VATICAN II AND YUGOSLAVIA 91secuted Croatia.” He called on the Croat bishops “not to trample
on our centuries-old traditions or rights in the name of any pol-
itics, Godless or Godly... because there will always be bishops
where there are believers and priests, but what is the use of shep-
herds and teachers where there is no faithful fold?”38
This was to no avail. After the signing of the protocol, Paul VI
named Vladimir Vince, a priest from the diocese of Đakovo who
was acceptable to the Yugoslav authorities, the head of the pas-
toral service for the Croats in exile. After his death, this post was
held by Msgr. Vladimir Stanković, who was in part resident in Yu-
goslavia.
It can be argued that the protocol changed nothing. In fact,
it changed everything. True, after the authorities approved the
building of the new Franciscan Church of the Holy Cross, the first
church of any kind in the suburb of Novi Zagreb, the City Com-
mittee of the Zagreb party organization had to quiet the protests
in the party base with the explanation that there were no legal
means available to prevent construction, with the understanding
that “administrative measures” were still possible. But even Car-
dinal Šeper, who was unhappy that the protocol hardly touched
the issue of religious instruction in schools, never doubted that
it improved relations between church and state.39
Separate from both the Church hierarchy and the party-state,
there existed a broad society that was swept forward thanks to
the messages of the Council, the reform of the political system,
and the value—however symbolic—of the protocol. This was evi-
dent in many changes, both large and small—from the enormous
increase of the Church press (8.5 million copies in Croatia alone
in 1966) to the issuing of very large editions of Christmas car-
ols on phonograph records by Jugoton, the state recording firm,
- Vigilantibus iura, “Hrvati na II. Vatikanskom koncilu,” 168–70.
- Akmadža and Franjo Šeper, Mudrošću protiv jednoumlja (Zagreb: Tkalčić,
2009), 243–44.