RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

New page in Russian history

KIRILL'S VISION OF A GREAT RUSSIA
by Leonid Sevastyanov and Robert Moynihan
Moscow Times, 29 January 2009

Russia is a conundrum. On one hand, it is a profoundly secularized society in which traditional religious practice is sporadic and often superficial. This abandonment of the country's traditional Orthodox faith is in part due to the period of state atheism from 1918 to 1991 and the subsequent 18 years of nihilism in which idealism is as out of fashion as religious belief. But on the other hand, Russian society longs for political idealism and religious faith.

And so Kirill, who was elected patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church on Tuesday, faces a difficult problem. Within the church, he must go beyond what his predecessor, Alexy II, accomplished over the past two decades, rebuilding the institutional structures of the church. He must fill churches, seminaries, monasteries and schools with fervent believers. Outside the church, he must persuade society to engage with the church and seek to build a post-Soviet Russia that can flourish and provide a just, prosperous life for the Russian people.

Kirill has deep convictions about the role of the Christian faith in the future of Russia and about Russia's role in the future of Europe and the world. As he has stated on numerous occasions, he is convinced that only a return to "real values" can enable Russia and Europe to confront the current economic crisis. Moreover, he believes that Russia's greatness, eclipsed in recent years, can only be restored by renewing its ancient Orthodox faith.

Given his relatively young age, 62, Kirill could be patriarch for the next generation. He will undoubtedly set out to fulfill a double agenda. First, he will want to build on what Alexy II accomplished during the 18 years of his patriarchate, continuing the rebuilding of the church's ruined infrastructure. Thousands of churches have been rebuilt across Russia since 1991. Second, he could start a series of new initiatives to strengthen the church's voice and influence in Russian society.

The new patriarch can be expected to reopen schools, expand seminaries, renew monasteries and in general restore the outward signs of Russian Orthodox religious life. But Kirill, who was the key figure behind the unprecedented promulgation of the church's social teaching in a document in 2000, can also be expected to take bold new steps to go beyond renewing the institutional structure of the church.

One big question concerns his relations with the pope and with the Roman Catholic Church. Kirill will be looking for allies in his effort to move Russian and European society in a religious direction. But he will not strive for a theocratic state. Indeed, it is precisely his acceptance of the need for dialogue with non-Christians in a modern, pluralistic state that has prompted some of the more conservative elements in the Orthodox church to be sharply critical of him as too "progressive."

Kirill, who has been serving for eight weeks as "interim patriarch," made his thoughts clear in a sermon he delivered on Jan. 6 at a Christmas Eve service held at Christ the Savior Cathedral. Kirill invited those present, including President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, to be valiant during the current economic crisis.

The word "crisis" comes from the Greek meaning "decision," Kirill said. He said that today, decisions have been affected by attitudes such as "greed, loss of control over consumption, a bid to enrich oneself by all means and have as much as possible." He said the crisis began when people forgot true values, and that further crises could be avoided if those values provided the foundation for the economy.

Kirill has his own vision for the future of Europe. In an address to the Third European Ecumenical Assembly in Sibiu in September 2007, Kirill said that in order for Europe to survive the tribulations that have befallen previous civilizations, it must retain its Christian identity. An increasing number of Europeans -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- have come to recognize "Christianity [as] a powerful source of support for European civilization," he said.

At the same time, Kirill was careful to explain that this does not imply that "there is no room" in Europe "for people of other religions and with other outlooks on the world."

With Kirill's appointment as patriarch, Russian society opens a new page in its history.

Leonid Sevastyanov is general director of StratinvestRu and a consultant to the Moscow Patriarchate. Robert Moynihan is president of the Urbi et Orbi Foundation.

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ELECTS OUTSPOKEN PATRIARCH
By Sophia Kishkovsky
New York Times, 28 January 2009

The Russian Orthodox Church elected an outspoken new leader on Tuesday to succeed Patriarch Aleksy II, who led the church for nearly two decades in the post-Soviet era.

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, who became interim patriarch after Aleksy died last month, was overwhelmingly elected and will be enthroned Sunday as the 16th patriarch of the worldÕs largest Orthodox church. His election was the first of a patriarch since the fall of the Soviet Union, which followed 70 years of state-imposed atheism.

A critic of declining moral values, Metropolitan Kirill has been involved in the ecumenical movement and has called for the Russian Orthodox Church to step up its outreach to secular society. He has also spoken in tough terms about threats to church unity, especially in Ukraine, where the Orthodox church has broken into rival groups since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

ÒWith humility and a full understanding of the responsibility before me I accept GodÕs lot,Ó he said after the decision was announced live on national television. Bells rang at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, MoscowÕs grandest cathedral and a symbol of the churchÕs revival in post-Soviet Russia, and cameras panned across hierarchs in robes.

The race for the patriarchal throne has played out almost like a contemporary political campaign, with passionate debates on Web sites and in blogs, and with tabloids and even some glossy celebrity magazines following the candidates as though they were movie stars.

Analysts had speculated that Metropolitan KirillÕs main opponent, Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, the Moscow PatriarchateÕs property manager, was favored by the Kremlin. They also noted that the list of lay delegates included bureaucrats and businessmen close to power, as well as a circus director from the southern city of Astrakhan.

A Web site for religious news, portal-Credo.ru, that has been critical of Metropolitan Kirill and the Moscow Patriarchate was knocked out by hackers, while his supporters praised him as an effective crisis manager who would guide the church through the difficult times it will be facing with the rest of Russia.

Magazines like Star Hit, whose usual fare tends toward sex and celebrities, joined the debate, praising Metropolitan Kirill for his oratory skills and describing him as glamorous.

Accusations of corruption also appeared in the news media. For years, allegations, which have never been proved, linked him with a scheme to profit from church tax breaks on duties for imported alcohol and tobacco in the 1990s.

But last week, as the selection process narrowed, Aleksandr Pochinok, a former tax minister, announced that Metropolitan Kirill had nothing to do with those deals, and the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda contended that the blame for the machinations rested with Metropolitan Kliment.

In December, a conservative Orthodox Web site, Pravaya.ru, published an open letter taking Metropolitan Kirill to task for ties to the Roman Catholic Church. As chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, he has been involved in the ecumenical movement, which promotes relations with other churches.

Finally, on Tuesday, the more than 700 delegates at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior had to choose from a shortlist of three candidates chosen by the ArchbishopsÕ Council on Sunday. One of the three, Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, credited with reviving the Orthodox church in Belarus and treading a careful path in relations with the Belarussian president, Aleksandr Lukashenko, withdrew his name shortly before the vote on Tuesday.

Outside the cathedral, members of the Orthodox corps of Nashi, a pro-Kremlin youth movement, held banners in support of church unity. ÒThe Holy Spirit will point out the worthy one,Ó read one.

For the first time, the delegates included members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, an émigré group based in Manhattan that split after the Bolshevik Revolution and reunited with Moscow in 2007.

President Dmitri A. Medvedev sent a greeting, which was read out by his chief of staff, Sergei Naryshkin: ÒI am confident that the decision of the council will encourage fruitful cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state, the preservation of interfaith harmony in Russia, and the ideals of goodness, peace and justice.Ó

Metropolitan Kirill, 62, was born Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev in Leningrad to a clerical family. His father and grandfather served time in Soviet prison camps and later became priests.

Kirill was made archbishop of Smolensk in 1984 and metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad in 1991. In the 1990s, he and Patriarch Aleksy were accused by some critics of having served the K.G.B.

As chairman of the external relations department, he oversaw the drafting of the Òsocial conceptÓ of the Russian Orthodox Church, presented in 2000. It addresses church positions on social issues, including abortion, globalization and poverty. One of its most cited points allows for civil disobedience if the government violates Christian commandments.

In a newspaper interview in 1991, Metropolitan Kirill spoke of the influence on him of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Novgorod, an ecumenist and theologian of the 1960s and Õ70s.

ÒMaybe if not for the meeting with him, I would have become one of the classic dissidents,Ó Metropolitan Kirill said. ÒBut Metropolitan Nikodim, fully sharing the convictions of my family, told me: ÔThe church must speak with the surrounding world, including the authorities. The one who is internally spiritually stronger triumphs in this dialogue.Õ Ó

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Patriarch Kirill displays moderate side

NEWLY ELECTED PATRIARCH KIRILL ALLOWS POSSIBILITY OF ECUMENICAL WORSHIP
He does not consider Catholics and protestants "a schism or heresy," calls for reading the Gospel in churches in the Russian language and for not converting Muslims to Christianity
Credo-rating, 29 January 2009

Responding to questions from readers of the Russian Lutheran Internet resource "Luther.Ru," Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill, who was elected patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow patriarchate, declined to make sharply defined determinations of Catholic and protestant confessions as "schisms," "heresies," or "graceless churches," and he put forward several reformist suggestions, a "Portal-credo.ru" correspondent reports.  The complete text of answers of the new primate of RPTsMP to protestants' questions were published 28 January on the "Baznica.info" site.

In particular, Metropolitan Kirill acknowledged the possibility of salvation beyond the borders of the Orthodox church, in protestantism, responding to the direct question about the possibility of such salvation:  "If a person lives in accordance with his conscience, follows the path of repentance, strives with all his spirit to actualize the truths of the Gospel, then the door of salvation cannot be closed for such a person."

The new primate of RPTsMP indicated that he is well acquainted with the "Portal-credo.ru" publications, giving his detailed commentaries on the article "We are not guests in Russia" by the Russian Catholic Pavel Parfentiev, which was published on the portal. The metropolitan consigned this article to the category of "most harsh and unambiguously negative in relation to the Russian Orthodox church," and he called the denomination to which its author belongs the "so-called Russian Greek Catholic church." Putting its name within quotation marks, the new patriarch of RPTsMP characterized this church as "a small group of representatives of the intelligentsia, expressing a sick attempt 'to reform' Orthodoxy through conversion to Catholicism, and then playing a contradictory role in the Catholic church also." At points, Metropolitan Kirill also accused the entire leadership of the Roman Catholic church of "seeking the protection" of bolsheviks "at the time when they were conducting the harshest persecution of the Russian Orthodox church." The newly elected patriarch concluded his commentaries on the portal's publication saying "such statements can only bring harm to the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue and they in no way facilitate the improvement of relations between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches."

In commenting on his statement that RPTsMP does not intend to convert Muslims to Christianity, Metropolitan Kirill affirmed: "We do not try to 'convert' anybody in a pushy way. .. . The very term 'conversion' suggests the use of a certain strategy for attracting people who already belong to a different religious tradition." The hierarch again accused protestants of 'stealing believers,' explaining "Converting to protestantism people who were baptized in the Russian Orthodox church but who are not fully churched is proselytism in so far as they are converted not to some abstract Christianity but to a specific denomination." In his opinion, protestant evangelists working in Russia "could advise them [unchurched people] to attend the Orthodox church. However, as a rule, they use every effort to literally 'kidnap' the person into their own community." At the same time Metropolitan Kirill noted that "cases of conversion of protestants to Orthodoxy almost always are the result of their personal choice and not the importunate efforts of Orthodox believers."

Speaking about the possibility of the membership of a child of RPTsMP in Masonry or Rosicrucianism, the newly elected patriarch limited himself to the simple formula:  "The Russian Orthodox church does not forbid its children to join various kinds of public organizations, although they should not have the character of secret societies."

Metropolitan Kirill as much as acknowledged the possibility of ecumenical worship by Orthodox with non-Orthodox Christians, noting simply that "at this stage" representatives of RPTsMP "do not take an active part in such worship." At the same time the newly elected patriarch immediately qualified:  "However this does not mean that they cannot be present at meetings of non-Orthodox Christians, where prayers and sermons are performed in forms acceptable to them."

Metropolitan Kirill expressed himself in a rather liberal way also regarding the problem of liturgical language in the RPTsMP:  "The use of this or that language at the time of liturgy is not a matter of dogma, and that means that it should not become a cause for any kind of divisions within the church." He suggested to modernize the Church Slavonic text of the Psalms and to use contemporary Russian language in reading Holy Scripture in churches. "After all, at home the overwhelming majority of people read the Bible in the Russian language and not in Church Slavonic," he noted.

Speaking of his own position relative to the development of the activity of the Roman Catholic church on the "canonical territory" of RPTsMP, the new primate of the Moscow patriarchate refused to accept the premise that Catholics have fallen away from Orthodoxy or the universal church. "When we speak about the pastoral responsibility on a specific territory," Metropolitan Kirill said, "we have in mind not the doctrinal aspect of the matter and we do not make a judgment about the degree of grace in one or another local Christian community but, recognizing the fact of its long-term existence in the capacity of 'national church' or the church of the majority, we declare that objectionable and insistent proselytism is impermissible."  (tr. by PDS, posted 29 January 2009)

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Religious Web news source silenced

[RRN Note: Many of the articles posted on RRN are translations from the Russian originals posted by Portal-credo.ru.  The portal was still unavailable at mid-day of 28 January.]

"PURGE" OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET PUBLICATION ABOUT RELIGION PART OF OPERATION OF SECURITY FOR LOCAL COUNCIL RPTsMP?

On the evening of 23 January, around 9:30, access by Internet users to the independent informational and analytical publication about religion, "Portal-credo.ru" was cut off for reasons that have not been established. The editors of the portal declared that they know nothing about the causes of what happened, none of the technical services securing the portal's space on the Web is able to explain what happened, and the technical causes of the blockage could not be determined.

On the eve of the "fateful" Bishops' and local council of RPTsMP, which will occur in the period from 25 to 29 January and which must elect the new patriarch of this church, power structures of the Russian federation rolled out a broad complex of measures for "security" of the conducting of the councils and election of the patriarch. In particular, on 23 January the government of Moscow reported the creation of a special headquarters on the conducting of the councils "with the participation of all interest organs," and the Chief Directorate of Internal Affairs of Moscow announced the assignment to the church of Christ the Savior, where the election will be conducted, of 12,000 OMON and Internal forces.

The official site of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church became a victim of the corresponding campaign on the Internet; access by Russian users to Ukrainian Orthodox resources was essentially restricted.  Against the background of the aggressive pre-election campaign of one of the candidates for the patriarchal throne, who emphasized his closeness to the Kremlin, all of this creates the impression of a premeditated and deliberate campaign of forceful pressure on the small number of sources of objective or oppositional information about what is happening in RPTsMP. A campaign of harassment and slander has already been often undertaken against "Portal-credo.ru," which honestly and responsibly shows all sides of public church life in our country. The high professionalism of this publication is evidenced in the fact that there has never been an accusation against it raised in a court trial, or even a kangaroo court. And this time the leaders of RPTsMP and their supporters in the government who fear the flame of truthful information decided not to take recourse to honest and open dialogue but to use brute force.

The "For human rights" all-Russian public movement expresses its extreme indignation with the actions of the Russian authorities, who directly or covertly support one of the church groups striving for supreme power in RPTsMP and who do not reject completely illegal methods for the sake of their goals.  We demand an immediate unblocking of Portal-credo.ru! Clerical censorship is impermissible in the free global Internet.

Lev Ponomarev
Executive Director
"For Human Rights" all-Russian public movement

(tr. by PDS, posted 28 January 2009)

Russian original posted on temporary alternative site, credo-rating's journal, 24 January 2009

---

Patriarchal candidates announced

METROPOLITANS KIRILL, KLIMENT, AND FILARET CHOSEN CANDIDATES FOR PATRIARCH
Interfax, 26 January 2009

The Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox church confirmed as candidates for the Moscow patriarchal throne metropolitans Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, and Filaret of Minsk and Sluts.

According to the results of the voting, which took place at the council on Sunday, Acting Patriarch Metropolitan Kirill collected 97 votes, Chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan Kliment, 32, and the head of the Belorussian Orthodox church, Metropolitan Filaret, 16 votes.

A total of 198 or 202 bishops of the Moscow patriarchate participated in the voting (four bishops were unable to take part in the forum for a variety of reasons).

The results of the voting were announced by the head of the auditing commission of the Bishops' Council, Metropolita of Ekaterinodar and Kuban Isidor. (tr. by PDS, posted 26 January 2009)


WHO VOTED AGAINST METROPOLITAN KIRILL?
by Dmitry Logachev
Site KM.ru, 26 January 2009

The results of the voting for candidates for the patriarchal throne were published by the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox church. Of 197 bishops voting, 97 persons voted for Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, 32 for Kliment of Kaluga, 16 for Filaret of Minsk, 13 for Yuvenaly of Krutitsy, 10 for Vladimir of Kiev, 10 for Onufrey of Chernovits, 7 for Sergei of Voronezh, 4 for Vladimir of Kishinev, 3 for Agafangel of Odessa. German of Volgograd, Ilarion of New York (head of ROCOR), Platon of Argentina, Vladimir of Tashkent, and Bishop Pitirim of Syktyvkar received one vote each.

Let us try to analyze the results obtained and make a prediction relative to the possible results of voting at the local council which will open on 27 January.

The first and chief conclusion of the Bishops' Council: a clear leader has been determined, having a significant lead over the other two candidates.

We recall that for a victory in the first round of voting it is necessary to get 50 percent of the votes plus one vote. At the Bishops' Council Kirill received almost 50 percent, falling two votes short. But let us not forget that there were 145 persons in the list of candidates, while in the list that will be presented to the local council only three names will remain. (The local council may add its own candidates to this list, but it is unlikely that this will happen.) To whom will the votes of those who today voted for Yuvenaly, Vladimir of Kiev, Onufrey, and Sergei of Voronezh go? One can expect that no fewer than half of these votes and perhaps even more than half will go to Kirill, which will substantially increase his standing.

It seems that the correlation of forces at the local council will not mirror the image of correlation of forces at the Bishops' Council. It may be presumed that those clergy, monks, and laity who come from the dioceses will vote for the same candidate for whom the diocesan bishop votes. But more than one fourth of members of the Bishops' Council are vicar bishops, whose votes are not multiplied by four.

On the other hand, at the local council will be delegates who are not participating as diocesan delegates; these are the directors of synodal departments, hegumenas of convents, and members of the Commission for Preparation of the Local Council. It is expected that among them there will be a high percentage who vote for Kirill.

It would be naïve to suggest that voting at the Bishops' Council was not preceded by a rather intensive pre-election struggle. Church figures insist that such a struggle cannot occur in the church. In particular, Metropolitan Kliment called for "not projecting a secular election campaign onto the church campaign." Meanwhile, in the pre-council period his emissaries actively traveled about Russia and countries of the near abroad, urging the delegates of the local council in his favor. On 17 January, when a meeting of the delegates to the local council from Ukraine (there are about 190 of them) was held in Kiev, a close associate of Kliment, Archpriest Rostislav Snigirev, was present, whose mission, however, did not succeed.

The Kiev meeting significantly clarified the pattern of forces, which before its conclusion was left somewhat unclear. Several days before the meeting, the Ukrainian episcopate expressed written support for Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir as candidate for the patriarchal throne. However Metropolitan Vladimir himself declared at the meeting on 17 January:  "I wish to stand before God as the 121st metropolitan  of Kiev. Let the 16th patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus be the one to whom God and your choice will point." This strong declaration, made by the most authoritative Ukrainian hierarch, in essence put an end to talk about the possibility of promoting a single candidate from Ukraine. After the meeting of delegates in Kiev it became clear that many Ukrainian bishops, who know Metropolitan Kirill well, and his sympathies for Ukrainian Orthodoxy that is today suffering from schisms and his immediate participation in the resolution of Ukrainian church problems, are inclined toward Kirill and will support him. By our analysis, at the Bishops' Council, more than half of the Ukrainian delegates voted for Kirill. His Eminence Vladimir himself made it unambiguously clear in recent days that he supports Kirill's candidacy.

Metropolitan Kliment, despite the active spin of the news media, which persistently joined his name to Kirill's name as if the two candidates' prospects were practically equal, managed to get only about 15 percent of the votes. It is likely, on the contrary, that he was not helped by the harmful activity of his brother, Archbishop of Tobolsk Dimitry, who conducted a scandalous election of representatives from ecclesiastical seminaries in the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy (supporters of Kliment exclusively became delegates). The activity of the Kapala brothers more likely frightened rather than inspired the voting bishops, who were not at all attracted by the prospects of having two brothers at the head of the church, one on the patriarchal throne and the other in the position of chancellor. And even more that the post of chairman of OVTsS had been promised by the brothers, in the event of their victory, to Archbishop of Stavropol Feofan, and he is extremely unpopular with Episcopal circles (the archpastors relate to him with unconcealed scorn).

It has become known, from well informed sources, that the Kapala brothers had beforehand distributed other synodal posts also, including the synodal chairs occupied by metropolitans of advanced age. Perhaps it is such pre-election technology that explains why several bishops gave their votes to Kliment.

Literally a few days before the Bishops' Council the world learned the truth about the so-called "tobacco affair," and now everyone knows that the principal actor in this affair was not Kirill, but Kliment (the story about the church structures receiving in 1990 the right to duty-free import of tobacco products and their subsequent sale within the country at market prices). No doubt, the revelations made by the person most informed about this matter, the former head of the tax service, Alexander Pochinek, gave a clear picture of what happened. It turns out the Kirill not only did not direct the "tobacco affair," but he was its chief opponent, which was expressed both in his public speeches and in his dialogue with authorities. And the campaign in the press that associated Kirill with the "tobacco affair" was pushed by his opponents for many years before today's events with a single goalÑto prevent his becoming patriarch.

Today, when great analytic work has been conducted, involving specialists working in the regions it is possible to speak with a sufficient degree of assurance about which of the bishops voted for which candidate.

Of the bishops voting for Kliment, analysts name metropolitans Varnava of Cheboksary, Evsei of Pskov, Alexander of Riga and his vicar of the same name, archbishops Feofan of Stavropol, Dimitry of Tobolsk, Avgustine of Lvov, Pitirim of Nikolaev, Gavriil of Blagoveshchensk, Anatony of Krasnoiarsk, Simon of Murmansk, Georgei of Liudinov, Filaret of Penza, Konstantine of Kurgan, bishops Feodosy of Tambov, Nikon of Lipetsk, Maksim of Barnaul, Zosima of Yakutia, Alexander of Dmitrovo, Elevfery of Chimkent, Gury of Novogrudo, Nikodim of Shatursk, Amvrosy of Chernigov, Tikhon of Vidnovsk, Irinarkh of Perm, and Aristarkh of Kemerovo.

Those sympathizing with Kliment also include Metropolitan of Tashkent Vladimir and Bishop of Syktytvkar Pitirim, although since they received only one vote each, it is evident that each voted for himself.

Of the 16 persons voting for Filaret, the main part, one should guess, comprised bishops from Belorussia (13, including Filaret himself). The four votes made for Vladimir of Kishinev obviously belonged to Moldovan bishops.

The numerically small group supporting one or another bishop, neither each individually nor all taken together in all likelihood will not be able to create a counterweight to the main candidate at the local council. Obviously a substantial portion of the delegates from Russia, Ukraine, and near and far abroad will be prepared to vote for Kirill. Considering Kirill's sympathy for ROCOR and the decisive role he played in preparing the reunification between ROCOR and the Moscow patriarchate, one should expect support for him on the part of the "foreigners."

Also of interest in connection with the upcoming election is the question of Kirill's relations with the "powers that be." Over the course of a month since the death of Patriarch Alexis, the Russian authorities have not in any way declared their position with respect to one or another candidate. There even were rumors that they support Kliment as a potential "pocket patriarch," who will do everything the authorities tell him. It was said that such a strong and independent figure on the patriarchal throne as Kirill could frighten government officials.

In January it became clear that this was not so. On 7 January Dmitry Medvedev worshiped in the Christmas service in the church of Christ the Savior; and in his presence Kirill delivered a strong speech regarding the economic crisis and its spiritual causes.

And on 13 January, the 40th day after Patriarch Alexis' death, Medvedev and Putin attended Epiphany church in Elokhov, where they conducted a conversation with Kirill. In a photograph posted on the official site of the patriarchate, the president and prime minister are represented as attentively listening to the acting patriarch's words. It is hard to take this photograph as well as the visit itself in any other way than as a clear and unambiguous indication that the Russian state is prepared to see in Kirill the successor of the late Patriarch Alexis. In all likelihood, this position of the authorities is based on a realistic analysis of the situation and an awareness of the level of support that Kirill enjoys on the part of the episcopate and believers of RPTs.

It is quite obvious that in the situation as described Metropolitan Kirill represents the only uniting figure who is able to draw around himself the broad masses of church folk. Kirill's authority and popularity in society are enormous; he is the only one of the hierarchs of the church who is known not only in Russia and the near abroad, but also throughout the world. He has strong support among the monastic and believing people, which was especially manifested in the time of his services in churches and monasteries of the city of Moscow.

Of course, by comparison with secular elections, the pre-election struggle in the church has been conducted more calmly and, with rare exceptions, has not been accompanied by black PR or organized lobbying. We shall see, however, how the local council ends. (tr. by PDS, posted 26 January 2009)

Russian original posted on site of Interfax-religiia, 26 January 2009

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Election of new patriarch nears

HOW WILL NEW PATRIARCH BE ELECTED?
by Aleksei Ovchinnikov
Komsomolskaia Pravda, 24 January 2009

Tomorrow the Bishops' Council will open.

Delegates to the Bishops' and local councils continue to arrive in Moscow. At the council the name of the person who will head the Russian Orthodox church will be determined.

At the Bishops' Council, the heads of dioceses will select three candidates for the patriarchal throne of all Rus, as well as the electoral procedure of the local council, which will open on Tuesday, 27 January.

Although the election of the patriarch is strictly a church affair, the preparation for it has been discussed in the world hardly any less than secular elections. Scholars of religion aver that the basic pre-electoral intrigue has developed between two metropolitans: Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, the custodian of the patriarchal throne, and Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk. The cases "for" and "against" both candidates have emerged.  Rumor assigns Kirill to the wing of church "liberals," and Kliment to the "conservatives." Although, the Russian Orthodox church, of course, has no such ideological "wings." Kirill heads the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, and he has frequently had to meet with Catholics, Muslims, and Jews, which short-sighted people now try to make accusations against the metropolitan. But everyone acknowledges Kirill's great service in the recent return to the bosom of the Moscow patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Metropolitan Kirill himself commented in this way in the press on the mood of a number of Orthodox people who oppose participation of the Russian church in the activity of the World Council of Churches (where Kirill was the representative of RPTs) and whatever other contacts there may be with other Christian confessions:  "I cannot understand those who year after year repeat the old, long-ago refuted myths of 'betrayal of Orthodoxy,' confusion of faiths, and so on. . . . I would like to assure those who are interested that I maintain a rather critical view of this organization (WCC), and I see both the positive and the negative aspects of our participation in it."

However, even without this, everyone understands that whoever is elected patriarch will have to be a unifier of the Orthodox and not an ideologue of some single camp.

Incidentally, observers do not rule out the possibility that the list of candidates for the post of head of RPTs may be expanded by other fathers of the church. Even the name of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and all-Ukraine is mentioned, although he has already declared that he wants to remain metropolitan.

Many discussions also have been evoked by the published lists of members of the local council who will have to elect the patriarch. These contain representatives not only of the priests and monks but also laity, people of various professions. The rector of the medical academy of Moscow, director of the circus of Astrakhan, a customs officer from Briansk, tax official from Nizhny Novgorod, vice-premier of the government of Kalmykia, deputies from Crimea and Samara, director of an agricultural commune outside Saratov, a businessman from Karelia, and journalists from Birobidzhan, Belgorod, Kaluga, and Magadan. And lo and behold from Vladivostok an artist and wife of the local governor has been delegated to the local council. The dioceses of the Baltics and Ukraine are distinguished by sending local oligarchs to the local council and Transdniestra by sending the son of the president of this republic.

The vice-chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Vsevolod Chaplin, asked the press in connection with this not to distort the lists of laity and he called it to get beyond the "wild soviet representation according to which the church is exclusively people in cassocks or those who work in the church building. There also are in it government figures from various countries. . . . If a diocese elected by secret ballot a circus director as a delegate, that means that they know this person as a worthy Christian. You and I both went to the circus as children. And surely a majority maintains warm feelings for this institution. I would oppose electing to the council a shady person. From my point of view, people of secular professions, elected to the council, are completely worthy delegates. It is not bad that the composition of the council demonstrates clearly that the church is the most diverse people, workers from the most diverse areas."

Still, how were these persons selected? We phoned one of the lay delegates to the local council, the director of the Astrakhan circus, Anatoly Dodon:  "I am not able to answer for everyone. My candidature was proposed by parishioners. So far as I know, I was not the only layman in the list, but our diocese settled on me. Perhaps because of the charitable activity of our artists. Perhaps because I am a church warden (a layman who restores or constructs a church building) of the parish of the Protection of the Mother of God in Akhtubinsk region. There is still a lot of work to do there."

AN EXPERT'S COMMENTARY

The president of the Club of Orthodox Journalists, chief editor of religare.ru portal, Alexander Shchipkov.

"The name of the new patriarch may be a surprise."

--Why specifically Kliment and Kirill? Because by their activity in RPTs they were continually in view and in contact with secular journalists, who are little acquainted with the inner life of the church. You simply do not know other names. It all the same as if you would ask me to write about the ballet, and the first name that would come to mind would be Maya Plisetskaia.  But there are many excellent ballerinas but the majority simply does not know about them. So it's about the same here. I assure you, there are in the church sufficiently worthy people. And it is quite possible that the name of the new patriarch may be a complete surprise for everybody.  (tr. by PDS, posted 24 January 2009)


FAMOUS CLERICS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF ORTHODOX COMMUNITY ASK LOCAL COUNCIL TO ASSESS CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT METROPOLITAN KIRILL
Interfax, 23 January 2009

A number of priests and laypersons of the Russian Orthodox church have called the local council to give an evaluation of the "unprecedented campaign" against the custodian of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Kirill, that developed in some of the news media.

"We cannot agree with evil, for the campaign against the acting patriarch is an embodiment of evil; it has created an impression of the madness of its participants (using the language of Orthodox asceticism)," the appeal of the clerics and laity says; a text of the appeal was received Friday by "Interfax-Religiia."

As the appeal notes, "the scale of the campaign of lies and slander directed, in essence, against the whole Russian Orthodox church is staggering." At the same time, the authors of the document emphasize that anti-church circles "do not conceal their fear before the acting patriarch as a man who defends the position and interests of the Russian Orthodox church in Russia in the post-soviet space and in all the world, and they state directly that they would like to see as the head of the church either a more liberal or an incompetent hierarch."

In their opinion, the slander against Master Kirill in the main "has taken on an openly irrational form;" for example, his shaking hands with Pope Benedict XVI is declared to be "betrayal of Orthodoxy." Although "this is just as absurd as to see betrayal of Russia in the case of the leaders of the Russian government shaking hands, according to protocol, with politicians who are unfriendly to Russia in meetings where they defend the interests of Russia," the appeal notes.

"It is the opponents of the Russian church who gain from the kind of patriarch who would damn all non-Orthodox believers in every sermon but who could not conduct a dialogue with them as equals, from a position of truthfulness and dignity, and who by declining the necessary, though not always pleasant, dialogue would relinquish the all positions of the Russian church," the representatives of the Orthodox community and clergy who signed the appeal to the local council suggest.

They said "if the declared enemies of the church of Christ of all casts and colors have ganged up on the acting patriarch in such a way, then the faithful servants of the Russian church should draw appropriate conclusions from this fact."

Among the authors of the appeal to the council are the famous Moscow evangelist Hegumen Sergius Rybko, the secretary of the Odessa diocese Archpriest Andrei Novikov, the rector of the cathedral of the Elevation of the Cross of Uzhgorod Archpriest Dimitry Sidor, the first vice-chairman of the State Duma Committee on Affairs of CIS Konstantin Zatulin, the head of the Union of Orthodox Citizens Valentin Lebedev, the president of the administration of the Russian Club of Orthodox Patrons Andrei Poklonsky, the president of "United Fatherland" Valery Kaurov, and others. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 January 2009)

SYNOD APPROVES COMPOSITION OF WORKING BODIES OF BISHOPS' AND LOCAL COUNCILS
Interfax, 23 January 2009

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church approved the composition of the secretariat and the mandate, accounting, and editorial commissions of the Bishops' Council and the local council at its session on Friday.

Now these lists are subject to confirmation by participants in both forums, the official site of the Moscow patriarchate reports.

The work of the Commission for Preparation of the Local Council also was approved.

Members of the Synod confirmed the special format for prayer commemoration of the newly elected sixteenth patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus in liturgies during the interim between his election and the patriarchal enthronement scheduled for 1 February.

In addition, it was decided to increase the number of delegates from women's cloisters to the local council from four to five, including in the list the abbess of the Ioann stauropigial convent of St. Petersburg, Hegumena Serafima.

The Bishops' Council of the Russian church will be conducted 25-26 January in Moscow. On the first day of its work it will nominate three candidates for the patriarchal throne, and on 27 January the election of the patriarch will be held at the local council. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 January 2009)


Russia Religion News Current News Items

---