RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS
|
|
|
It is known that the best means of sowing confusion in any dispute is to conduct the dispute on the principle of raising issues that are beside the point. When I read in "Pravda severa" for 20 December the article under the title "Are 'Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture' necessary for the schools?" by a former history teacher, Nikolai Baskakov [see below], I immediately wanted to take issue in my own note, but I soon realized that there isn't anything to dispute. In daring to call the Russian Orthodox church a destructive force the author of the note demonstrated (to quote Professor Preobrazhensky) "cosmic stupidity on a cosmic scale." To debate with N. Baskakov about religion, history, and culture would be the same as playing tennis with an armless person--it is shameful! Digging through Baskakov's irrelevancies, I managed with difficulty to get his point, that one should not introduce "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" into the schools.
I beg to differ. The author's conclusions about the predictable destruction of the Russian state in connection with the introduction of the controversial topic into the schools and the threats to the language, religion, and traditions of national minorities cannot be taken seriously. The more so since the thousand-year history and culture of Rus is directly connected with Orthodoxy. Eighty years of state atheism led to the destruction of the native Russian culture, the distortion of history, and the production of millions of common folk who do not remember their heritage.
Can one produce a cultured person, patriot, and citizen who does not know who saints Cyril and Methodious were, or St. Andrei Rublev, Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky, and St. John of Kronstadt? In my opinion, this is the same thing as trying to describe the beauty and magnificence of an oak grove while standing in its ashes and pointing to damaged acorns.
Slowly and with difficulty, we nevertheless are beginning to dig ourselves out of the dark grave of the atheistic period. Baskakov himself, having attended the recent Ioann conference, has become personally convinced that the new generation wants to imitate not the little traitor Pavlik Morozov but John of Kronstadt. The necessity of introducing the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" into the schools is obvious!
I think that this topic should not be "obligatory," forced on everybody without choice. It should not be conducted by atheist teachers, who have hastily leafed through instructor's handbooks, but by Orthodox people, churched people, who are highly intelligent and have an excellent command of the Russian language. And to the extent that there still are not very many of them, then one should not introduce this topic into the schools hastily. Good seed should fall on good soil. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 January 2003)
CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION: ARE "FUNDAMENTALS OF ORTHODOX CULTURE" NEEDED
IN THE SCHOOLS
by Nikolai Baskakov
Pravda severa, 20 December 2002
Supporters of the Russian Orthodox church are now actively campaigning for the introduction of a new subject, "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture," into the state schools. Judging by the conclusions of the recently concluded Ioann conference, this subject could appear in our province in the new academic year. It is alarming that society has become clearly divided in opinion and now even the children are being dragged into this problem and heated discussions on it are leading to various juggling and distortions of historic facts by one side or the other.
Who is right? As a former teacher of history, I recall in connection with this conflict the history of the state of Poland that existed for several centuries in the middle ages. But from the middle of the seventeenth century it began breaking apart. The first to leave was the Ukrainian nation along with Bogdan Khmelnitsky, and other peoples followed them. But only at the beginning of the twentieth century did Polish historians begin to realize what happened and blame the local Catholic church for this, which had supported the Polish nobility's control of the state and stirred up ethnic hostility among the nations within that state. We also have a multinational country, and however much the Russian Orthodox church is campaigning for a privileged position within society I think that its leaders should foresee that not everything can be permitted at the state level when the issue concerns the language, religion, or national tradition of even the very small national groups. And this also recalls that the famous historian V. Kliuchevsky noted in his works the extraordinary repetitiveness of Russian history. In connection with the conclusion of the last Ioann conference I became convinced that there are now many ardent adherents of John of Kronstadt and aspirants to his role in society at both the provincial and Russian level. This can be sensed even without the documents adopted at the conference. What will this lead to? (tr. by PDS, posted 2 January 2003)
LAW OF GOD ON FIRST READING
by Elena Ivanitskaia
Novaia gazeta, 23 December 2002
The Russian communist party and the Union of Orthodox Citizens have already come to agreement. Not an issue for the party of power.
Ten years ago it was affirmed that "the church is separated from the state, but not from society." This phrase gave entree to clergymen to the television and the schools. But at the time the state still recognized silently that indeed the church is separated from it. But today Minister for National Policy Vladimir Zorin has declared in an interview with the "Vremia MN" (16 December [see below]) that the church and state have "more than enough common tasks."
And which, in your opinion, is the primary task? "Religious enlightenment of the population."
Well that says it directly. The government's primary task!
The minister of education advocates the introduction of the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" course, and the director of the Foundation for Effective Policy, Gleb Pavlovsky, thinks, as he declared to "Ogonek," that "teaching the Law of God can be easily done" in the schools. True, he is convinced that it is obligatory to teach "History of religion" in the schools. A very strange combination.
If they begin to teach the history of religion and the church in the schools in any way objectively, without restricting themselves to legends such as how Sergius of Radonezh roused Rus to fight Mamai and without forgetting the schism, to say nothing of such things as burning Novgorod heretics at the stake on the ice of Moscow river, then this will be a more effective inoculation against all "laws of God" than you can imagine.
It is clear that the "Law of God" can be taught only in the same repressive spirit as social studies were taught in the schools or Scientific Communism was taught in the institutes during soviet times. The teaching proceeds solemnly and seriously while the students listen in fatalistic silence, because an unsatisfactory grade for such an important subject threatens great unpleasantness.
But if the students can speak and question, disagree and ridicule, then you cannot envy any priest such an ambiguous position. They still have not forbidden the theory of evolution. But it may be that they will. The patriarch declared that he would not permit teaching atheism in the schools.
One gets the impression that the government would not mind igniting "passion for Orthodoxy" since the "passions for Islam" have been ignited. Instead of quenching them over there they want to ignite them here. So far, thank God, Orthodox passions have not caught fire very much. However, zealots for Orthodoxy along with the National Patriotic Union have already picketed on 15 December the Ministry of Education. Ziuganov has come to agreement with the Union of Orthodox Citizens. Perhaps it is not obligatory for us to stand alongside them? (tr. by PDS, posted 2 January 2003)
STATE AND CHURCH HAVE MANY COMMON TASKS
by Vladislav Kryshtanovsky
Vremia MN, 11 December 2002
At present there exist several variants of confessional policy. Vladimir Zorin, the minister for nationalities policy of the Russian federation talked about how relations between the state and confessions stand.
--Vladimir Yurievich, at the joint seminar of the Russian Orthodox church and the Russian Academy of State Service you noted that our government must create a doctrine of relations with confessions. On which principles should it be built? How is the necessity conditioned?
--Today the state and church (in the broad sense of the word) are experiencing a new stage in relations that is unique for Russian history. Before 1917 the state held the church under its power and controlled the internal church life, while under the soviet regime relations of the state with confessions were acutely conflictual. The current stage can be characterized as cooperation of the state with religious organizations in solving common tasks. In order to formalize these relations, it would be very useful to have a state doctrine of relations with religious associations and organizations. In our country doctrines already have been adopted for the development of athletics, reform of education, and nationalities policy, but in the sphere of relations with confessions, there is a lacuna. As regards principles, the bases of such a document, they should be the product of agreement and express a common view that has arisen among various public forces on this question. At the present time there exist several drafts of a doctrine, principally at the Russian Academy of State Service.
--Should the new document develop the idea of the state's giving priority to the so-called traditional confessions?
--Yes, in several of the already existing drafts of a doctrine it actually is suggested to divide traditional confessions from those that have arisen recently. The concept of "traditional confessions" is also contained in the existing law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations." I think that the state really should conduct intensified cooperation with representatives of confessions that are traditional for Russia, although in doing this it should not infringe upon the rights of other religious associations.
--To you belongs the idea of the creation of a state committee for relations with religious organizations. What should be its functions?
--The idea of the creation of such a department is not mine; it was proposed in the course of preparations for the session of the State Council at which it is planned to discuss the question of combating manifestations of extremist activity. I allow for the possibility of discussing this question, but only with the agreement of the executive authority and the confessions. We have a Commission on Questions of Religious Associations in the government of the Russian federation. This is an effective agency, but it is called to resolve only very specific, practical tasks--the return of buildings and historical monuments to confessions, taxation, and the like. The new department would be able to deal with strategic aspects of cooperation between the state and confessions. I stress right away, I am not talking about the creation of an organization like the Council on Religious Affairs of the time of USSR, which controlled the activity of religious organizations. Fortunately, that is in the past. I am an opponent of any control on the part of the state over the spiritual life of people, and on this level I completely agree with representatives of the Russian Orthodox church who think that what is needed is not control but cooperation, monitoring, analysis of the activity of religious organizations, and protection from totalitarian sects.
But in any event the resolution of this question can be achieved only by taking into account the opinion of representatives of confessions and they do not have a united position. For example, Muslims actively support the idea of a committee, since it would be able, in particular, to resolve the problems of the hadj that arise every year. Some other confessions treat the suggestion with caution. I think that it is premature to discuss the question of a committee and we can talk only about the possible development of this subject.
--How effectively are state-church relations regulated by existing legislation, in particular, by the law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations"?
--Not effectively enough. The law "On freedom of conscience" is one thing, but there are many problems in this area and thus the legislation needs very serious improvement. For example, the law does not prescribe how our state should deal with the taxation of academic institutions of religious associations. It is necessary to strengthen the legislative prohibition of the use in the activity of religious societies of methods that include hypnotic influence of the individual or use of drugs and narcotics. And how should relations with unregistered religious associations be arranged? They exist, and that means that they also must be accounted for in legislation.
The law "On freedom of conscience" was adopted five years ago, and during this time life has moved forward. After 1997 there was noted a stormy growth of just officially registered religious associations: Jewish, by 105%, protestants, by 55%, and Orthodox (RPTs), by 26%. This is very good, in essence, but it requires thought on the part of the government in the form of adopting new regulations and revising existing ones. The shortcoming of the legislative base also shows up in the sphere of religious education. Just look at the discussion that has been provoked by the initiative of the Ministry of Education for introducing the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" into the school curriculum. We are talking not only about Orthodoxy. For example, along the Volga it is necessary to know Muslim culture also, but in any case it will be useful to introduce such courses into the schools on a voluntary basis, because it is religious ignorance that begets extremism and radicalism. If the doctrine of state-church relations is adopted, then it should contain a point about the development of the religious education of the population.
--In which areas can the state cooperate with confessions?
--There are more than enough common tasks. Religious enlightenment of the population and humanitarian aid to the strata of the population that are defenseless, invalid children, victims of AIDS, and the like. There is an extreme need for joint activity of state and religious organizations in combating various forms of extremism. Without doubt, there has been noted a strengthening of the role of the Russian Orthodox church and other traditional confessions in the work of spiritual education of citizens, in solving humanitarian tasks, opposing extremist activity, and in interconfessional dialogue. All of these are very positive and necessary phenomena which will unquestionable facilitate the development of democracy, civil society, protection of human rights, and on the whole the stability and development of our country. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 January 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The vice-chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, thinks that the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook contains "nothing that realistically could incite ethnic hostility or hatred." At the same time he also suggests that it is possible to find in the textbook "elements of confessional polemics which are not at all appropriate for secondary schools," according to a report from "Echo of Moscow" radio.
"The view of this textbook as supposedly inciting ethnic conflict is greatly exaggerated. This is an attitude that can hardly be called objective," V. Chaplin added.
The day before, according to a report from the "MK-Novosti," a hearing of a complaint by the "For human rights" Russian movement was supposed to continue in the Meshchansk district court of Moscow, because of the refusal of the Ostankino district prosecutor to open a criminal case against the distribution of this textbook. In the opinion of rights defenders, the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook is intended for clerical propaganda and is a primitive catechism, but it is not an academic resource in study of culture for secular educational institutions as the title formally suggests and thus it crudely violates the secular character of the state and sows interethnic and interreligious conflict.
Participants of the rights defense movement cite as an example an assignment from the textbook for school children where pupils of the sixth grade are told to answer the question: "Why did Jews crucify Christ and are unable to receive the Kingdom of Heaven?"
In addition, rights defenders assert that the textbook contains assignments on the appearance of "satanism," heresies, and sects, and points out which people of the Russian land behave more properly and which less.
Despite protests by a representative of the prosecutor's office, participants in the "For human rights" movement managed to add to the case the conclusion of the department of religious studies of the Russian State Humanities University, which says that this textbook incites interethnic and interreligious conflict and is blatantly confessional. This is the only conclusion from the discipline of religious studies in the case being heard by the court.
On his part, Vsevolod Chaplin thinks that "attempts to condemn this textbook are produced by the dreams of a certain portion of our intelligentsia to become architects of human souls and spiritual dictators of the nation, and those who have not been able to achieve this now are taking revenge on the church and believing people for this."
The "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" text or, for example, books about Harry Potter "are not the main threat to our children," Chaplin noted. In his opinion, "the main threat should be seen in propaganda of sexual permissiveness, the cult of violence and liberation, and the division of society along national lines." (tr. by PDS, posted 2 January 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The traditional pre-new year's session of the Holy Synod of RPTsMP was held in Moscow on 26 December. Its main event was the first appearance of Patriarch Alexis II in public. The primate's coming out "into the light" was so important for the church hierarchy that the session of the synod was held in an atmosphere of unprecedented publicity. For the first time, reporters were admitteds to its opening, and the patriarch's parting speech to member of the synod was broadcast on central television stations and, almost immediately after it was shown, on the Internet also. In recent times, the bad word "PR" has entered church life ever more widely.
Of course, public broadcast of the patriarch's speech reminds one strongly of similar speeches by Yeltsin. It was important for organizers of the broadcast to demonstrate that the patriarch has recovered and returned to church affairs.
A great deal was expected from this session of the synod. One could feel the tension in the air, although the information that seeped through to the outside was extremely sparse. The high level of information activity by Metropolitan Kirill seemed to give evidence of what "coming events" were about, as did the hysterical article by the chief religion commentator of "Moskovskii komsomolets," Sergei Bychkov, in which he accused Archbishop Arseny of intending to occupy the post of chancellor of the Moscow patriarchate (and to send the current chancellor, Metropolitan Sergius of Solenchnogorsk, to Nizhny Novgorod or Tambov, which would mean his effective demotion, since the title of "simple" diocesan bishop would not provide for permanent membership on the Holy Synod).
More precisely, the essence of the opposition can be defined in the following way. There is a generally recognized candidate for the patriarchal throne--Metropolitan Kirill. There are his opponents, who need to advance their own candidate in order to resist in a fitting way the Department of External Church Relations in the event of unforeseen developments. The ideal candidate should be (a) a metropolitan, (b) a member of the Holy Synod, and (c) sufficiently experienced in diocesan administration. It seems that the combination of all three factors is not obligatory, but desirable. Metropolitan is the highest level in the church hierarchy beneath the patriarch and, clearly, an aspirant to the highest post should have gone through all the steps of the career stairway in order to have sufficient basis to claim leadership of the church. The rank of permanent member of the Holy Synod also is extremely necessary since it is that synod that elects the acting patriarch in the event of a vacancy on the patriarchal throne, and it also composes the preliminary list of candidates for the post of patriarch, which then is taken to a session of the [local church] council. As regards the experience of diocesan administration, this is a requirement stated in the charter of RPTsMP. The formulation is extremely vague, although it follows from it that the candidate for patriarch should preferably be a diocesan bishop and not a vicar bishop.
Of the candidates for patriarch whom the press has named, only Metropolitan Kirill meets all three of these requirements. He heads the Smolensk diocese and is a permanent member of the synod as chairman of the Department of External Church Relations. His opponents sooner or later must advance their own candidate for patriarch, for which it is necessary to combat the head of OVTsSMP.
Analysts expected to get a clarification of this opposition from the meeting of the synod that has just ended. If patriarchal chancellor Sergius were to get an independent see in Tambov or Nizhny Novgorod, then he would become a real candidate for the post of patriarch. Naturally, this would upset things not only for Metropolitan Kirill but also Metropolitan Mefody of Voronezh, who hitherto has been considered the main candidate of the anti-Kirill group. Hence the article in Moskovskii komsomolets, in which journalist Sergei Bychkov, who usually has worked in the field of exposing the "tobacco metropolitan," released a surprising string of curses (you cannot call it anything else) against Archbishop Arseny. Bychkov accused the latter of intending to occupy the post of chancellor of the patriarchate and to demote Metropolitan Sergius and transfer him to Tambov or Nizhny Novgorod. However, the elevation of Archbishop Arseny would not solve the problems of the anti-Kirill group, since in that event its informal head would become not a metropolitan and not a diocesan bishop. In order to become a metropolitan and to head his own diocese, Master Arseny would need time which under the circumstances of the mounting struggle the anti-Kirillites simply do not have. Thus we consider Bychkov's article to be an attempt to drive a wedge between Metropolitan Sergius and Archbishop Arseny, the two key members of the anti-Kirill group. After all, in the event of the appointment of Metropolitan Sergius as a diocesan bishop, Metropolitan Mefody's chances to become the candidate of the anti-Kirillites would fall off sharply. The metropolitan of Voronezh is not a permanent members of the synod and that means that most likely he would not be able to take part in the most important backstairs negotiations at the moment of the transfer of church power. Hence, the attempt to set the two hierarchs against each other, accusing Arseny of a conspiracy with Kirill.
However, as we also predicted in a previous article, Metropolitan Kirill managed to defend his positions. According to an official communication, "To the vacant see of Nizhny Novgorod, in connection with the death of Archbishop Evgeny, the Holy Synod appointed Archimandrite Georgy Danilov, comptroller of the Saint Sergius Holy Trinigy lavra. The acceptance and installation of Archimandrate Georgy as bishop of Nizhny Novgorod and Arsamas will be performed in Moscow." In addition, "by decision of the Holy Synod, Bishop Feodosy of Vetluga, vicar bishop of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese, was appointed bishop of Tambov and Michurin."
Thus, the strategic distribution of forces remains as it was. The anti-Kirillites managed to strengthen their position a bit. However, this happened in the main as the result of promoting to the Nizhny Novgorod see the comptroller of the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra, Fr Georgy Danilov. In addition, it should be noted that the position of an influential church figure, Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, was strengthened: "On the basis of the report of the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Holy Synod, Archbishop Evgeny of Vereisk, the School of Advanced Orthodox Studies of the Presentation monastery was elevated to the status of ecclesiastical seminary as the Presentation Ecclesiastical Seminary." This means that the influence of the Presentation monastery on general church life will be strengthened even more and it has effectively become one of the forges producing personnel for the parishes of Moscow. Archimandrite Tikhon's status also was raised, as he now becomes rector of an ecclesiastical seminary (while at the same time Archbishop Evgeny is the rector of the Moscow academy and seminary).
On the whole, the past synod's session demonstrated that both sides of the struggle are conducting "positional battles." So far they have not managed to change the situation substantially to their own advantage. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 January 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items