Sunčanik Info
13/01/2026
In public polemics concerning the life of the Church, there is an increasingly frequent tendency toward simplification and the substitution of theses, whereby the canonical order is presented as „repression“ and Church discipline as an attack on freedom of thought. In such discourse, a serious analysis of the essence of Church issues is absent; instead, a spin-based media and pseudo-moral image of „victim“ and „persecutor“ is constructed, whose primary goal is the emotional mobilisation of the public rather than the search for truth. Such narratives have no foundation in either theology or canonical tradition but arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, in which freedom and responsibility are not opposing categories, but are mutually conditioned and inseparable.
The basic logical and theological substitution of theses in the disputed text can be reduced to the following formula: the exercise of canonical and legal service = regime-led persecution. Such identification is both logically unfounded and theologically unsustainable. It completely ignores the fact that the Church possesses its own internal order, based on Apostolic tradition and canonical consciousness, which is not a product of political power, nor its extension.
The publicly attacked Protopresbyter Velibor Džomić, in this context, is not a self-proclaimed „censor,“ but the Church Court Prosecutor of the Archbishopric of Belgrade and Karlovci, that is, the holder of a specific canonical office which has existed in various forms in the Church since Apostolic times. Already in the Acts of the Apostles, it is clearly visible that the Church distinguishes personal charisma from institutional and conciliar responsibility (cf. Acts 15). Saint Paul the Apostle does not abolish order for the sake of abstract „freedom of opinion,“ but quite the opposite—he emphasises the necessity of an orderly Church life: „Let all things be done decently and in order“ (1 Cor 14:40).
The Holy Canons, accordingly, do not recognise the Church as an anarchic community of individual views and private interpretations, but as the Body of Christ with a clearly defined responsibility and conciliar order. Thus, the 34th Apostolic Canon bears witness to the hierarchical and conciliar structure of the Church. At the same time, the 6th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council clearly distinguishes a personal grievance from public action that scandalises the entire Church. Therefore, when a competent Church body reacts to public activity that disrupts Church unity or causes scandal, this does not represent a „punishment for thought,“ but the fulfilment of pastoral and canonical duty.
Ridicule as a Symptom of Argumentative Weakness
The rhetorical register of the disputed text deserves special attention. Expressions such as „Prota Big Joma,“ „the nerve ending of the authorities,“ or „the designer of persecution“ do not represent arguments, but stylistic figures that replace evidence. Holy Scripture is unambiguous on this matter: „But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment“ (Mt 12:36).
Saint John Chrysostom, in his homilies on the Gospel according to Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans, explicitly teaches that judging and mocking one’s neighbour is a form of usurping God’s judgment, and that such a sin is often heavier than the transgression itself attributed to the other. This is precisely what happens in the disputed text: the verdict is rendered before the trial, and that pre-delivered verdict is then used as proof that the trial and procedure themselves are not legitimate.
On „Fear,“ „Procedure,“ and the False Dichotomy
Particularly problematic is the thesis that „procedure“ is, by its nature, something un-evangelical. Such a stance represents a dangerous romanticisation of disorder. The Church is not a community of informal impressions and spontaneous reactions, but the historical Body of Christ which lives in time and bears responsibility both before God and before men.
Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in The Rudder (Pеdalion), repeatedly emphasises that the preservation of the canonical order in the Church is more important than the avoidance of every possible individual injustice, because disorder (ataxia) wounds the entire Body of the Church and produces lasting scandal. He consistently highlights the following principles: that the canonical order was established for the salvation of the whole, and not for the absolute protection of the individual; that the enduring of personal injustice may be permitted; but that the allowance of public scandal without a canonical response is impermissible; and that disorder is more dangerous than the strict, or even imperfect, implementation of canons. This is in complete agreement with the teaching of Saint Basil the Great (Canon 89) and Saint John Chrysostom (On the Priesthood, Book III).
Procedure, therefore, is not the opposite of truth. It represents a way for the truth to be verified and judged in a conciliatory manner, rather than being replaced by an impression, media pressure, or (im)moral hysteria.
Christ and the Apostles: Mercy and Responsibility
A frequent manipulation in such slanderous texts is the vague invoking of Christ against the canonical structure and Church discipline. However, the Lord Christ did not abolish judgment, but cleansed it of hypocrisy. He forgives the sinful woman, but at the same time commands: „Go, and sin no more“ (Jn 8:11). The Saviour does not abolish responsibility; He deepens it.
Furthermore, Saint Paul the Apostle explicitly commands the application of Church discipline in Corinth (1 Cor 5), precisely for the protection of the Body of the Church. This is not „regime-led arbitrariness,“ but a manifestation of love that does not allow scandal to be normalised and relativised.
In this light, Protopresbyter Velibor Džomić has been symbolically sacrificed in the disputed text—reduced to a rhetorical figure and presented within a simplified, tendentious framework to attack the very idea of Church order and the responsibility of all members of the Serbian Orthodox Church through him. The slanderous voice does not witness the truth, but produces journalistic pamphlets; it does not observe the problem from a theological-canonical standpoint, but is a product of personal animosity.
The truth, however, does not arise from spun call-outs and shouting, but from sobriety; it is not defended by ridicule, but by humility; and it does not serve against the Church, but proceeds from the theological-canonical conciliarity of the Church. „God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble“ (Jas 4:6).
The text by Slavica Vujasinović, although formally directed against one clergyman, in its actual scope represents a principled attack on the canonical and disciplinary structure of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The personalisation of criticism serves exclusively as a method. By discrediting the holder of a certain Church office, the legitimacy of the office itself is questioned, thereby calling into question the order which the Church received not from the state but from Apostolic tradition.
In the canonical understanding of the Church, discipline is not the opposite of the Gospel, but one of the concrete historical expressions of the Church-Gospel. As already noted, Saint Paul the Apostle clearly testifies that the Church is obliged to judge within itself (1 Cor 5), and the Apostolic Canons elaborate on that principle, establishing procedures, responsibilities, and jurisdictions to prevent arbitrariness and scandal, and to preserve unity and canonical Church discipline.
Therefore, any systematic presentation of canonical procedure as mere repression—without distinguishing between abuse and the institution itself—is essentially a rejection of the canonical tradition as a whole. Through the deliberate identification of canonical responsibility with „regime-led persecution,“ and Church procedures with political repression, it is not an individual practice or a specific decision that is attacked, but the very idea that the Church has the right and the obligation to regulate its internal life. In this sense, Protopresbyter Velibor Džomić serves as a pretext and a symbol in the text. At the same time, the real target is the Church-disciplinary order of the Serbian Orthodox Church as such.
Discipline, ultimately, is not punishment for the sake of power, but a measure for the sake of the life of the Church and the salvation of the faithful!
Aleksije Đorić
