Copyrighted material. For private use only.

---

US consul aids Catholics in Siberia

by Olga Skvirskaia
Radiotserkov, 4 August 2000

The church of Saint Anne was built at the end of the nineteenth century. Its last rector, Fr Francisc Budris was shot in the 1930.  He was arrested in the same building where now the parish office and dining hall are located. Several years ago both two-story brick buildings that were built at the beginning of the twentieth century were returned to the church.

To conduct the consecration of the church during the jubilee year of 2000 was the dream of the rector of the church, Fr Yezhi Pachuski. Several days before the consecration of the church the statue "Jesus, Flaming Heart" was turned over to the church; it had belonged earlier to the church. From the time that the church was closed the statue had been kept in the basement of the city museum. The statue now belongs to the museum and has been merely transferred to the Catholics for "indefinite use."

The consecration ceremony itself was conducted on 30 July. A solemn mass was served by twelve priests, the bishop of western Siberia, Joseph Werth, and three deacons. There were so many guests that the church overflowed. It was necessary to set up benches in the church yard and to arrange a relay through loudspeakers. The consecration was attended by visitors from Germany, parishioners from the church at Karlsruhe, and Polish seminarians, as well as pilgrims from the parishes at Cheliabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Tiumen, Kurtan, Novouralsk, Severouralsk, Karpinsk, and Sukhii Log. Representatives of the regional administration, city, and district attended. The ceremony also was attended by the consul from the USA embassy in Ekaterinburg, who along with his wife has provided material support for the construction of the church over the course of two years. Incidentally, the church was built just around the corner from the building of the American embassy.  Five local television stations prepared a report about the consecration ceremony. The next days the news was on all local TV channels. By the way, all events of the Catholic church of Ekaterinburg are covered regularly by local media. Many have learned about the existence of the Catholic church in the city through the media. (tr. by PDS, posted 7 August 2000)

Putin leaves note at caves monastery

Blagovest-Info, 4 August 2000

Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the Pskov caves monastery of the Holy Dormitionon 2 August, where he had a conversation with the father confessor of the cloister, Archimandrite Ioann Krestiankin, whom many Orthodox respect as an elder. This was reported by the abbot of the Moscow Presentation monastery, Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, who accompanied the president. The president's visit at the Pskov caves cloister was a personal one.

According to reports, Vladimir Putin's conversation with the elder lasted more than an hour; the president spent another two and a half hours on a visit to the "God-made" caves and other sacred places of the cloister.

The Orthodox web site "Pravoslavie-2000" posted a note which the head of the Russian state left in the book of honored guests of the monastery:  "The regeneration of Russia and the growth of its might are unthinkable without the strengthening of the moral bases of society.  The role and significance of the Russian Orthodox church are enormous. May the Lord preserve you. V.V. Putin." The editorship of "Pravoslaviia-2000" promises to publish photo reportage of Vladimir Putin's stay at the Pskov caves monastery in the near future.

According to the report of a source at the Information Agency of the Russian Orthodox church, on the eve of his trip to Pskov caves monastery Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus, whom the president greeted on the day of the commemoration of St. Serafim of Sarov. (tr. by PDS, posted 7 August 2000)

Debate: should bishops only constitute church councils?

It is necessary "to eliminate parliamentarism as a factor of church life," according to the abbot of Presentation monastery, Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov

by Oleg Nedumov
NG-religii, 26 July 2000/Sobornost

[Editorial comment from Sobornost]:  As a rule, Russian bishops do not choose to express publicly their opinion on the eve of important church events. And the situation that has developed around the bishops' council that opens in ten days is no exception. Against this background, the interview of Archimandrite Tikhon, who is all but a bishop, appears extremely interesting. He makes an attempt to explain why the conducting of a local council has been postponed for several years already, in violation of the church charter.  Without doubt, Fr Tikhon received permission from the chancellery of His Holiness the patriarch for this publication.

--Fr Tikhon, originally the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church had decided to hold a local council during this jubilee year. However, it later replaced it with a bishops' council. How do you think about this decision?

--If the Holy Synod made such a decision, in all likelihood there were substantial bases for it. In any case, it was stated officially that a local council is an extremely expensive event and it is not possible to conduct it at the present time. But I think this is only one of the reasons, and by no means the chief one, although it is substantive under current economic conditions.

--And if one sets aside the financial aspect of the question and views it from a canonical point of view?

--That's a really interesting question. Let's begin with the fact that church councils, both the seven ecumenical councils and local councils, were exclusively councils of bishops.  "A local council is a council of bishops of some region," the Book of Rules says. Before the twentieth century it never occurred to any church people that a simple priest or layperson could be a member of a local council. Although a council could summon a priest, monk, or layperson in the capacity of a consultant or respondent, as someone whose authoritative opinion was important for the council in the resolution of one or another question, they of course did not have the right to vote.  The exception was representatives of those bishops who could not themselves attend the council.  Even the emperors were not considered members of the council.  Emperors confirmed conciliar decisions with their signature, but only because this gave to the church's laws the force of laws of the state.

At the beginning of the twentieth century at the height of unrestrained liberalization of the entire structure of Russian life the great temptation of parliamentarism appeared within church circles. This temptation was not resisted. The local council of 1917-1918 to a substantial degree became an attempt of modernist circles within the church to replace the canonical structure of the council with parliamentary forms. For the first time in the history of the church, priests and laypersons elected in the dioceses were present as full-fledged members; there were seven times as many of them as of bishops.

For very many it then seemed that the sacred authority of the conciliar decisions of bishops as successors of the apostolic authority in the church was somewhat outdated and mythologized, and that it was more progressive to announce: "Our meeting by a majority of votes has decided," and not: "It has pleased the Holy Spirit and us."

All of this could go too far. Each person who is interested in a certain question can find an abundance of materials showing how the precouncil sessions were conducted in some antichurch spirit, or how some had begun to re-elect bishops in dioceses, or how the professors of the Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy had planned a real revolution in the church. . . . Indeed, the first part of the council itself, according to the recollections of one of its participants, Metropolitan Evlogy, was somewhat "horrifying," because of the spirit of confusion, irreconciliability, and hostility. If the State Duma had started the catalyzing of the fall of imperial Russia, from the beginning of the council's work many priests, bishops, and laypersons felt with alarm that their council, which had been convoked with the best of intentions, although not in the traditions of the ecumenical church, could become the catalyst for the destruction of the Russian church itself. It is no secret that renovationist ideas and ideas of modernization, with which it was attempted in soviet times to destroy the church, were stated in very many reports presented at the council.

I wish to qualify right away: there are no doubts that the local council of 1917-1918 still was a major event in the life of the church of Russia of the twentieth century, inasmuch as at it the patriarchate was restored. It is impossible to overstate the significance of this act. But the decisive turnabout in the mood of the council, a sobering up from the liberal intoxication, happened only after the cannons "of the new state, bringing freedom to the church" began crushing the shrines of the Kremlin and the first new martyrs fell at the hands of the executioners.

--What, from your point of view, could be done to avoid these negative phenomena while preserving conciliarity in the church?

--Eliminate parliamentarism as a factor in church life. It now has actively penetrated church consciousness.

It is enough to look at the sessions of the current State Duma to see approximately what a local council in this renovated form that was created in 1917 would look like in our time. One must take into account that the level of church and simply general culture unfortunately is very much lower than it was 100 years ago. The way out of the situation that has arisen is a return to the traditions of the holy fathers.

Of course, bishops should have the right to vote at the council and to make all decisions. They have been appointed for this by God and the church. No matter how much the press nowadays abuses Russian bishops and how often it is repeated that many of them are not capable of having their own opinion or of making decisions, Orthodox consciousness does not buy this slander and acknowledges each bishop as a successor of apostolic authority.

In contemporary church life there are many questions that require immediate resolution, profound study, and serious discussion. And of course it is necessary that in the review of these questions there be the possibility for the whole church to participate:  bishops, priests, and laity. For this really to take place it is necessary to put these problems before the whole church for discussions at the level of dioceses, deaneries, and parishes, and in church magazines and newspapers. This would be in essence a matter of a churchwide basis for a council. At the local council itself, the bishops, who already know the opinion of their own dioceses, would finally decide these questions. There is now an enormous quantity of very acute, very debatable questions.  I can confidently predict that if a local council were conducted in the form of the 1917 council, not only would it be turned into a multiparty church parliament, it would drag on interminably. Some would demand that it end while others would demand its continuance. Incidentally, according to the charter of the council of 1917, appropriate "security measures" were devised relating to this matter:  bishops could interrupt its work on the basis of a 2/3 vote of the bishops, without taking account of the opinion of the rest of the members of the council. In any case this would not be a conciliar decision but rather the victory of the majority over the minority. All of this gives warning in advance and leads to the conclusion that the form of a local council with democratic representation that we now have is doomed, if not to collapse, then to many, many problems.

--You mentioned the negative statements of contemporaries of the council of 1917. But after all no councils had been held for 200 years before it. It is possible these people had too sanctimonious a view of it. If we turn to the experience of the ecumenical councils we see that things were by no means so picturesque and beautiful as many imagine.

--I completely agree with you. At the ecumenical councils there were bitter debates and insults and even injuries. I do not say that at a local council everything must be peace and quiet.  But at the same time the church expects from a council great responsibility in the adoption of decisions pertaining to the church and the salvation of God's people. It expects independence from political conditions, from so-called public opinion, the opinion of the mass media, and the like. Under the current circumstances of the promises of many parachurch circles and the technological devices which they would not hesitate to use in the election of delegates, the form for conducting local councils which was introduced into the Russian church in the twentieth century, I repeat, is extremely questionable.

--But in order to change it there must be a convocation of a local council since only it is competent to make such decisions.

--Possibly. After all it is the supreme organ of church authority.

--Is there any sense in changing the forms of conducting local councils? Since according to the charter no decisions can be taken without at least the consent of two thirds of the bishops participating in the work of the council.

--Yes, that is one required security measure adopted in the charter of the council. But then the question arises, why does the council need priests and laity if they are members of it only nominally? Since all the discussion can be conducted in the precouncil period. It is another matter if the bishops themselves invite one or another layperson or presbyter so that he can make a report on some question.

--According to the charter of the Russian Orthodox church, local councils must meet at least once every five years. Nevertheless the last council was twelve years ago.

--Both ecumenical and local councils always were convoked as needed. It is one extreme to suspend all conciliar activity for two hundred years; it is another to introduce a strict and obligatory periodicity into the vital life of the church. This also is a concession to the liberal aggression of the progressives at the beginning of the century and an imitation of secular life.

--But it is planned to review the social doctrine of RPTs at the bishops' council. This is an unprecedented event in its history. Doesn't such a serious issue really require the convocation of a local council?

--In order to adopt this doctrine we must learn about it and assess it well before a council. Again I repeat, churchwide preconciliar discussion of the most important questions of church life is necessary. And after this, taking account of the opinion of the clergy and laity, the bishops should make the decision. (tr. by PDS, posted 6 August 2000)

WHAT KIND OF LOCAL COUNCIL DOES THE RUSSIAN CHURCH NEED FROM A CANONICAL POINT OF VIEW?

by Priest Peter Isakov
Sobornost, 5 August 2000

Dispute with Archimandrite Tikhon

Now, before the convocation of the jubilee bishops' council, the universally respected historian and expert on canon law, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, and the no less respected Archimandrite Tikhon have expressed the opinion that the local council, according to ancient traditions, should be a council of bishops. We dare to object deferentially to the statements of these people who are authoritative in our eyes and we ask first of all that they deal benevolently with our arguments.

Indeed, we agree with the fact that the overwhelming majority of cases of ecumenical and local councils were councils of bishops. But not always. The distinctive of the seventh ecumenical council, the last one officially recognized as ecumenical, was the presence in it of a multitude of monks. Of the almost 300 signatures, 131 belonged to them. "Although it is stated in the preface to the protocols of the council that the monks and imperial officials were not deciding members, but only attendees and auditors, at the second session it was decided that they had the right of voting. The monks asked themselves, do they have the right to make their vote. They received an affirmative answer through Patriarch Tarasy that 'the procedure is that each of those present at the council will vote his conviction.' Thus, the monks remained 'in their status' but they had the right of effective vote. Thanks to the participation in the council of the large number of monks, approval of its actions was assured at all strata of church opinion."(1)

Who were these monks? The overwhelming majority of them, almost all, were abbots of monasteries. We do not know whether they represented their monasteries only or some others nor on which principle they were present at the council, but we cannot say that even about the bishops of the council. Thus the abbots of monasteries, apparently the most famous and significant, and several simple monks and presbtyers, perhaps thanks to the great authority of their own personal spiritual life, had the right of effective vote not at just a local but at an ecumenical council equal with the bishops. It is extremely pertinent to note that the abbots of the monasteries in antiquity always selected the brothers of the cloister.

And here is how Metropolitan Makary Bulgakov speaks of Russian councils:  "For the most part councils were attended by bishops, heads of monasteries, archimandrites, hegumens, founders, and even archpriests, priests, monks, and generally lower clergy; often the ruler himself also was there, sometimes with his children, brothers, and all boyars. . . . The right to vote at the councils seems to have belonged primarily to all the metropolitans and similar bishops. . .  But it was granted to other religious persons present at the councils to express their opinions and sometimes, if these persons were distinguished by great wisdom and learning, their voice had even decisive significance for the council, as, for example, the voice of Saint Joseph of Volokolamsk at the councils of 1503-1504. . . . Some conciliar decisions and decrees were signed only by bishops while others also by lower religious persons, archimandrites and hegumens, and they were confirmed by the agreement of the sovereign. . . ." (2)

Proceeding from the information about the seventh ecumenical council and the local councils of the Russian church in the 15th and 16th centuries, we see that the claim that a local council always was only a bishops' council does not fully accord with historical truth.

Nevertheless we are ready to agree with the thought that the regular councils of bishops of which the church rules speak were exclusively bishops' councils. But at the same time it is necessary to recall how bishops were chosen.  There is the opinion that elections of bishops by the people were replaced and went out of use. This is not quite true. Various changes and restrictions were introduced into them, but their essence remained the same. According to the fourth canon of the first ecumenical council, a ruling bishop for a vacant see should be elected by all bishops. If the selection was made by several bishops delegated for this purpose, their decision was supposed to be confirmed by the full multitude of bishops or, in extreme cases, by a majority in writing. At the present time none of the bishops of our church knows anything beforehand about a new appointment to a vacant see.

In the letter from the first ecumenical council to all churches of the world it says that the selection of a bishop must be conducted with the participation of the people. Indeed, the thirteenth canon of the Laodicean council forbids a gathering [sborishche] of people to conduct an election of a priest but, in the interpretation of Zonara, what is in view here is a "black gathering," that is, a disorderly crowd. Thus the custom developed of having the most eminent residents of a city participate in appointing a bishop. (It is understood, of the Orthodox.) That is, the following canonical situation developsed. Several delegated representatives of the corps of bishops (we are intentionally using contemporary politicized language) and also popular delegates elected the candidate for bishop.  Then the chief bishop of the region, in our church this is the patriarch, confirmed the candidacy. If, in the words of the 19th canon of the Antioch council "it is done in another way than this decree, the choice has no force." (4) The 50th rule of the council of Carthage says that when "some contention arises" then "to the above indicated group should be added one or two bishops, and then in the presence of the people for whom the candidate has been appointed let there first be an investigation of the contending persons and then what they show should be added to the investigation and when it becomes clear before the face of the people, then let him be consecrated." (5) But at the time of the consecration itself one important condition had to be observed, as the seventh rule of Theophilus of Alexandria says: "With the consent of the clergy let the consecration be conducted within the church in the presence of the people and at the installation of a bishop let the people be witnesses." (6) Being witnesses is not necessarily consenting or approving; it may be negative. Where the "worthy" [axios] is sounded it is possible to hear even "unworthy" [anaxios]. That is, the people, again using politicized language, has the right of "veto." Thus the election of a bishop occurs in the following multistage procedure. Delegates from among the bishops and delegates of the people select a candidate, who should be approved by a majority of the bishops and then by the patriarch; then he is consecrated in the presence of the people, who have the right of "veto." It is an extremely balanced system of elections. And such a canonically elected bishop, so to speak, automatically becomes a member of the bishops' local council.  One can compare this to the formation of the Federation Council from the governors elected in each province, which has existed in Russia for a short time. Each bishop in relation to the local council, if he has been canonically appointed or elected, thus is a life-long deputy. In the rules of the Orthodox church there is also the instrument for recall of such a deputy. If his life and teaching do not according with the tradition of the holy fathers, which can be compared to backing down from promises to voters, the bishop is deposed, which deprives him, among others, of the right to participate in the local council. And if the historical reality to a greater or lesser degree at various times has departed from the canonical prescriptions, then this does not give the right of raising the customary violations to the rank of juridical precedents.

In his interview Archimandrite Tikhon said that "parliamentarism" has no place in the church. If by this term he comprehends a system according to which parliament has the leading role in the state, then in Russia in the Orthodox church the supreme organ is the local council, even if it consists only of bishops, but canonically elected ones. If in the word "parliament" Fr Tikhon has in view popular representation, then properly appointed bishops are legal representatives of the Orthodox people of their dioceses at the local council, again if they are canonically elected. It turns out that we already have "parliamentarism" and that from very ancient times. But here is the problem that in our church nobody fights with the oligarchs. In so far as in the near future it will be impossible to restore the correct way of appointing bishops it is necessary to leave the points of the "Charter of the Russian Church" regarding the local council without change in the main, and the more so since they correspond to the opinion on this topic of the great teacher of the church of the nineteenth century, Saint Ignaty Brianchaninov:  "At the council there should be deputies, (1) from the cloistered monks of Russia, chosen by the monks, (2) from the white Russian clergy, chosen by the priests, (3) from the Orthodox laity, by election of the laity. Each diocese should elect two deputies each from each rank so that each diocese should have six delegates each." (7)

In addition historical examples of the seventh ecumenical and ancient Russian local councils confirm the possibility of the presence in them of representatives of various church estates. (In this regard Fr Tikhon's assertion seems strange to the effect that before the twentieth century it never occurred to any of the church people that a simple priest or layperson could be a member of a local council.) In the contemporary uncanonical installation of bishops (not to be confused with consecration) the voice of the church people is not heard and, unfortunately, many bishops have become spokesmen only for the goals of the bishops. Some of them complain with indignation, " People trust us.". But who are these people? Isn't it just simple Russian babushkas who are ready to burst into tears at every tender appeal.

At the same time we agree with the opinion of Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin that some changes should be made in the current charter "oriented to the charter of the council of 1917-1918" to the effect that "there will appear reliable guarantees of the preservation of the canonical fullness of the responsibility of the episcopate for the church whatever the composition of the local council."

We consider it will be an ideal state of affairs, however unrealisable in the near future, when bishops are elected in the presence of the "eminent citizens," those very deputies from the monasteries, clergy, and laity, and thus become naturally the representatives of the Orthodox people of their dioceses at the local bishops' council.

If that happens we can join Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin and Archimandrite Tikhon, whom we respect sincerely for their written and published works, as zealous advocates specifically for a local council of bishops only.

NOTES
(1) A.V. Kartashev. Vselenskie Sobory (M., 1994), 494.
(2) Mitropolit Makarii. Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, Vol. 4, part 2 (M., 1996), 91, 93.
(3) Pravila Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi s tolkovaniiami Nikodima episkopa Dalmatinsko-Istriiskogo, Vol. 1 (M., 1996), 187.
(4) Ibid., Vol. 2, 77.
(5) Ibid., 201
(6) Ibid., 514.
(7) Zapiski episkopa Ignatiia Brianchaninova 1862-18866, "O neobkhodimosti Sobora po nyneshnemu sostoianiiu Rossiiskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi."
(tr. by PDS, posted 6 August 2000)

Constantinople alleged to have acted on Ukraine

The newspaper Ukrainskoe slovo (27 July 2000) reported that a session of the Holy Synod of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate at the end of July declared Ukraine its canonical territory. The merger of the Kievan metropolia with the Moscow patriarchate in 1686 was accordingly uncanonical.

This decree cannot withstand any criticism. The greatest event in Russian church history, the reunification in 1686 of the Russian Orthodox church, was a canonically irreproachable act that was frequently affirmed by all Orthodox patriarchates. Until the present time nobody has ever subjected this decision to any doubt.

Ukrainian hierarchs and theologians who had been liberated from the Latin Polish yoke took an active part in the creation of a Russian theological school and it became the leader in the missionary activity for enlightening Siberia and the Far East. It is enough to recall such great prelates as saints Ioann of Tobolsk, Sofrony of Irkutsk, Dimitry of Rostov, Paisy of Tobolsk, Arseny Matseevich, Ioasaf of Belgorod, and many others. If one were to recognize the present Istanbul synod as legitimate, then all of them were "uncanonical" saints.

It is also obvious that all of the constructive suggestions of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox church in mutual relations with the Constantinopolitan patriarchate have been ignored. (tr. by PDS, posted 5 August 2000)

Fr Kochetkov victim of apparent provocation

A spokesman for Fr Georgy Kochetkov, vice chairman of the Presentation brotherhood,Dmitry Gasak, refuted a report that the well known Moscow priest conducted a prayer service before the oil-producing icon of the tsar martyr Nicholas II during his pilgrimage to Belorussia that he made in the first half of July. In the interview which Dmitry Gasak gave "Blagovest-info" on 3 August he reported several details of the pilgrimage.

By tradition, teachers and students of the St. Filaret School of Advanced Orthodox Christian Studies, which Fr Georgy Kochetkov founded, and members of the Presentation brotherhood make an annual pilgrimage to various regions of Russia or to foreign countries. This year, with the blessing of Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus and of Metropolitan Savva of Warsaw and all-Poland, Fr Georgy and 150 of his followers traveled to Belorussia and Poland. In the course of the pilgrimage, which lasted from 29 June to 14 July, representatives of the St. Filaret school and the Presentation brotherhood visited Gomel, Minsk, Zhirovitsy, Grodno, Belostok, and monasteries of eastern Poland.

While in Minsk Fr Georgy participated in a divine liturgy in three of the city's churches, the church of the Protection, the cathedral church of the Holy Spirit, and the church of saints Peter and Paul. Dmitry Gasak explained that at the time of the liturgy served by Fr Georgy in the Protection church an oil-producing icon of the tsar martyr Nicholas II actually was brought into the church. Presently representatives of the Minsk diocesan administration arrived who went into the altar and accused Fr Georgy of participating in the arrival of an icon of a saint who had not been glorified. However, both on this day and on the next day, when the group of pilgrims was received at the Minsk diocesan administration, Fr Georgy Kochetkov declared that he and members of his pilgrimage group had nothing to do with the arrival of the icon of the tsar. Moreover, as Dmitry Gasak explained, Fr Georgy did not conduct any prayers or even make a simple bow before the icon.

Answering a question regarding the attitude of members of the Presentation brotherhood to the possible canonization of Tsar Nicholas II, Dmitry Gasak declared that "there are various opinions within the brotherhood on the question of canonization," which  has been mixed up with "a great deal of politics." Moreover, members of the brotherhood share the opinion that until there is an official church-wide canonization, any kind of veneration of Tsar Nicholas II as a saint should not be included in church practice. (tr. by PDS, posted 4 August 2000)

Russian Jewish Leader Gorin Mulls Life of Jews in Russia

Rossiyskaya Gazeta 1 August 2000
[translation for personal use only]

Interview with Yonya Gorin by Sergey Petrov; date and place not given

  A conference of the Jewish communities of the CIS and Baltic countries has just been held in Israel. In particular, it debated the state of Russian Jews. Yonya Gorin, executive director of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia relates the results of the conference.

  [Petrov] What questions were discussed at the conference of the Jewish communities of the CIS and Baltic countries and why did the state of Jewish communities in our country become one of the most important points on the agenda?

  [Gorin] There was an objective conversation about the organization of Jewish life in all of Russia's communities at the conference. We developed practical recommendations for setting up Jewish schools, conducting religious and secular seminars, and organizing cultural events. These problems are now being successfully resolved in all towns where our communities operate.

  [Petrov] Who came to the conference and what delegations took part in its work?

  [Gorin] It was chiefly the leaders of all the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states and representatives of the Ukrainian and Belarusian communities that came to Israel  Present from our country were rabbis, leaders of the Federation of Jewish Communities, and Russia's Chief Rabbi Berl Lazar. Aside from this, the conference was attended by representatives of such major Jewish communities as the Khabarovsk, Novosibirsk, Samara, Saratov, Yekaterinburg, Novgorod, Moscow, and St. Petersburg communities. Representatives of Jewish communities from the United States and Western Europe also came.

  [Petrov] It is known that many Jewish communities are now headed up by newly arrived rabbis  How can you explain this? How many rabbis are there now who were born in Russia?

  [Gorin] Indeed, many Jewish communities are headed up by rabbis who were educated abroad  This is very easily explained; Jewish education was prohibited for a long time in the Soviet Union  But at the same time, there are more and more rabbis who were born and brought up in Russia  The work to instruct people was conducted by precisely those who had come to Russia from other countries, including the United States. But there is no difference between the local rabbis and the newly arrived rabbis. They all work for the sake of strengthening the communities and setting up Jewish schools, cultural centers, and charity canteens.

  [Petrov] Russia's chief rabbi recent said that Jewish communities' life in Russia is sorting itself out  Do you agree with this assertion?

  [Gorin] I will cite some figures. 21 Jewish schools will open in various towns in our country in September. Children there will study according to the usual school syllabus but will also study Hebrew, Jewish history, and Jewish traditions. Only a couple of years ago, most of them did not have this opportunity. In my youth I was sure that it was all over for Jewish culture and religion in our country: There were neither schools nor people who could hand over their knowledge to pupils; there was nothing. People immediately became "noticed" by the special services for visiting synagogues in Moscow, for example, and they were guaranteed to have problems at work  Everything is completely different now. These changes are happening largely thanks to people like Berl Lazar.

  [Petrov] It is known that Berl Lazar recently visited the United States. What was this trip connected with?

  [Gorin] Russia's Chief Rabbi Berl Lazar did indeed go on a short trip to the United States. He met representatives of practically all US Jewish organizations. The results of the visit are very important. Whereas previously US Jewish organizations expressed some doubt, they now clearly see that Jewish communities in Russia enjoy broad support from Russian President Vladimir Putin, the government, the governors, and the city mayors. This is very important because the US Jewish communities would like to give us aid in reestablishing normal cultural and religious life for the communities in Russia. We have now found complete mutual understanding on this question.

  [Petrov] What is your opinion, has there been a change in attitude toward the activity of organizations like yours with the election of the new Russian president?

  [Gorin] The authorities have treated religious communities' activity quite well over recent years  As regards changes with the arrival of the new president, I can only talk about my inner feelings. I think that changes for the better are now taking place. Of course, nothing at all radical has happened, but nevertheless, state functionaries have begun to have a more attentive attitude toward their obligations and there is becoming less callousness in their actions and that is a very gratifying fact. Previously, unfortunately, we very often had to come up against a lack of understanding. We now have a very good relationship not only with the federal authorities but also with the regional administrations. After all, we want to take part not only in the life of Jewish communities but also in the life of the whole of Russian society. Jews are part of it. The better the whole society, all people, live, the better Jews will live too. I travel around the country a great deal and see how difficult it is for people to live in the provinces. We would like to help hospitals, kindergartens, and schools.

  [Petrov] Are you more frequently turned to by people wishing to help or those wishing to receive help? How is your work structured overall?

  [Gorin] We do not conduct special campaigns to attract sponsors striving to engage in charity  Everything we do it connected with work. Everyone sees its results and they themselves come and offer help. For instance, we are organizing a charity canteen; it is a question of an entirely tangible thing. Or we open a school in some town; the children come and study, then they begin to visit our children's parties. It frequently happens that the children then bring their parents along. This summer, for instance, we had a session for girls in a summer camp in the Moscow region. A session for boys is now beginning. So the development of Jewish communities is now progressing very quickly and for us that is the best proof that we are on the right road.

  [Petrov] After his trip to the United States, Berl Lazar said that Russian Jews are not now packed up and ready to go and that they do not intend to leave either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Russia's chief rabbi underscored that they are staying and intend to participate in the efforts to revive a Jewish community in the country. According to your assessments, do many Jews intend to leave Russia and go to Israel? What is your attitude toward emigration?

  [Gorin] Each Jew decides for himself the question of where to live and whether to leave or not  We do not interfere in this. I can say with the utmost responsibility that there are fewer people wishing to leave now. I think this is connected with the fact that Jewish cultural and religious life in Russia itself is sorting itself out. A few years ago, there was a very big flow of people to Israel  Few are leaving Russia now.

(from Johnson's Russia List, posted 4 August 2000)

If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.