1987. augusztus (98-100. szám) / HU_BFL_XIV_47_2

and drew their swords in defence of this country." The statement'^ you could read:in Magyar Hirlap was somewhat less poetic. "Only those young people whose religious beliefs forbid explicitly the j*/ application of any kind of force can Éjhoose to do weaponless military service. Theré are only two such sects in our country: the sect of Jehova\^s Witnesses, nőt yet recognized by the state, and the Nazarene Church, which is legalized.

2. Evén from the above passages it becomes quite clear that the personal convictions of the individual are nőt regarded as a legal ground fór conscientious objection. By religion or by a matter of conscience they mean what the agreements between the different churches and the state contain. Bút it .is this very^_notion that has aro^sed so much criticism throughout the world® that Is why the state press feels compelled to defend the Hungárián Cgtholic Churchy whose viewpoint on the issue differs from that of the''"‘Síid'Vatican Council. The gist of the latter is that it allows the state to have an arry, while, on the other hand, it allows conscientious objection, too. The Hungárián Catholic Church, however, has nőt only refused to recognize the latter bút actually denounced it. /Beszélő 26./

In October^/ 1986, the episcopacy of the Hungárián Catholic Church issued' a special statement about conscientious objection* It was' the first time that they had dealt with the píoblem of young Catlaolics who would reject every form of the application of force, in an official document and as a separate issue. Another novelty of the episeopal statement is that - although only to the extent of quoting a single sentence of the Vatican Council’s resolution - it admitted that the Council had called upon the States to legalize the right of conscientious objectors to do as their conscience dictated. Bút that is all that was new in this statement. We loave its evaluation to those concerned: we publish only the replyrthe movement of Catholic base communities, the so-called "Bush",le^d by Pather Bulányi^has given to the episeopal statement.

3« Beside the articles and declarations that have in the I

official viewpont brought about somé changes of a rather doubtful I

value we have somé indisputable facts as well. Unfortunately, all the data imply that the attitűdé of the authorities tends to be harda? now than it used to be.

They made somé tentative changes in their almost traditional practice of imprisoning conscientious objectors fór the first time in the spring of 1985 when the Military Court in Győr sentenced I Péter Orbán, a teacher of backward children in Győr, nőt to the usual I

length of imprisonment bút to a two-year - and 10 month - prison I

sentence which he had to serve in a penij^tentiary, an institution much more severe than the usual type of prison. I

In Autumn, 1985 György Hegyi from Budapest recieved a prison sentence of the sarne length. Dr. János Papp, ong of the judges>said in so many words: "Por Catholics^fwill be a peni^tmtiary from now on." And, without any reál reason, he ordered the guards'armed with rubber truncheons to push the defendant’s mother out of the I

courtroom.

Since the autumn of 1986 when the campaign in the press began and the episeopal statement was issued, this more severe type of I

imprisonment has become the generál practice, and the length of the prison sentences ha^increased too, I

‘l

I