Copyrighted material. For private use only.
The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church expresses, with grief and anxiety for the fate of Orthodox unity, its profound concern with regard to the recent actions of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in Estonia, which reversed the process of a harmonious resolution of the problems concerning the church situation in this country.
From 26 October to 1 November of this year Patriarch Bartholomew, accompanied by Archbishop Ioann of Karelia and all-Finland, hierarchs, clergy, and laity of the Finland archepiscopacy of the Constantinople patriarchate, was in Estonia on an official visit. Patriarch Bartholomew did not inform in advance Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and all-Rus of his intention to make a visit to Estonia, which is within the bounds of the canonical territory of the Moscow patriarchate. Official information about the visit of the Constantinople patriarch to Estonia was received by the Russian Orthodox church from the head of the Lutheran Evangelical church of Estonia.
When it received information about the intended visit the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate took pains to see that Patriarch Bartholomew's stay in Estonia would put an end to the four-year-old conflict between the jurisdictions of the two churches in this country. Conversations were conducted with authorized representatives of the Constantinople patriarchate and of the government of the Estonian republic for achieving complete reconciliation among all Orthodox believers and the immediate establishment of identical rights for all Orthodox parishes, including the right to historic church property, which could be expressed in a joint declaration by the heads of the two Orthodox jurisdictions in Estonia. However the Constantinople side refused to discuss the proposed initiatives that foresaw the return of legal rights to historic church property for the parishes of the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate to which this property (18 churches and church headquarters) has belonged for centuries and which are actually using this property at the present time.
The path of peacemaking was repudiated by Patriarch Bartholomew and Metropolitan Stefanos, who heads the Constantinople structure in Estonia. Thus the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarch, numbering more than 100,000 believers, did not participate in canonical fellowship with the delegation that arrived in Estonia headed by Patriarch Bartholomew, since it considered him responsible for the schism of the Orthodox community in Estonia. Orthodox members of parliament of the Estonian republic bore witness: "The expectations of believers that the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Estonia would bring a normalization on a legal basis of the religious activity of Orthodox parishes were not justified." The deputies expressed their concern that the actions of the Constantinople patriarch would lead to "division of the Orthodox on lines of ethnic identity."
Great dismay was created among Orthodox believers by the canonically impermissible action that coincided with the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Estonia, namely the publication by the Constantinople patriarchate of the decree on the canonization of Bishop Platon of Revel, the Estonian hierarch of the Russian Orthodox church whose glorification had earlier been performed in accordance with all the canonical rules of the Russian Orthodox church. In August of this year the jubilee bishops' council of the Russian Orthodox church by its action decreed the glorification of Bishop Platon of Revel in the canon of the holy new martyrs and confessors. The ritual of canonization was solemnly performed in the church of Christ the Savior in Moscow on 20 August 2000, at which a delegation of the Constantinople patriarchate also was present. As is known, Bishop Platon of Revel accepted a martyr's death on 14 January 1919 when he was assistant bishop of the Riga diocese of the Russian Orthodox church and he never was a cleric of the Constantinople patriarchate.
In the course of his visit to Estonia, at official meetings and in the mass media, Patriarch Bartholomew made the following statements:
1. The agreements concluded in May 1996 between the two churches relative to the church situation in Estonia are being interpreted by the Russian church incorrectly: this agreement must not be interpreted as a "decision that permits two parallel jurisdictions to exist in Estonia;"
2. Parishes within the jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarchate in Estonia should be subject to their own local church in the form of an "exarchate" (representation) or annexes;
3. In Estonia there can be only one metropolitan or archbishop with the title "of all-Estonia," while alongside there can be an "exarch" (representative) with parishes that are subordinate to the Russian Orthodox church;
4. The Moscow patriarchate has no basis for claiming the right of preeminence in Estonia;
5. The Estonian Apostolic Orthodox church of the Constantinople patriarchate has legal preeminence in Estonia and it carries out the leadership of Orthodoxy on the whole territory of the country;
6. The Moscow patriarchate should remove Archbishop Kornily from his position.
To consider these statements as in violation of the spirit of the joint decision of the holy synods of the two churchs on 16 May 1996, adopted on the basis of the Zurich agreements of April 1996, would be an extremely mild and superficial reaction to the latest actions of the Constantinople patriarch.
The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church, which has observed what has been happening with the most profound anxiety, is concerned about a possible return to the tragic situation of February to May of 1996, when because of the schismatic actions of the Constantinople patriarchate in Estonia Orthodox Christians of the Constantinople and Russian churches who were living throughout the world in close spiritual relations found themselves deprived of mutual eucharistic fellowship in the unified chalice of Christ. The position of the Constantinople patriarch, expressed in Estonia, repudiates the most basic compromise agreements, into which the Russian Orthodox church entered "with extreme discipline" and profound condescension, voluntarily abridging its own principled canonical position for the sake of the restoration of canonical unity among Orthodox believers of the two jurisdictions not only in Estonia but also throughout the world.
As is known, Orthodox congregations on the territory of contemporary Estonia have been a part of the Russian Orthodox church over the course of seven centuries. All Orthodox churches in this land were built by their labors and efforts. The ambiguity in the canonical status of the Orthodox church in Estonia arose in connection with political changes at the beginning of the twentieth century. After the establishment of the independence of the Estonian republic, the Russian Orthodox church, by resolution of the Holy Synod and Supreme Church Council on 10 May 1920, granted autonomy to the Estonian church.
In 1923 Patriarch Meletius of Constantinople, taking advantage of the difficult situation of the Orthodox church in Russia, illegally proclaimed the jurisdiction of the Constantinople patriarch on the territory of independent Estonia, transforming the Estonian Autonomous Orthodox church into the Estonian metropolia of the Constantinople patriarchate.
In 1935 the Orthodox church in Estonia received civil registration with the name "Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church" (EAPTs), in whose statutes nothing was said about subordination to Constantinople, whose representatives never even visited Estonia after 1923.
In June 1940 an expanded synod of EAPTs made the decision to restore canonical relations with the Russian Orthodox church, which had been forcibly disrupted by historical circumstances, and the Estonian diocese of the Russian Orthodox church was formed.
By decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church on 11 August 1992 and by a tomos of the patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus on 26 April 1993, the right of autonomy was restored to the Estonian diocese of the Russian Orthodox church and it received the right to call itself the Estonian Orthodox church.
A council of the Estonian Orthodox church on 29 April 1993 made the decision to be guided in parish church life in Estonia by the statutes of EAPTs of 1935. This decision was made unanimously by all participants of the council. However a group of several clergy soon declared their affiliation with the foreign church structure of EAPTs that had its headquarters in Stockholm.
On 11 August 1993 the "Statute of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church" (from 1935) was registered. It was submitted by the foreign Stockholm "Synod of EAPTs," and this structure was granted the right to all church property. In this way the church schism in Estonia was provoked.
On 25 May 1995 Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, while in Finland, made an appeal by radio to Orthodox believers of Estonia in which he called for "an immediate revival of the Estonian Autonomous Orthodox church in direct fellowship with the ecumenical patriarchate." This appeal yet further exacerbated the conflict in the church life of the country.
Despite frequent calls on the part of the Moscow patriarchate to the Constantinople patriarchate to show discretion as well as warnings that its unilateral actions could become the grounds for breaking church fellowship between the Russian and Constantinople Orthodox church, on 20 February 1996 Patriarch Bartholomew published an "Action" on the restoration of the tomos of Patriarch Meletius IV of 1923 and on the establishment on the territory of Estonia of the "Autonomous Orthodox Estonian metropolia." The temporary administration of this metropolia was entrusted to Archbishop Ioann of Karelia and all-Finland. A schismatic group headed by clergy who had been banned from ministry was received into church fellowship. Thereby the schism of Estonian Orthodoxy became a reality.
On 23 February 1996, in response to the unilaterial and illegal actions of Patriarch Bartholomew, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church recognized "this action as schismatic, which forces our church to cease canonical and eucharistic fellowship with the Constantinople patriarchate, as well as to cease the commemoration of the patriarch of Constantinople in the diptychs of the primates of local Orthodox churches." On 1 March 1996 the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church adopted a statement on the church situation in Estonia with a detailed presentation of the historical and canonical bases of the decisions it made on 23 February with regard to the Constantinople patriarchate.
The grievous circumstance of the break in canonical relations and numerous requests from believers drew both churches into dialogue. On 3 and 22 April 1996, in Zurich, conversations of the Joint Commission of the Constantinople and Moscow patriarchates were held, as a result of which the text of a memorandum was agreed to that was included in a joint decision of the synods of the Constantinople and Russian Orthodox churches on 16 May 1996. According to this document, the interrupted fellowship between the two patriarchates was restored. It was decided "to grant to the Orthodox believers in Estonia freedom of choice regarding which church jurisdiction they wished to belong to," while the Constantinople patriarchate agreed to suspend for four months implementation of its decision of 20 February 1996 regarding establishment of the autonomous church of the Constantinople jurisdiction on the territory of Estonia and bound itself along with the Moscow patriarchate "to cooperate in the matter of the representation of their positions before the Estonian government with the goal of securing for all Orthodox believers identical rights, including the right to property."
On 23 August 1996 at a meeting in Tallin a joint commission of the two patriarchates adopted lists of the parishes that were identified with their respective jurisdictions. With regard to two parishes (Dormition cathedral in Tartu and St. Isidore's church in Valga) the sides did not reach agreement and they authorized a subcommision to conduct in them joint parish meetings for clarification of their jurisdictional membership and to prepare a draft of a decision regarding the jurisdictional status of parishes of the Moscow patriarchate which did not have civil registration. In September 1996 both patriarchates, by decision of their respective holy synods, approved the lists identifying the parishes of their jurisdictions. Inasmuch as no agreement was reached regarding the resolution of the juridical aspects of the matter, and the canonical status of the parishes in Tartu and Valga did not receive mutual recognition, it was decided to extend the term of the moratorium in the decision of 20 February 1996 for another three months.
Meanwhile conversation at the subcommission level hit a dead end because of the complete obstruction by the Constantinople side of the decisions of the joint commission. Parish meetings in Tartu and Valga, planned by the two sides for 8 and 9 September 1996 and announced beforehand to the believing public, were cancelled inasmuch as the representative of the Constantinople patriarchate did not arrive in Estonia. For this same reason conversations with a representative of the Moscow patriarchate were not held. The position of the Constantinople patriarchate on legal matters of the Orthodox parishes of the Moscow patriarchate in Estonia came down to actual nonrecognition of the rights of their historic preeminence and was expressed in a readiness merely to lease churches of the Moscow patriarchate that juridically belonged to the jurisdiction of the Constantinople patriarchate.
On 18 October 1996 Archbishop Ioann of Karelia and all-Finland conducted a liturgy and an ordination in the Dormition cathedral in Tartu. These unilateral actions of Archbishop Ioann violated the temporary moratorium of the 20 February 1996 decision of the Constantinople patriarchate.
On 12 December 1996 in Athens the regular meeting of the joint commission of the Constantinople and Moscow patriarchates on the church situation in Estonia was held. The sides agreed to alternating services in the churches in Tartu and Valga that were involved in the jurisdictional dispute. At the time of the discussion of the question of the juridical status of the parishes of the Moscow patriarchate in Estonia, the delegation of the Russian Orthodox church expressed the hope that the Constantinople patriarchate would not undertake any actions on the mutually agreed resolution of this question. Representatives of the Constantinople patriarchate agreed that joint work in this direction was moving in an unsatisfactory manner.
On 27 November 1998 yet another bilateral meeting was held in Geneva, although it also produced no results.
On 13 March 1999 the synod of the Constantinople patriarchate appointed to the office of "Metropolitan of Tallin and all-Estonia" Bishop Stefanos, an assistant bishop of the Greek metropolia in France. In reporting this decision Patriarch Bartholomew called the Russian church to recognize Metropolitan Stefanos as the "canonical and legal primate of the Estonian Orthodox church." The Russian Orthodox church, "convinced that the region of Estonia is an autonomous part of the historical canonical territory of the Moscow patriarchate," refused to recognize the status of Metropolitan Stefanos that was conferred upon him by Constantinople.
On 28 March 2000 in Geneva again negotiations were held between delegations of the Constantinople and Moscow patriarchates at which the Estonian question was discussed. The delegation of RPTs suggested resolving the problem by concluding a juridical agreement between the two parallel church structures in Estonia that provided for full legal ownership of the properties that each had used historically. However Metropolitan Stefanos, who had been invited to this meeting by the delegation of the Constantinople patriarchate, insisted that the Moscow patriarchate recognize the autonomous Orthodox church structure he headed as the only one in Estonia which he advanced as the categorical condition for any juridical agreement. This position could not be accepted inasmuch as the Zurich agreements of 1996 on the division of jurisdictional adherence of the Estonian parishes were for the Moscow patriarchate the ultimate church compromise. Thus the paths of a peaceful resolution of juridical questions with regard to church property in Estonia were not taken by the Constantinople side.
The jubilee bishops' council of the Russian Orthodox church on 13-16 August 2000 took up the situation of the Orthodox church in Estonia as one of the most important matters. In the relevant decision the council emphasized that the Russian Orthodox church does not consider it possible to respond positively to the suggestion of the Constantinople patriarchate regarding the recognition of the canonical status of autonomy for the church jurisdiction of the Constantinople patriarchate existing in Estonia since 1996 "inasmuch as recognition of such status does not correspond in full measure to the historical development and contemporary condition of all of Orthodoxy in Estonia." The bishops' council, insisting on the necessity of carrying out the agreement of the two churches that was reached in May 1996, resolved "to consider unacceptable the participation of representatives of the Russian Orthodox church in inter-orthodox forums where participants for the so-called 'Autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church' of the Constantinople patriarchate are recognized."
The chronology laid out above is an objective picture of the actions of the Constantinople patriarchate in Estonia as well as the moderate position of the Russian Orthodox church which is absorbed in concern for its flock and in attempts to secure canonical purity and historical justice, as well as the achievement of civil peace and interchurch harmony.
With unbounded sorrow the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church is compelled to testify that the unilaterial and unharmonious actions of the Constantinople pariarchate in Estonia have cancelled out the results of joint work for achieving agreement in questions dealing with the situation of the Orthodox church in this country. The establishment of a Constantinople jurisdiction in Estonia in February 1996, and the appointment of a "metropolitan of all-Estonia" in March 1999, and the coincidence of the declaration of rejection of the compromise agreements regarding the parallel existence of two jurisdictions in Estonia and the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Estonia in October 2000 all point to the consistent intent of Constantinople to usurp canonical authority in Estonia and to deprive the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate not only of the juridical but also of the canonical right to its heritage in the country where Orthodoxy grew up and was confirmed by the sufferings of the zealots of the faith and piety, Russians and Estonians by speech, true sons of the Russian Orthodox church. The policy of the Constantinople patriarch, directed toward the creation of a "national church" in Estonia, not only contradicts the principles worked out within the Constantinople church itself, which condemn ethnocentrism, but also exerts a powerful impulse to the civil conflict in the Estonian republic with regard to ethnic identity, of which there is evidence from the civilian representatives of this state which has declared democratic principles.
In response to the aforementioned declarations of the Constantinople patriarch that he expressed in Estonia, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church declares with all responsibility its position that guarantees the unshakeable security of the canonical preeminence of the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate and active support for the recognition of the rights of this preeminence in the civil world.
The Holy Synod affirms the autonomous status of the Estonian Orthodox church within the bosom of mother church, the Moscow patriarchate, established by the holy confessor, the all-Russian Holy Patriarch Tikhon, and confirmed by the tomos of Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus. The leadership of this church by the hierarch with the title "of Tallin and all-Estonia" cannot be subject to any doubt or alteration. Expressing his primatial support for the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate and its primate, Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and all-Rus by his decree of 6 November 2000 elevated Archbishop Kornily of Tallin and all-Estonia to the rank of metropolitan.
The Russian Orthodox church will in the future express its care for all of its faithful children who reside outside the boundaries of the Russian state, and it will protect spiritually its flock who temporarily, for certain historical and political reasons, has departed from the bosom of mother church into the jurisdiction of the Constantinople patriarchate, and it welcomes its return to its spiritual roots under the primatial omophor of the patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus. Without giving up hope for achieving mutual understanding and the establishment of genuine brotherly relations with the Constantinople patriarchate, since according to Savior's words "all things are possible for the one who believes" (Mk 9.23), the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church considers that under the current circumstances it would be hypocritical to display unity to the world when trust has been violated and the bases of fraternal cooperation on the path to genuine elimination of the division in Orthodoxy in Estonia have been trampled under foot.
The Holy Synod declares that until the restoration of agreement in matters of the canonical existence of the Orthodox church in Estonia and the achievement of peace and justice in relations for all Orthodox believers in this country the Moscow patriarchate decisively distances itself from any meetings with the patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, or the reverend Ioann, head of the Finland archepiscopacy of the Constantinople patriarchate, or the reverend Stefanos, head of the jurisdiction of the Constantinople patriarchate in Estonia.
In connection with this representatives of the Russian Orthodox church will be compelled to refrain from participation in the events planned by the Constantinople patriarch for 30 November in Istanbul, celebrating the patronal feast of the church of St. Andrew the First-called, and the Christmas celebrations of 25 December in Istanbul, as well as the ecological symposium during the trip of Patriarch Bartholomew along the Baltic sea, planned for the period of 25 May to 5 June 2001, since his visit during this tour to a diocese of the Russian Orthodox church is undesirable.
As ever during a time of difficult trials, we place all our hopes into the hands of God, trusting his beneficent providence and the protection of his most holy mother and ever virgin Mary, the intercession of all the saints, and the fervent prayers of the newly glorified Russian new-martyrs, we raise our humble prayers to the Chief Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ, that he may unite all of us into one (Jn 17) (tr. by PDS, posted 10 November 2000)
THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE DISTANCED ITSELF FROM THE CONSTANTINOPLE PATRIARCHATE, BUT DID NOT CUT OFF EUCHARISTIC RELATIONS, AND ALSO MADE THE ESTONIAN ARCHBISHOP A METROPOLITAN
Moscow, November 8
Unofficial translation from Russian
original
provided by Moscow
patriachate
On November 8 the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church released an official Statement concerning the actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Estonia. The Holy Synod "with grief and alarm about the fate of Orthodox unity expresses its extreme uneasiness with regard to the recent actions of Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew in Estonia, which turned back the process of harmonious resolutions of problems concerning the church situation in this country". Having once again explained the essence of the conflict, the Synod stressed that "The Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate put forth efforts for the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Estonia to end the four-year standoff between the jurisdictions of the two Churches in this country." The Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which includes 100,000 believers, did not take part in canonical relations with the visiting delegation in Estonia, with Patriarch Bartholomew at its head, considering him responsible for a schism of Orthodox community in Estonia." Having reminded of the present declarations of the Constantinople Patriarch, "contradicting the spirit of joint decisions of the Holy Synods of the two Churches from May 16 1996, accepted on the basis of the Zurich agreements of April 1996", the leadership of the Russian Church expressed anxiety about the future course of events. In particular, this concerns "the possible return to the tragic situation of February-May of 1996, when, because of the schismatic actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Estonia, Orthodox Christians of the Constantinople and Russian Churches, living all over the world in a tight spiritual contact, were deprived of joint eucharistic relations at the one Chalice of Christ". The Holy Synod stressed that the position of the Constantinople Patriarch "disavows the compromised agreements, which the Russian Orthodox Church accepted "as an extreme exception", "with profound leniency, voluntarily restraining its principal canonical positions for the sake of the reestablishment of canonical unity between Orthodox believers of the two jurisdictions, not only in Estonia, but in the whole world." In the Declaration, the history of Orthodoxy in the Estonian land is examined in detail. "Orthodox communities on the territory of contemporary Estonia were part of the Russian Orthodox Church over the course of seven centuries. With Her [the Church's] care and zeal, all of the Orthodox churches of this land were built." The duality in the canonical status of the Orthodox Church in Estonia arose as a result of political changes at the beginning of the 2oth century, and later as a result of the unlawful activity of the sorrowfully well-known Constantinople Patriarch Melety. The Estonian Church received its autonomy from the Russian Orthodox Church's decree based on the decree of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council of May 10 1920. In 1935, the Orthodox Church in Estonia received a civil registration with the name of "The Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church" (EAOC), "in the charter of which, nothing was said about subordination to Constantinople, the representatives of which did not even visit Estonia after 1923." In June 1940 the expanded Synod of the EAOC decided to reestablish canonical relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, which were cut off by necessity due to historical circumstances, in conjunction with which the Estonian diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church was formed. By the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church from August 11 of 1992 and of the "Tomos" of the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia from April 26 of 1993, the autonomy of the Estonian diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church were reestablished, and she [the diocese] received the right to be called "The Estonian Orthodox Church." The Church schism was provoked in the following manner. In the beginning, a group of a few clergy, against the decision of the Council of the Estonian Orthodox Church, declared that they belonged to the structure of the EAOC abroad, headquartered in Stockholm. Subsequently, on August 11 1993 the "Charter of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church" (from 1935) was registered, put forth by the Stockholm "Synod of the EAOC" abroad, and the authorities handed over the rights to all church property to this structure. The schism was supported by Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew, who, on May 25 1995, in a radio address, called all Orthodox believers of Estonia to "the immediate rebirth of the Autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church with direct relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate". "Multiple calls from the side of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Constantinople Patriarchate to show prudence" were unsuccessful. The schism deepened, and on February 23 1996, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church recognized "the given act as schismatic, necessitating our Church to halt canonical and eucharistic relations with the Constantinople Patriarchate, and also end the commemoration of the Patriarch of Constantinople as one of the Heads of the Regional Orthodox Churches". However, soon after, talks of the joint commission of the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates adopted a memorandum and eucharistic relations were reestablished. The Declaration studies in detail the subsequent course of events, which led to an increasing strain on the church situation in Estonia. "With an immeasurable pain" the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church testifies that the actions of the Constantinople Patriarch in Estonia reveal a "consistent intention of Constantinople to usurp the canonical authorities in Estonia and to deprive the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate of, not only jurisdictional, but of canonical right of succession in a country where Orthodoxy grew and strengthened due to the efforts of people of faith and piety, of both Russian and Estonian tongue, of loyal members of the Russian Orthodox Church". The Synod of the Russian Church openly declares that the politics of the Constantinople Patriarchate, aimed at the creation of a "national church" in Estonia "not only contradicts the principles worked out inside the Constantinople Church itself, which condemned ethnophiletism, but also provides a powerful impulse for civic conflict on an ethnic basis in the Estonian Republic, about which there exist testimonies from the civilian representatives of this government, which declares democratic principles".
The Holy Synod, in its Declaration "confirms the autonomous status of
the Estonian Orthodox Church in the bosom of the Mother Church - the
Moscow Patriarchate - granted by the Holy Confessor of all Russia,
the Most Holy Patriarch Tikhon, and confirmed by the 'Tomos' of the
Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, Aleksy II". Furthermore, "expressing
his first-holy support of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate and its first-hierarch", The Patriarch of Moscow and
all Russia Aleksy, with his Decree of November 6 of 2000, elevated
the Very Reverend Archbishop of Tallin and all Estonia Kornily to
the rank of Metropolitan. The Holy Synod likewise declares that "until
the time of the reestablishment of accord on questions of canonical
existence of the Orthodox Church in Estonia and the attainment of
peace and fairness with regard to all Orthodox in the country, the
Moscow Patriarchate firmly refuses participation in any meetings
with the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew, the Very Reverend
Ioann, the head of the Finnish Archepiscopate of the Constantinople
Patriarchate, and Very Reverend Stefanos, the head of the jurisdiction
of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Estonia". Specifically, representatives
of the Russian Orthodox Church will abstain from participation in
activities organized by the Constantinople Patriarchate in Istanbul
on November 30 of this year, scheduled for the parish feast of the
church of Apostle Anrdew the First-Called, in the Nativity jubilee
celebration of December 25 of this year in Istanbul, and likewise
in the ecological symposium during Patriarch Bartholomew's cruise
on the Baltic Sea, scheduled for the period of May 25 to June 5 of
2001. The Holy Synod concludes its Declaration with the following words:
"As happens always, during times of difficult trials, we put all of
our hopes in the hands of God, relying on His All-Good Providence,
the Protection of His Most Pure Mother and Forever Virgin Mary, the
intercession of all the saints and the prayers of the newly glorified
new-martyrs of Russia, again and again we raise up our humble prayers to
the Supreme Pastor our Lord Jesus Christ that he will bring us all
to reason and will unify us (John 17)".
Orthodoxy 2000
Last Friday, a citizen of the USA who had lived in the territory since 1994, Bud Morlock [spelling uncertain--tr.], was deported from Khabarovsk to his homeland. The greater part of his time he spent not in Khabarovsk but in the village of Novokurovka in Khabarovsk district. There Bud conducted religious activity. Every day he importuned local residents to go to the cottage that he had turned into a church. When his pleas did not help, the American missionary began paying money for church attendance. Bud Morlock lived six years in Novokurovka, an extremely remote village. In that time he not only preached but also in essence supported a majority of the residents of the village. Many knew about the American missionary's activity; during his stay in Russia he was able even to enlist the support of a number of influential people in Khabarovsk, investing the funds in various charitable foundations. However the reverse side of his activity came to light only in the spring of this year when the territorial procurator received a complaint from a resident of Novokurovka. The investigation conducted by the procurator showed that Bud Morlock's activity was not always within the bounds of Russian laws. According to reports of residents of Novokurovka, Bud Morlock was engaged not only in missionary activity but also in illegal actions. Thus there came to light a case of his beating a ten-year-old boy. At the end of August, on petition from the procurator of Khabarovsk territory, Bud Morlock's visa was cancelled in connection with his repeatedly being brought to administrative responsibility, for arbitrariness and illegal religious activity. This was the first case of the deportation to the homeland of a USA citizen in the past ten years in the Far East. (tr. by PDS, posted 9 November 2000)
by Mikhail Zherebyatev,
Keston News Service, 8 November
2000
Directors of higher educational establishments across Russia began receiving a letter from the Education Ministry in August and September outlining a wide range of accusations against foreign religious organisations working in the country and calling on the educational establishments to take measures to prevent their infiltration by such religious groups. Among its more lurid claims, the letter alleges that 700 "foreign" religious groups - among them the True Orthodox Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Salvation Army - are involved in military espionage and encouragement of separatist activity. Foreign missionaries are aiming to infiltrate the country to wipe out Russia's collective memory of its "thousand-year statehood", it goes on to allege. The letter also blames foreigners for allegedly encouraging splits within Russian "traditional" faiths, the Orthodox, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists. Nowhere in the letter - that replicates much Soviet terminology - are the concepts 'sect", "non-established religious organisations", "religious extremists", "communities of foreign sects" and "missionary organisations" defined.
The letter itself (No. 567/28-16 of 14 July 2000, signed by deputy education minister Yelena Chepurnykh) announced that the ministry was issuing the document so that analytical information gathered by law enforcement agencies about the activity of non-established religious associations should be applied at work. The ministry urged rectors of higher education institutes to draw up measures to stop infiltration by such groups and recommended that teachers and students be made aware of the letter's contents. The information provided by the law enforcement agencies was presented in a separate, unsigned, four- page attachment entitled "Information about the activity of representatives of non-established religious associations on Russian territory".
The appendix reports that the law enforcement agencies have documentary evidence of the "active operation" of such groups inflicting "losses on individuals, on Russian society and on the state". Hundreds of thousands of people have fallen prey to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the appendix complains. "Religious extremists are continuing to build up their activity, changing their forms and methods of operation, and contriving to remain within current legislation."
The Education Ministry alleges that organisations that have sprung up within Russia, such as the Church of the Last Testament led by Vissarion, the Bogorodichny Centre "and others", have been drawn into "the field of negative activity by foreign centres". Foreigners have also supported "extremists" whose aim is to encourage divisions within Russia's "traditional" Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish communities "which is fraught with the danger of bitter inter-confessional confrontation and mass illegal manifestations".
The "foreign sect communities" singled in the appendix include the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the New Apostolic Church and even the True Orthodox Church - "in all, around 700". These communities "under the guise of religion, and educational and cultural initiatives" are forming "administrative structures", the appendix alleges, which are involved in collecting socio-political, economic, and military information and arousing separatist sentiments. In some communities "influenced by foreigners", religious fanaticism and extremism are being fostered, asocial behaviour is being nurtured, and the rejection of constitutional obligations is inflicting "moral, psychological and physical loss of health on members of such communities, particularly children and young people".
The appendix maintains that "foreigners are seeking out every possible opportunity to strengthen their position in agencies of state authority in Russia and in her regions". Foreign states are using the "education route" in the activity of non-governmental and religious organisations "to form groups of people who can exert a long-term influence among the younger generation of Russian citizens, orientated firmly on western values", while "missionary organisations" are single-mindedly dedicating themselves to establishing a "mechanism for the actual realisation of the idea of changing the "socio-psychological code" of the country's population, which would automatically lead to the "cleansing" of people's memory of all the thousand-year history of Russian statehood, and a revision of such concepts as the self-identity of the nation, the Homeland, patriotism, and cultural heritage".
Aside from the frequent repetition in the document of the phrase "organisations financed from abroad", a reference to the activity of religious organisations is accompanied by the words and phrases: "recruitment", "the strict psychological treatment of disciples", and "destructive impact", while the Salvation Army is even called "a militarised religious organisation".
It is remarkable that the appendix fails to refer even to one court decision. It also fails to mention that the overwhelming majority of organisations named in the document function legally in Russia. Instead, it cites numerous anonymous experts. "According to expert opinion," runs a typical statement, "the activity of foreign sects in the educational sphere will lead to an erosion of national consciousness, a lowering of resistance towards the negative effect of destructive religious organisations, and the potential psychic decline of young Russian citizens who have fallen under their influence."
EDUCATION MINISTRY OFFERS MIXED RESPONSES OVER DRAMATIC LETTER
by Mikhail Zherebyatev,
Keston News Service, 8 November
2000
In the wake of a letter sent by the Education Ministry to the directors of higher education establishments across Russia calling on them to prevent the "infiltration" of their establishments by "non-established religious associations" (see separate KNS article), Keston News Service has been unable to gain a response from the letter's signatory, deputy education minister Yelena Chepurnykh, as to who originated the letter and why it was issued. One official of the education ministry told Keston that the letter contained "incorrect formulations" but it was vigorously defended by another education ministry official, who claimed that foreign 'sects" were behind a wave of "ritual killings" in schools and that 'something must be done about it".
Keston's frequent attempts to telephone Chepurnykh at the Education Ministry were fruitless. Keston turned to a specialist at the Education Ministry in the administration for the upbringing and primary education of children and young people, Larisa Loginova, and her immediate superior - chief specialist Lyudmila Fomina. Loginova, cited in the document as "executive", told Keston by telephone that "the letter was drawn up by specialists from the federal organs, together with the Ministry of Education", and that in the administration represented by herself, there were no officials who specialised in religious affairs. "We are just the level of authority responsible for transmitting information." Loginova found it difficult to answer Keston's question as to why the letter addressed to rectors of higher educational establishments had passed along the line of the primary education administration and not via the administration for higher education.
Loginova reported that she has recently been receiving telephone calls from the Moscow higher education institutes about the letter, asking for advice. "At the ministry, we came to the conclusion that we need to have a meeting or a seminar for institutes in the capital to get to the essence of the problem and together find the correct way to resolve it. But as far as the other regions are concerned - from which we have not so far received any communications - we do not know." Loginova also touched on another important aspect: according to the law on education, institutes of higher education have the right of autonomy. Therefore, each educational establishment has the right to take measures at its own discretion. "The ministry can only advise, and transmit information, but it cannot demand anything." She also admitted that the document contained "unscientific and incorrect formulations".
Fomina, in contrast, finds the document "absolutely correct", because "a wave of ritual killings has hit the schools, and something has to be done about it". Fomina also believes that to call religious organisations 'sects" is fully justified - "yes, I call them that as well". She believes there is nothing to worry about in the fact that "each higher institute of education can work out its own system of preventative measures". The document was prepared using "private documents", Fomina told Keston by telephone. Having refused to name the level of authority that took part in the drafting of the document, Fomina confined herself to saying: "the contents of the letter were approved at the very highest level, and the ministry of education is responsible for transmitting the document".
Copyright (c) 2000 Keston Institute. All rights reserved.
Source: Keston Institute
The Moscow Patriarchate, the most senior office of the Russian Orthodox church, said on Wednesday that a decision by the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile to disregard one key area of conflict between the two churches was "to some extent revolutionary," the Russian news agency Interfax reported.
The branches of the church had been divided over the Moscow church's allegiance to the Soviet government, embodied in a 1927 declaration by then Metropolitan Sergiy.
Now a meeting of Church in Exile bishops in New York has decided that a new social doctrine adopted by the Moscow church, which states that it will be loyal to the state as long as state policy causes no problems for Orthodox Christian consciences, settles the issue.
"A possible dialogue and the subsequent reunification of the domestic and foreign parts of the Russian church will be great events in the spiritual and national life of Russia," the agency quoted Patriarchate sources as saying.
"In this way the spiritual and national division of the Russian people will be overcome and a complete and definitive reconciliation will be achieved between Russian people in Russia and Russian emigres," it added.
The two branches of the church still need to resolve disagreement over ownership of church properties in Palestine and the Church in Exile's rejection of ecumenical activities by the Moscow church, the agency said. (posted 9 November)
(from Johnson's Russia List)
EPISTLE OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA TO THE BELOVED CHILDREN OF THE CHURCH IN THE HOMELAND AND IN THE DIASPORA
14/27 October 2000
Overshadowed by the presence of the miraculous Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, assembled at the Synod Building in New York, addresses itself to its faithful flock, scattered throughout the whole world and in our homeland, the much-suffering Russian land, wherein we perceive the beginnings of a genuine spiritual awakening.
We have never taken for granted that the return of the people of Russia to our common spiritual Orthodox roots would be simple and like a triumphal procession.
For this reason, with benevolent sympathy, we welcome the turn to prayer of the whole Russian people to all the holy New-martyrs of Russia, and especially the martyred Imperial Family, which has henceforth become possible thanks to the recognition of their sanctity by the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate. And we are likewise given hope by the adoption of a new social concept by that Council, which in essence cancels out the 1927"Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius by acknowledging the supremacy of the commandments of God over those demands of temporal powers which might lead to the violation of religious and moral principles.
We venerate the martyric struggle of the many Russian soldiers who, when they were captured by infidels during recent wars, refused to renounce the Orthodox Faith and convert to another religion, for which they endured torture and death. Such confession has shown that the Russian people have preserved faith in Christ within their hearts to an unexpected degree, despite eight decades of the erosion of the Faith by the godless regime.
However, our Council has noted the absence of any understanding by the Moscow Patriarchate of the position of the Russian Church Abroad, which has carefully been preserving the heritage of the Russian Orthodox Church. Especially lamentable are the aggressive actions of the Patriarchate in the forced confiscation of churches and monasteries from the Church Abroad, the preservation, and at times the salvation, of which has cost the Russian emigration great effort and represented a real struggle of sacrificial service to those Russian holy places which are beyond the borders of Russia.
To these grievous circumstances must be added the fact that at its Council, the Moscow Patriarchate in fact confirmed its dedication to broad participation in ecumenism, and took no steps to protect its own younger generations from that pan-heresy.
Nor did we see the Council of the Moscow Patriarchate offer an honest assessment of the anti-ecclesial actions of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), his Synod and their successors, even though the present Council came close to historical truth in its Act of the Glorification of the New-martyrs, and, both in the aforementioned Act and in its now social concept, obliquely acknowledged as praiseworthy the path of the confessors who refused to accept the path of Metropolitan Sergius. Guided by the spirit of the Gospel, we acknowledge, with due understanding, how difficult it is to free oneself from the consequences of the Church's enslavement by the Soviet governmental structure with its atheistic ideology. This understanding moves us to deal sympathetically and kindly with the faithful of the formerly enslaved Church, and to welcome substantive steps toward the healing of Church life in Russia.
On the other hand, the relationship of these measures to the fundamental points which we have enunciated for many years in our care for the purity of the Church persuade us to remain faithful to the course of the Church Abroad. Even now we must fulfill our historic mission of standing for the Truth, until all who have been redeemed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are convinced of it.
The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia addresses to its flock a new, urgent call to be loyal to the end. Your archpastors must be able to have confidence in your love and your trust in the Russian Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers which is being preserved by our Church, a loyalty which all the members of the Council of Bishops, without exception, confess again and again in unanimity.
The eighty-year history of our exiled Church has borne clear witness before the world that we have not turned ourselves into an exclusive, self-enamored society, but remain a Church possessed of the fullness of soul-saving grace. Those who depart from us have not been able to undermine the authority of our Church, since its glory has not derived and does not derive from earthly power or any sizable membership, but from immutable adherence to the Truth, to the righteousness of God.
We hold it our duty to remind our flock of the paramount importance of each member of the Church preserving the personal piety which is the principal token of our salvation within the Church.
Frequently among us the critical stand taken against social vices, against the retreat of today's world from the divine and moral laws, begets an inattentive attitude toward one's personal spiritual peace, and as a result the level of personal piety falls. So it happens that, while criticizing apostasy, we ourselves become participants in the universal abandonment of piety.
Conversely, feats of personal piety: prayer, fasting, abstinence, repentance, brotherly love, patience, humility and meekness, have been, and remain, the principal weapon against the destruction of the whole world and the salvific means not only of one's personal salvation, but of that of the universal establishment of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Yet we will proclaim to the whole world our stand for the Truth in vain if the members of our Church prefer not the personal life of virtue but of suspicion towards others, arguments, the formation of groups for the condemnation of others, and various actions which shatter the life of parish and diocese. This ruination, which draws into everlasting destruction each who participates in it, inevitably besmirches the face of our whole Church and weakens its witness.
With gratitude toward God that we belong to the true Church which is founded on the Rock of Faith, our Lord Jesus Christ, we urge you to remain its faithful members and to strengthen its saving work by feats of personal piety, mutual love and the patient bearing of "one another's burdens" (Gal. 6: 2). Be mindful of the words of Christ: "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another" (Jn. 13: 35).
Amen.
[Signatures:]
+Metropolitan Vitaly
President of the Council
Members of the Council:
+Archbishop Lavr
+Archbishop Alypy
+Archbishop Mark
+Archbishop Lazar
+Archbishop Ilarion
+Bishop Veniamin
+Bishop Evtikhy
+Bishop Agathangel
+Bishop Aleksandr
+Bishop Amvrosy
+Bishop Kirill
+Bishop Mitrofan
+Bishop Gavriil
+Bishop Mikhail
Russian original
(posted 9 November 2000)
by Aleksei Tarasov
Izvestiia, 25 October 2000
A new conflict between a religious association and secular authorities has flared up in Siberia. The administration of justice of Krasnoiarsk territory has been conducting reregistration of religious associations. And apparently the legal filter has not legally gotten the better of the "Church of the last testament," better known as the society of Vissarion. A bundle of complaints and appeals from relatives of Vissarion's adepts has piled up in the administration. In his past life Vissarion was Sergei Torop, a Minusinsk policeman with an iconographic visage who in the spring of 1991 imagined himself to be a second Christ. At the request of the administration of justice a special committee of the administration of the territory studied the activity of the society. It produced the decision: not to recommend its reregistration. Although previous investigations had found the society harmless.
Siberia is accustomed to religious dissidents. In Krasnoiarsk territory Orthodox parishes constitute only a small portion of all registered religious associations. There is religious tolerance here in the territory where heretics have naturally settled for many, many years.
However the convictions of General Alexander Lebed, who landed in Yenesei and now is Krasnoiarsk governor and who once called Mormons and other "sectarians" "garbage," apparently lead him to more harsh attitudes toward nontraditional religions. And in Krasnoiarsk talk about the threat of clericalism is not empty words.
Experts note that predictions of several years standing about collective suicide of Vissarionites are dubious, but it is possible for someone to try to provoke it by conducting persecutions of the spiritual children of the "Minusinsk Christ." Under Peter Old Believers, who now are neighbors of Vissarionites on the territory of Kuraginsk and Minusinsk districts of the territory, set themselves on fire in sketes, while during the reign of Nicholas they were left alone and they lived, believed, and labored.
What are the arguments of the opponents of the "Church of the last testament" like? Along with Vissarion more than 4,000 followers live in the ancient taiga. These include more than 400 children. They wound up in the Middle Ages by their parents' choice. It was not their choice. Only after reaching the age of 14, according to the laws of the society, can a person leave it. The diet of Vissarionites excludes meat, fish, eggs, tea, or coffee. But I have not seen any illnesses among the children. Official investigation of the health of the society members has shown that it is not different from the indicators of atheists or followers of other religions living near them.
In the opinion of opponents, the right to receive medical aid is violated in the society. Vissarionites practice self-healing, and the women give birth in saunas. And not always successfully. There also are great problems with regard to children's rights to receive secondary education. Many teach their offspring at home. It does not work out for everyone. Nevertheless they practice simple agriculture and much time is devoted to heavy farm labor. However among those who have come from all over Russia and abroad to the Minusinsk hollow of god-seekers there is a high proportion of creative and technical intelligentsia, and many scholars and artists. There are former big businessmen and civil servants, famous concert singers and producers. In the villages of the south of the territory have appeared scholars of the arts, choreographers, and musicians, who have revived rural houses of culture. These people teach not only their own children but also those of the indigenous population. The leading student of religion of Kransoiarsk, Liudmila Grigorieva, gave her diagnosis: "games for the intelligentsia under the open sky." The allergy to civilization and devotion to the wholesome forces of nature are, in Grigorieva's opinion, a facade. Behind it is a disease. White ravens have swooped down into the city of the Sun which are not promoting a new day which is very pragmatic. These are people with raw nerves. Thin-skinned. Many members of the society have slit their wrists attempting suicide (not here but in their past life, in Moscow, Kiev, Kazan).
But by no means are all the "palefaced brothers" (as Vissarionites are called) able to labor as this inhospitable land requires. There also were problems with the natives. Some Siberians, who are upset that the sectarians have accumulated large plots of land and have collected children's benefits which here are paid after a fashion by halves, have called on the authorities to drive the creators of a "new life" away. It has reached criminal proportions: followers of Vissarion have been robbed and even beaten.
Now not all natives can put up with these people who "are not of this world," "fools" in tunics and blouses, greeting everybody they meet and smiling eternally, cultivating date palms and avocados and awaiting the great flood. However many local residents now are employed by the Vissarionites. Relations have warmed up noticeably.
It is not yet clear what the further steps of the government will be,
whether it will decide to refuse reregistration to the society. Vissarionites
could be quite able to rechristen themselves and leave the status of a
religious association and try to strengthen their legal position as, let's
say, an ecological movement. However not too long ago the Constitutional
Court supported the Jehovah's Witnesses and the "Christian Church of Glorification"
in their dispute with the procuracy, which wanted to deny these organizations
their rights. It is absolutely clear that if there is an escalation of
the conflict with the local authorities the Vissarionites will stretch
to seek justice in Moscow.
* * *
Note: Some experts characterize the belief system of the Sayansk residents
as neo-pagan occultism, although in the charter of the "Church of the last
testament" it is said that the basis of Vissarion's teaching is Christianity.
And Vissarion's flock frequently calls the city of the Sun, built in the
picturesque region of lake Tiberkul, "New Jerusalem." The external life
of the society actually reminds one of an illustration of the times of
early Christianity in a children's Bible. In fact Vissarion's teaching
is a peculiar kind of mixture of the basic religions and the ideas of Vernadsky,
Rerikh, Blavatskaia, and Porfiry Ivanov. Such eclectic religion, intensified
by the hyperemotional situation, and taking life as a masquerade and the
church as a club (in the society they regularly have theatrical holidays,
dances, and bonfires) is not so much like a religious as a social movement.
The ideological crisis drove the sectarians to escape from civilization
and build communism in the Siberian oasis. The society exists on the principle
of a financial pyramid. The old followers of Vissarions support the existence
of the organization with the resources from new converts to the faith which
they have gotten from the sale of their apartments and vehicles. As a rule
there is no going back for those who are disillusioned with the tale for
adults; bridges to the past life have all been burned. (tr. by PDS,
posted 6 November 2000)
New president of Yugoslavia affirms tradition of relations of Russian and Serbian peoples
by Aleksei Krymin, Georgy Engelgardt
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 1 November 2000
At the Moscow talks of the presidents of Russia and Yugoslavia, which were one of the most important events for both Russian and Yugoslavian foreign policy, the atmosphere of change in Belgrade was constantly felt.
It is noteworthy that Vojislav Kostunica left for Moscow almost immediately after his return from Montenegro, where he held complex negotiations with local authorities about the future Yugoslavia. In this context, the presence in the membership of the delegation of Montenegran Metropolitan Amfilokhy unequivocally demonstrates the position of the Serbian church in Montenegro.
It seems that one of the greatest traditional directions of Russian policy has been revived, which, it appeared, had been completely buried under mountains of formal rhetoric. This is revealed not only by the political results of the Moscow talks but also by their religious component. For the first time since 1917 Russia was visited by both the head of state and the ecclesiastical primate of an Orthodox state.
As regards the ecclesiastical aspects of the Moscow meetings of Kostunica, Vladimir Putin characterized them as "an essential element of the affirmation of the special relations between our states," after he noted that "this needs no explanation; it can only be welcomed."
Actually, along with Kostunica Moscow was visited by Serbian Patriarch Pavle as well as two of the most respected and authoritative Serbian hierarchs, Metropolitan Amfilokhy of Montenegro and Metropolitan Savva of Shumadia. Immediately after completion of the talks in the Kremlin Vojislav Kostunica joined the primates of the Russian and Serbian churches for a meeting in the official residence of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus in St. Daniel's monastery.
The desire of Vojislav Kostunica to devote specifically a substantial amount of time for a meeting with the primate of the Russian church alongside the talks with Vladimir Putin, which were vitally important for Yugoslavia, speaks much. In such an emphatically respectful attitude toward Patriarch Alexis one must see an expression of sincere gratitude for the grave and wise position of the Russian Orthodox church in the course of the September-October crisis in Yugoslavia. To a great extent it was the church's approval of the choice of the Serbian church, which decisively took the side of Kostunica, that prevented the emergence in Russia of a mass campaign in support of Milosevic.
Of course, in such a short visit of the primates and hierarchs of the Russian and Serbian churches it was hardly possible to deal with all key questions of mutual relations. What is much more important here is the symbolic aspect: that the Serbian orthodox church decisively and sincerely supports Vojislav Kostunica and that the president himself listens attentively to their voice.
The Serbian church has supported Kostunica from the very earliest stages of his political activity. Undoubtedly this played an enormous role in the acceptance of the new president by the Serbian nation. The unconditional support by Patriarch Pavle and the Serbian monastic community of Athos, and not various kinds of statements and declarations by western leaders, fortified Vojislav Kostunica in the first hours of the political crisis that was created by the falsification of the results of the election of 24 September 2000.
The inclusion of the Serbian patriarch in the delegation for the visit to Russia was a decision, natural for Kostunica, that reveals the value system of the new head of Yugoslavia.
In greeting Kostunica, Patriarch Alexis expressed hope for the maintenance
of a united Serbian-Montenegran state and for the rapid amelioration of
the condition of the people of a friendly country. In his turn the president
of Yugoslavia did not fail to thank the Russian church for its support
shown to the Serbian nation in the time of the recent trials. He stressed
that "we never will forget the kind of love, sympathy, and support that
Russia and the Russian Orthodox church expressed with regard to what happened
in Yugoslavia, in particular what happened in Kosovo, where even now the
suffering of our church and our people is continuing." He also expressed
the hope that the removal of external sanctions from Yugoslavia will facilitate
not only inter-state but also inter-church cooperation. Such great
significant assigned by President Kostunica to the meeting with the supreme
hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox church is a sign of genuine adherence
to the traditions of Russian-Serbian relations. (tr. by PDS, posted 4 November
2000)
by Irina Melnikova
Segodnia, 1 November 2000
Yesterday in Moscow was held a conference organized with the blessing of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox church and devoted to a discussion of the "Bases of the Social Doctrine of RPTs" (the document was adopted at the bishops' council this summer). [Ed. note: an English language version of the doctrine has been posted on the patriarchate's web site.] The doctrine, which was in preparation around six years, evoked many questions and criticisms because it lacks concreteness and appears like a collection of general phrases and propositions. Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad explained that the "doctrine is not a transitory document and while it may not be of interest to uninformed people, for theologians it is even radical because the church has never before formulated its views on social questions."
Of special interest is the part of the doctrine devoted to the family, demography, bioethics, and protection of life. RPTs has clearly formulated its attitude toward divorce, not encouraging it but not excluding it either. Back in 1917 the council of RPTs established the basic grounds for divorce. The council of 2000 merely supplemented them with points that reflect contemporary reality. Now the church considers as grounds alcohol and drug dependency of one of the spouses, infection with AIDS, as well as having an abortion without the consent of the spouse. The topic of abortion was esspecially discussed at the conference. Now even the use of some contemporary forms of contraception is considered abortion (this regards medicines that destroy a fertilized egg). Incidentally, in the "Bases" it now is clearly prescribed that the church does not reject a woman who has had an abortion (infanticide) but after it imposes a sanction upon her (denial of the sacred mysteries) it gives her the possibility of repenting and receiving forgiveness of the sin. Now the term of the sanction, which used to be 10 to 20 years, is determined by the confessor. "If we go by the earlier canons," the metropolitan said, "we could lose a large portion of young parishioners." The RPT's attitude toward genetics, cloning, and other contemporary biotechnologies is equivocal. The church approves genetic intervention in the organism of a person if it leads to healing. But attempts to "perfect" human nature are considered by the church sinful and criminal. "That is a challenge to the Trinity and it could lead to fearful consequences," Metropolitan Kirill said. "Even the birth of a sick child must be taken as a gift from God because society needs invalids just as it needs suffering, which brings purification." Besides, the church advocates the equality of men and women before the law. But it insists on the concept of the uniqueness of the sexes because it is possible to expect from men what cannot be expected from women, and vice versa. (tr. by PDS, posted 3 November 2000)
CHURCH AGAINST CLONING OF HUMANS BUT SUPPORTS CONTRACEPTION
by Ada Gorbacheva
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 2 November 2000
A medical-pedagogical conference was held in Moscow 31 October to 1 November. At it were discussed primarily problems of bioethics, childbirth, and family planning in light of the "Bases of the Social Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church" adopted in August at the bishops' council of RPTs.
Family planning has long been an object of discussion. Contemporary devices permit women (or a married couple) to decide which and how many children to produce. As sad experience has shown, if a woman for some reasons does not have the ability or does not wish to give birth to a child, she almost always finds a way not to have it. The most healthy way is contraception. The Orthodox church (just as Islam and Judaism) welcomes the birth of as many children as possible, but according to the doctrine adopted in August it does not prohibit methods of prevention of pregnancy with the help of nonabortive contraception means (for example, condoms). Abortion is a barbaric operation. For a normal woman it is traumatic. The Orthodox church views the development of life as the creative act of God and thus abortion is considered a grievous sin. But in a case where the continuation of pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, especially if she already has children, the church treats the termination of pregnancy with indulgence. Not all priests agree with this position. The opinion has been expressed that a physician, who recommends to a sick woman that she not give birth takes responsibility for her life. The physician answers for the life of the child bearer. But a priest who advises the woman not to listen to the physician should in that case bear responsibility for successful delivery.
Another problem is biomedical methods and genetic engineering. The church welcomes methods aimed at healing and considers as criminal attempts to perfect the human by means of gene manipulation. Cloning of tissue is welcomed when its use is for therapy, but cloning of a human individual is impermissible. Transplanting of organs from a living donor is possible only at his request since this is an act of selfsacrifice. Fetal therapy is denied and even more so euthanasia, even at the request of the patient.
With medicine's progress the church's attitude toward its achievements
has changed. But, of course, much depends on the specific priests. There
also was discussion whether the prolonging of life has costs. One wants
to live at 25 and also at 75, but the main thing is not health but the
salvation of the soul. It is difficult for the physician if the priest
will not be his ally but is an opponent. Mutual action between the church
and the health care industry can be very fruitful for the physician and
the priest meet a person along the road of life and accompany him on the
final journey. (tr. by PDS, posted 3 November 2000)
Yesterday in Moscow in the building of the presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences an international symposium "Religion in Contemporary Society" came to an end. Representatives of various confessions and scholars tried to review the social aspect of church and religious life.
Academician Vladimir Kuptsov of the Russian Academy of Education introduced official statistics on religiousness of the population of the world: around 4% of the world's population considers itself atheist, approximately 16% are neutral with regard to religion, and the remaining 80% consider themselves believers. It is predicted that in 2006 Christians will have grown by 27%, the number of Muslims will increase by 33%, Hindus by 7%, atheists by 17%, and those indifferent to faith by 27%, but most of all will grow the number of adherents of "nontraditional" religions or, in other words, sects, by 67%. Only Buddhists will suffer a loss in future years; their numbers will decline by 6%.
The chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox church, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, reported how difficult it was to create the social doctrine of the church which, in the prelate's opinion, should be based upon three principles: theology, the church, and the nation, while the state as a social institution properly plays an auxiliary role. However, as Metropolitan Kirill said further, the church should be loyal to the state and the sacred obligation of all Christians is to pray for it. The hierarch considers monarchy to be the divinely ordained form of rule: "After all God did not give the people democracy, parliament, or parties, but he gave a tsar." True, he noted, in our time the restoration of monarchy is impossible: the spiritual state of society is not appropriate for it.
The apostolic administrator of Catholics of the European part of Russia, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusievicz, gave a report on the topic "The Catholic Church and the Contemporary World." Neither Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus nor the chairman of the council of muftis of Russia, Ravil Gainutdin, nor Adolf Whaevich, the chief rabbi of Russia, elected by the Congress of Jewish Religious Congregations and Organizations were present at the symposium.
But many scholars gave addresses, who spoke about various things: genetic
engineering, how humanity is threatened by the depletion of natural resources,
and even about the proof and disproof of the theory of evolution.
(tr. by PDS, posted 3 November 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/.