others. This is the model of the contemporary, postmodern civil order of individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Bulgarian model has always strived to the “golden middle”—do unto others so as to always get the benefit yourself. (Something rather different from the Golden Rule of Christ—do unto others as you want them to do unto you.) Therefore, the raid of the state against the Eastern Orthodox church led by Inokentii is an expression of this desire to “have the cake and eat it, too”, of a mechanical blending of Eastern tradition with Western image. This saying does not work in free societies, because in a place where there is freedom of speech and information, narrow-mindedness in a person’s character or in an organization’s philosophy of management cannot pass by unnoticed and unpunished by the public’s opinion. After all, in this case fundamental human rights and freedoms where brutally violated, and the democratic reforms in Bulgaria are being threatened.
From the very beginning, along with many other critics, I maintained that this new Law on Religious Confessions (2003) is a time-bomb, that it was written double-mindedly, with a great dose of opportunism and with a complete lack of understanding of the actual value of this most precious civil liberty of man—to believe in God and to worship Him. Now this time-bomb has started to inflict injuries. The church and state symphony is turning into a chaotic crescendo. If this forceful way, with such disregard for the consequences, was used to treat some of the Eastern Orthodox believers and their leaders, which are a significant part of the religious communist in Bulgaria, what treatment can we expect for the lesser number of Christians from other denominations?
The dispute, as it is put between the two Synods and their supporters, cannot be decided favorably unless one of the rivals loses all. Both groups are fighting for the recognition forcefully put in place by article 10 of the LRC. The text sets the standard that there is only one true Orthodox church in Bulgaria.
A disgruntled and overwhelmed young priest, from Maxim’s group, shown on a news report on TV, gave the solution to the problem—the schismatics had to repent and return into the realm of the true church. And who, actually, is to decide who is a schismatic and who is in the right faith? This dilemma has primarily spiritual dimensions. But because of political appetites and state-inflicted disregard of freedom of conscience and religious liberty, the issue has become a political one: the status of “schismatics” has been granted to the alternative synod by the government and the prime-minister favoring Maxim and his synod.
The solution of the dispute is not in the “repentance”, as a political category, but in repentance as the turning of the heart from selfishness to the what is righteous and true. The question remains: how should people repent if they are not convinced that repentance for them should include submitting themselves to the leadership of a patriarch in whom many see a servant from the former communist regime? At the same time, they have no legal opportunity to register an Eastern Orthodox church of their own—the law states that the Eastern Orthodox church in Bulgaria is only one. Aside from its real estate value, the sealed church properties are also communities of believers, whose souls cannot be emptied by a decree from the prosecutor’s office.
It is sad that this is happening at a time when Bulgaria needs a true resolve as a nation in its trials against war on terror. On the other hand, the conflict between the church and the state is positive since it brings the division and rivalry into the open. It is easy to heal an open wound, even at the price of shame for those who easily resort to force when its not needed. This way of bringing about “unity” is a trademark of terrorists and communists alone. It cannot be applied by the authorities of a democratic nation, as Bulgaria strives to be such. Bulgarian rulers must shake-off their wolf’s appetite to control the faith and the conscience of people and let their disputes hang over their own consciences.
Bulgarian Police Seizures of Church Properties in Conflict with Religious Freedom Commitments Action Inconsistent with Bulgaria’s OSCE Leadership Position
(Washington) – United States Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) expressed alarm today over the widespread seizure of church properties in Bulgaria, which currently serves as Chair-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Bulgarian authorities raided more than 200 properties used by the alternative Bulgarian Orthodox synod for more than 10 years.
“I’m deeply distressed that Bulgarian police, with the apparent approval of the state prosecutor’s office, would forcibly seize some 200 churches and church-owned properties,” declared Chairman Smith. “While there may be disputes within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, it is certainly not the proper role of government to interfere with internal church affairs. Unfortunately, Bulgarian authorities have abandoned neutrality and chosen sides, potentially endangering religious freedom.”
News reports indicate that throughout the day on July 21 Bulgarian police across the country expelled members of the alternative Orthodox synod of Bishop Inokentii, taking control of properties used by the synod. A longstanding church dispute between the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the alternative synod has existed since they split in 1992.
The raids were discussed with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passy, visiting Washington last week in his capacity as Chair-in-Office of the OSCE, in a meeting with Chairman Smith.
“Property issues should be decided by a court, not through legislative fiat or the unilateral actions of a state prosecutor and police,” said Chairman Smith. “Considering that Bulgaria is the current OSCE Chair-in-Office, I urge the Bulgarian Government to end this embarrassment, lead by example, and honor its OSCE human rights commitment toward religious freedom.”
“Bulgarian authorities should stop interfering and reinstate to the alternative synod full control of the properties,” Smith added. “The state should play no role in forcibly reconciling the two Orthodox communities.”
These raids are not the first time that the Bulgarian Government has favored one synod over the other. The December 2002 religion law enumerated detailed characteristics of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, thereby establishing the synod of Patriarch Maxim above the alternative synod and all other religious communities. The law also laid the groundwork for the seizures by vesting government recognition and property rights with only the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. This provision works to the detriment of the alternative synod, placing it in a precarious and vulnerable position. The United States Helsinki Commission issued a report on the religion law, highlighting this problematic provision and other shortcomings.
The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords. The Commission, created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce.
Bulgarian Orthodoxy in Crisis
July 25, 2004: Bulgaria should not allow religion and policy to be mixed, Parliamentary Speaker Ognyan Gerdhzikov said. In an interview for the private bTV channel Gerzdhikov said the new law used as a base for the July 21 church raids was voted in 2002 aiming to overcome the schism of the Bulgarian Church. Last Wednesday police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests in a controversial raid to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Gerdzhikov pointed out that the Prosecutor’s order for the raid was legal, underlining, however, that the measures taken were not proper. The problem following the schism of the Bulgarian Church has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime.
July 24, 2004: Current arguments in the Bulgarian Church are due to real estate ownership according to Justice Minister Anton Stankov. Stankov explained that the police actions were legal. On July 21 police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests in a controversial raid to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The problem following the schism of the Bulgarian Church has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime.
July 23, 2004: The Supreme Cassation Court initiated legal proceedings against the so-called Alternative Synod of Inokentiy. One of the charges is illegal possession of property. The case has been referred to the National Security Service. Meanwhile, Inkentiy and priests from his synod demanded the resignation of chief prosecutor Nikola Filchev because of his interference in church activities. The priests met with MPs. However, no MPs from the National Movement Simeon II (NMSII) and from the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) attended the meeting. Inokentiy said that he struggled for the churches, not for the church properties. Bulgarian ex PM and leader of Democrats for Strong Bulgaria Ivan Kostov read a declaration of the United Democratic Forces saying that some Bulgarian state institutions violate basic human rights and freedoms. MP from the NMSII Borislav Ralchev tried to deny the attacks against the Government saying that the issue was not about state interference in the church activities. “There is no alternative synod. There is just one synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church”, leader of the parliamentary faction of the New Time Miroslav Sevlievski said. The church, the Holy Synod and Bulgarian Patriarch Maxim have to decide on the solution of the problem, BSP MP Tatyana Doncheva said.
July 22, 2004: Priests from the dissident clergy headed by Metropolitan Inokentii served a mass in font of the Saint Sofia church in Bulgaria’s capital. The holy men protest against yesterday’s controversial police raids to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Later on Thursday representatives of the dissident clergy headed by Metropolitan Inokentii met with MPs from all Parliamentary Groups except for the Bulgarian socialists. The holy men urged for the resignation of Bulgaria’s Chief Prosecutor Nikola Filchev. Police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests Wednesday. The problem following the schism of Bulgarian Church has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime.
July 21, 2004: Bulgarian policemen scuffle with a priest as they detain him Wednesday at St Parashkeva church in Sofia July. Police tried to force dissident clergy from 18 local churches in an escalating schism in Bulgarian Orthodox community. Police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests Wednesday in a controversial raid to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The problem following the schism of Bulgarian Church, dating three years ago, has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime. In Sofia alone, priests were forcefully dragged out of 18 churches alongside present laypeople. The dissident clergy headed by Father Inokentii is determined to stay vigil in front of their churches until allowed back into them. arises.
Profile of a Bulgarian Pastor
The following research is based on the survey of Barna Group, What People Want (1997).
We asked 100 Bulgarians of the most important qualities of the pastor, and they answered:
1. Makes decisions which are in the best interests of the people, even if those decisions might not be popular (29%)
2. Trains and develop other leaders to help (27%)
3. Strives things in church to be done right (14%)
4. Does not impose his personal opinion (13%)
5. Motivates people to get involved (9%)
6. Negotiates a compromise when there is conflict (3%)
7. Supervises the work of staff people (3%)
8. Manages the day-to-day details and operations of the group they lead (1%)
9. Creates the plans necessary to implement the vision (1%)
Usage of the Bulgarian Bible
One out of three Bulgarians who read the Bible regularly read a version published after 1989.
One out of three reads less than one chapter from the Bible per day.
One out of ten (11%) read over ten chapters per day.
Nearly half (48%) read the Protestant versions of the Bulgarian Bible published in 1924 and 1940.
Other translations are also used as shown on the figure below.
Annual Bulgarian Conference
During Memorial Day Weekend Cup & Cross Ministries participated in the Third Annual Conference of Bulgarian Churches in North America. The conference took place on May 29-31, 2004 in Minneapolis and was hosted by the local Bulgarian Evangelical Church. Over 130 delegates from Bulgarian communities of Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, Montreal and Atlanta attended the event. Among the Bulgarian ministers present, there were pastors who have been persecuted along with their families as a part of the underground church in Bulgarian during the Communist Regime.
The conference began on Saturday with an introduction of the ministries present and a concert in honor of May 24, the Bulgarian holiday which celebrates the Bulgarian alphabet and culture.
The Sunday morning service was accompanied with a picnic, followed by two sessions on the topic of the conference, “The Joy of the Lord is our Strength”. The first one was presented by the pastor of the Bulgarian Church in Los Angeles, and the second one by our ministry.
During the presentation we were able to inform of some of our findings of our research.
Cup & Cross has worked with Bulgarian immigrants for the past ten years, and our team has actively and purposefully observed the Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America for almost three years as a part of our research. We were able to present each minister, pastor and leader of a congregation with a special copy of the results of our research. The churches were also presented with a special Bible study software prepared by our internet ministry team of which administrates www.bibliata.com.
A new ambitious goal was set to review the results and analyses provided by the research and implement them in the ministry of the local congregations through a church-planting program for Bulgarian communities in North America.
Our research called for awareness of cross-cultural challenges, immigration dynamics and interchurch relationship as well as their affect on the churches identity and ministry. The conclusion included an altar call and dedication prayer for the future of the Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America and especially for the second generation of Bulgarian immigrants.
It was decided that the 2005 annual conference of Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America will take place in Los Angeles. The conference gave us an opportunity to network with Bulgarian congregations and communities nationwide. It is our prayer that their ministry is successful and blessed in the future.
Gateway Cities for Bulgarian Evangelical Churches
Bulgarian Evangelical Churches are located in cities which have a high concentration of foreign-born immigrants. Such cities are called gateway cities, a large immigrant point-of-entry city to the United States. Immigrants typically enter the United States through one of these cities and settle there. Such cities contain over half of the foreign-born population in the United States. There are Bulgarian Evangelical Churches active in five of the seven gateway cities as follows:
Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in Gateway Cities
| Gateway City | Foreign Born | Percent of Foreign Born | Bulgarian Church |
| 1. New York, NY | 3,657,269 | 18.7% | Yes |
| 2. Los Angeles, CA | 3,944,828 | 27.1% | Yes |
| 3. Houston, TX | 460,380 | 12.3% | Yes |
| 4. Washington, DC | 578,786 | 8.6% | No |
| 5. Miami, FL | 1,072,843 | 33.6% | Yes |
| 6. Chicago, IL | 914,58 | 11.1% | Yes |
| 7. San Francisco, CA | 1,250,693 | 20.0% | No |
Geographical Location of Bulgarian American Churches and Gateway Cities.
Several facts are obvious from the above comparison. It is apparent that Bulgarian immigrants come to North America in ways similar to other immigrant groups, channeled through the listed gateway cities. Large cities which are gateways are more probable to become a settlement for Bulgarian immigrants due to the availability of jobs, lodging and other immigrants from the same ethnic group. The emerging Bulgarian immigrant communities share religious similarities and belongingness which are factors helping to form the communities. As a result of this process of formation of Bulgarian immigrant communities, the Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America emerge. It also seems natural to suggest that as this process continues, Bulgarian Evangelical Churches will be formed in the remaining two gateway cities (Washington, D.C. and San Francisco) and other large cities which meet the requirements to become a gateway city (for example, the city Atlanta). If this is true, it should be proposed that the Bulgarian Churches in North America follow a strategy for church planting and growth which targets this type of cities.
Bulgarian Law on Religions (Law on the Religious Confessions)
Chapter One: General Provisions
Art. 1 This law provides for the right of religion of all persons under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Bulgaria and its protection, and the legal status of the religious communities and institutions as well, and their relations with the state.
Art. 2 (1) The right of religion is fundamental, absolute, subjective, personal and inviolable.
(2) The right of religion shall include everybody’s right freely to form his/her religious persuasions and to choose, change and worship (practice) freely his/her religion – individually or in collective, in public or in private, by worship, teaching, rites and rituals.
Art. 3 (1) Nobody shall be persecuted or limited in his rights because of his religious beliefs. No limitations or privileges based on affiliation or rejection of affiliation to a religion are allowed.
(2) Religious convictions shall not be basis for a refusal to fulfill obligations established by the Constitution.
Art. 4 (1) The religions are free and equal in rights. Religious institutions are separate from the state.
(2)No state interference in the internal organization of the self-administered religious institutions shall be allowed.
(3) The state shall provide conditions for free and unhindered exercise of the rights of religion assisting with maintenance of tolerance and respect between the believers from the different religions and between believers and non-believers.
(4) No religiously based discrimination shall be allowed.
Chapter Two: Right of Religion
Art. 5 (1) The right of religion shall be exercised through forming and manifestation of religious belief, establishment or participation in a religious community, organization of a community’s institutions, accomplishment of religious training and education through dissemination of the respective belief orally, in print, by the use of electronic media, in the form of lectures, seminars, courses, programs, etc.
(2) Religious belief may be manifested through carrying out of the respective religious beliefs through worship, rituals, and customs.
(3) The religious belief is expressed in private when it is accomplished from a specified member of the religious community or in the presence of persons belonging to the community, and in public, when its expression can as well become accessible for people not belonging to the respective religious community.
Art. 6 (1) The right of religion shall include the following rights as well:
a) establishment and maintenance of religious organizations with structure and ways of representation which are suitable according to the free understanding of its members;
b) establishment and maintenance of places of worship or religious meetings;
c) establishment and maintenance of proper charitable or humanitarian institutions;
d) production, acquisition and use to the extent necessary for the rites and the customs of a religion or belief according to a related with the worship aims;
e) writing, publishing and dissemination of religious publications;
f) delivery and reception of religious training in a language according to one’s own choice;
g) preaching and training of religion or belief in places proper for this purpose according to the community’s and institutions, and creation and maintenance of educational establishments that are appropriate according to the communities and institutions, following the requirements of the law;
h) collection and reception of voluntary financial and other support and donations from persons and institutions;
i) observance of the days of rest and respecting religious holidays;
j) establishment and maintenance of relations in the country and abroad with persons and communities on religion and belief issues.
(2) Parents and guardians shall have the right to ensure religious training to their children according to their own convictions.
Art. 7 (1) Freedom of religions shall not be directed against national security, public order, people’s health and the morals or the rights and freedoms of persons under the jurisdiction of the republic of Bulgaria or other states. Other grounds for limitations of the right of religion, different from the enumerated, shall not be introduced.
(2) Religious communities and institutions and religious beliefs cannot be used for political purposes.
(3) Rights and freedoms of persons who are members of a religious community shall not be limited by the internal rules, rituals and rites of this community or institution.
(4) Religious communities and institutions shall not attract children and minors under 18 years of age when there is an express refusal of their parents or guardians.
Art. 8 (1) The right of religion shall be limited only with a court decision under the terms of adversary proceedings, if the requirements of Art. 7 are being abused.
(2) The competent court of the first instance in this case shall be Sofia City Court.
Art. 9 Limitation of the right of religion may include:
(1) Prohibition of dissemination of a certain printed publications;
(2) Prohibition of the total publishing activity;
(3) Restriction on public manifestations;
(4) deprivation of registration of educational, health or social enterprises
(5) Cancellation of activities for a period of up to six months;
(6) nullifying of the registration of the legal entity of the religion.
Art. 10 The specific religions are characterized among themselves with their name, religious beliefs and the natural persons composing their religious communities.
Art. 11, paragraph 1. The traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria is the Eastern Orthodox. It plays a historic role in Bulgarian statehood and has actual meaning in the state’s life. Its voice and representative is the autocephalous Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which under the name Patriarchy, is the successor of the Bulgarian Exarchate and is a member of the United, Holy, Congregational and Apostolic Church. It is led by the Holy Synod and is represented by the Bulgarian Patriarch who is Metropolitan of Sofia.
Paragraph 2. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is a legal person. Its structure and management are established by its bylaws.
Paragraph 3. Paragraph 1 and 2 cannot be the basis to grant privileges or any advantages [to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church] over other denominations by a law or sub-law [normative administrative act].
Art. 12. (1) The relations of the religious institutions with the government and the connected documentation are carried out in the official Bulgarian language.
(2) During performance of religious rituals and during worship another language can be used according to the choice of the religious community and according to the tradition of its practice.
Art. 13 (1) Religions can establish for their needs ritual, houses of prayer or worship for public religious rites and services in facilities owned or rented by the religious institution or local branch. Buildings of the religions are built observing the Law on Land Use of the Territory and the respective sub-laws [administrative normative acts, taking account [religious needs].
(2) Religions may organize public activities outside of houses of worship as well.
Art. 14. The secret of confession is inviolable. No cleric shall be forced to testify or to deliver information about facts and circumstances which he came to know during confession.
Chapter Three
Art. 15. Religious communities shall acquire status of a legal person on the conditions and according to the procedures of this law.
Art. 16. Registration of religious communities as a legal person shall be accomplished by the Sofia City Court.
Art. 17. Legal procedures for registration shall be carried out following the procedures of Chapter 46 of Civil Procedure Code.
Art. 18. The Sofia City Court may require expert opinion in relation to the registration of religious communities from the Directorate of Religions.
Art. 19. The statute of a religion must include:
(1) name and headquarters of the religion;
(2) short statement of the religious beliefs;
(3) structure and bodies of the religion;
(4) the manner of specifying of ruling authorities and the period of their mandate;
(5) persons who have the right to represent the religion, the manner of their appointment, their change or replacement and the period of their mandate;
(6) manners of taking decisions and procedures for summoning of sittings of the [supervisory] bodies of the religion;
(7) internal property relations [within the religion];
(8) manners of termination and liquidation.
Art. 20. The Sofia City Court shall manage a public register of religions with the status of legal persons, in which are listed :
1. legal resolution for registration by the Court ;
2. name and headquarters;
3. ruling bodies and representation;
4. names of the persons, which are representatives of the religious institution.
Art. 21. (1) Religions can have local branches according to their statute.
(2) Local branches shall be registered by the mayors of the municipalities, according to the place of the [mayor’s] headquarters, under the conditions of notification regime, within a 7-days term, on the basis of an application by the central leadership of the religion or authorised by it person according to the statute.
(3) The application, according to paragraph. 2, shall include:
1. The court decision of the Sofia City Court for the registration of the religion and its central leadership, together with the respective power of attorney to the [local] person authorized by the central leadership.
2. A certificate from the central leadership for persons, who shall represent the central leadership in the respective Municipality, the seat and the address of the local subsection.
(4) The mayor shall inform the Directorate of Religions of the performed entry within 3 days after the entry in the [local] register is completed.
(5) The Municipality administration shall maintain a register of local branches of religions.
Art. 23. If it is possible according to the statute of a respective religion, local branches shall register as legal persons in a regional court, within the jurisdiction of the municipality where its headquarters are located.
Chapter Four: Property and Finances
Art. 24.(1) Religions and their branches, which have acquired status of a legal person, according to the procedures of this law shall have right to their own property.
(2) Property of the religious organizations shall include: right of ownership over a property; limited property rights on real estate; fruits from managing of real estate, including rents; profits or dividends from participation in commercial companies or associations of commercial companies; right of ownership of movable property, including securities; Copyright Law rights; income from state subsidies, donations, testaments and others.
(3) The state and municipalities may lease to religious institutions and their local branches free of charge the right to use state or municipal real estate, as well as to support them with subsidies provided in the governmental or municipal budget.
Art. 24. Disposal of the properties of the religions shall be as provided in their statute.
Art. 25. (1) To meet their needs registered religions shall have a right to produce and sell things, connected to their religious activities, rituals, rites..
(2) Activities covered by paragraph 1 shall not be consider as commercial activity under the terms of the Law on Commerce.
(3) Prayer houses, temples, monasteries, objects and persons, connected to worship activity, shall not be used for the purpose of advertising by merchants according to the meaning of the Law on Commerce, without the express agreement of the respective religion.
Art. 26. Registered religions shall have the right to possess and maintain cemeteries at their own expense.
Art. 27. (1) The state shall support and encourage religions registered under this law for their religious, social, educational and health activity through tax, credit and interest rates, customs and other financial and economical relief under the terms and conditions specified in the respective special laws.
(2) When religions use preferences according to paragraph 1, their yearly accounting reports shall go through an obligatory independent financial audit by registered auditors. In these cases the parts of the verified annual accounting reports referring to the use preferences shall be presented at the Ministry of Finance.
(3) When infringement of the law is detected Ministry of finance informs the prosecutor’s offices and of the governmental finance control for execution of checks and activities provided in the law.
Art. 28. A religion, which has acquired of legal personality according to this law, shall be able to establish commercial law entities.
Art. 29. (1) Legal persons with a not-for-profit purpose to support the popularizing of a specific religion, which has acquired status of legal person, can be established after a preliminary consent of the referring religious institution.
(2) Legal entities with ideal purpose according to paragraph 1 have not the right to accomplish activities which represent practice of religion in public.
Art. 30. Distribution of the state subsidy for the registered religions is done under the auspices of the law on the state budget.
Art. 31. Labor relations of the clergy and the officers of the religious institution are arranged according the statute of the religious institutions [in conformity with] the labor and social laws.
Chapter Five: Hospitals, Social and Educational Establishments of Different Religions.
Art. 32. (1) Those religions registered in accordance with this law, can open up hospitals, social and educational establishments.
(2) The hospitals, social and educational establishments of these religions are established and work according to the decree of the common law and a special arrangement of the law found herein.
Art. 33. The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labor and Social Care, and the Ministry of Education and Science oversee the observance of the governmental requirements and fulfillment of the activities of the said hospitals, social and educational establishments of different religions.
Art. 34. Religions are not allowed to condition admission into health or social establishments on affiliation with the respective religious community.
Art. 35. (1) Religious institutions, with the approval of the Minister of Education and Science, can open ecclesiastical schools with their own ritual needs in accordance with the law of national education.
(2) The education obtained in these ecclesiastical schools must be equal to the education received in a regular school in accordance with the law of national education.
(3) High schools can be opened by the order and conditions stated in the law for national education for private schools.
(4) The prerequisites for a person younger than 18 years of age to attend an establishment of religious education, according to Art. 1., should be a written agreement of allowance from the parents or legal guardian.
(5) Establishments of religious education cannot hinder the right of receiving obligatory degrees of governmental education stated in the constitution and the law.
(6) The establishments of religious education can open universities in accordance with the order of the law of higher education.
(7) Schools of higher ecclesiastical education can be opened by a proposition from the leadership of the establishment of religious education with an approval from the Ministry Council.
Chapter Six: The Department of Ecclesiastical Matters
Art. 36 The Ministry Council must carry into effect the governmental policy in the area of the rights of religion.
Art. 37. The Directorate of Religion is a specialized administration in the Council of Ministers which:
1. coordinates the relations between the executive power and the establishments of religious education;
2. helps the Ministry Council fulfill the governmental policy of sustaining tolerance and respect between the different establishments of religious education;
3. organizes and leads the work of the expert consultative committee of the establishments of religious education;
4. gives expert conclusions and point of view according to that which is contained in this law;
5. gives a point of view concerning the request of permission for foreign ministers to stay in the country who have been invited by the central leadership of the registered establishments of religious education;
6. checks on calls or complaints from citizens for disturbing their rights or the rights and freedom of their relatives by violating the establishments of religious education from the third party.
7. observes that officials do not violate the order of religious rights and freedom;
8. checks on calls or complaints of religious activity not permitted by the law in accordance with Art. 7. of this law, and when needed , informs the agency of the public prosecutor;
9. makes proposals on distribution of the governmental subsidy directed to the registered establishments of religious education;
Chapter Seven: ADMINISTRATIVE AND PENAL PROVISIONS
Art.38. (1) Any person carrying out religious activity in the name of a religion without representational authority is penalized with a fine from BGN 100 to BGN 300.
(2) When the above mentioned act is repeated, the fee is BGN 500 to BGN 1000.
Art. 39. Any person who violates a situation not included in the written law but is a stumbling block to the free organization or inhibits the expression of religious convictions will be fined BGN 100 to BGN 300.
Art. 40. (1) If the articles of this law are violated but the act is not a criminal offense, the person will be penalized with a fee of BGN 500 to BGN 1,000. If a person holding a juridical position performs the act, sanctions will be levied from BGN 500 to BGN 1,000.
(2) For the least important cases, according to /1/, there will be a fine of BGN 100 to BGN 300.
Art. 41. (1) Violation of this law will be noted with public warrants issued by the officials of the establishments of religious education.
(2) The penal orders of applying a sanction by this law will be issued by the director of the establishment of religious education.
Art. 42. Public Acts and Penal Orders, by this law, will be constituted, issued, and appealed according to the order circumspect in the law of Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act.
TRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
§1. In the sense of this law:
1. Religion is a set of faith principles and convictions upon the basis of which worship rites and rituals are performed, and a religious community and religious institutions are formed.
2. A religious community is a voluntary union of natural persons for the manifestation of a certain religion, performance of worship, religious rituals and ceremonies.
3. A religious institution is a religious community registered in accordance with the Law on Religions which has the capacity of legal personality, ruling bodies, and a statute.
§ 2. (1) Registered establishments of religious education according to Act 6 from the law of the establishment of religious education (State Official Newspaper…) preserve their status of legal entities.
(2) Within a month after the execution, of the law the Directorate of Religion grants to the Sofia City Court the list of registration of the registered establishments of religious education and their regulations and also their standing orders.
(3) The court officially incorporates in the closed-door meetings registered establishments of religious education according to /1/. In this case the court could not refuse an incorporation of the entry of the registration.
(4) The registered local units of the establishments of religious education, existing prior to the validity of the law, which are legal entities are being incorporated officially by the respected district court within their headquarters in a closed-door meeting and by the request of the central leadership of establishments of religious education accompanied with a certificate of this registration of Sofia City Court. Mayors of the Municipalities, within a month of the incorporation of the law, deliver to the district court the registration of the local units of establishments of religious education.
§ 3. Persons who have seceded from the registered religious institution in violation of its By-laws, cannot use an identical name and use or operate its property.
§ 4. (1) According to the request of the registered establishments of religious education the director of the department of Ecclesiastical Matters under the ministry council issues a certificate for the right of ownership between establishments of religious education and pre-existing religious, educational religious, and social welfare legal entities before 1949.
(2) The representatives of the respective establishments of religious education introduce the claim before the Sofia City Court for establishing right of ownership by submitting the certificate to the director of the Department of Ecclesiastical Matters according to /1/.
(3) The Court states its decision, which is being incorporated in the registration according to Act 20.
(4) The decision may be appealed by other registered establishments of religious education, according to the order GPK.
§ 5. Art. 133a of the Law on the Persons and the Family is repealed.
§ 6. § 2, para. 2 of the Law on Legal Persons with Not-for-Profit Purpose is amended by replacing the wording “religious activity” with “activity, pertaining to a religion.”
The Bulgarian Easter
Bulgaria became a Christian country in 864 AD. under the reign of Kniaz Boris I. However, in the middle of the 19th century, Bulgaria was under Ottoman oppression and under the influence of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchy which dictated the religious expression of the Bulgarian church.
On April 3, 1860, during Easter Sunday service in Constantinople, the Bulgarian bishop Illusion of Makariopol expressed the will of the whole Bulgarian people by solemnly proclaiming the separation of the Bulgarian church from the patriarchal in Constantinople. The day commemorating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ coincided with the resuscitation of the Bulgarian people. However, the struggle continued for another ten years when Russia forced Turkey to legally recognize the independence of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In 1870 a firman of the sultan decreed the establishment of an autonomous Bulgarian church institution – the Bulgarian exarchate.
Bulgarian Churches in America
For almost ten years, Cup & Cross Ministries has worked extensively in providing research and strategy materials for the growing number of Bulgarian Protestant churches across the United States. We are proud to announce that our team has been chosen to conduct this year’s annual conference for the Bulgarian American Churches which will taka place in Minneapolis.
How to Start a Bulgarian Church A-Z
Dissertation: Statement of Problem
