Copyrighted material. For private use only.
WHO ARE YOU? I'M A BISHOP
Russkaia mysl, 29 April 1999
Below is published material describing the situation involving Ekaterinburg Bishop Nikon. We have taken up this subject inasmuch as it already has become a matter of public discussion not only in church circles but also outside of them, in the mass media, both local and central. Some consider that Nikon's story is a conspiracy of the monasteries against the ruling bishop; others consider it simply a case of depravity that prohibits his remaining in his see, which a third group see behind all of this the "hand" of certain commercial structures. Whatever the case, this scandal displays serious problems in the church's life which require timely resolution.
The following article is not a journalistic investigation containing the writer's verdict, but primarily a collection of testimony from Orthodox clergy and laity. Disclosure of the truth and a final solution of the "case of Bishop Nikon" can be achieved only by an honest inquest and a church trial.
"Nikon is a sodomite and a heretic." "The earth quakes when it beholds this abominable pederasty." Carrying such placards parishioners of the Holy Trinity cathedral of Nizhny Tagil awaited the ruling bishop, Nikon Mironov, who planned to celebrate in the church on Holy Thursday. "We, parishioners, will not let him even get close. We will not allow him to desecrate our church," declared one of the picketers, Yury Fugin, to all the Ekaterinburg television stations.
The bishop did not arrive, according to later explanation, because of illness. Nor did the bishop appear at the session of the diocesan council held on 22 April. Outside the diocesan administration on that day a demonstration was conducted whose participants held placards of much the same content as those of the people from Nizhny Tagil. "We cannot tolerate the bishop's mortal sin;" "A man who submits to the sin of Sodom not only cannot be a bishop, but not even a priest," explained those who had gathered, interrupting one another. The cause of the demonstration was a rumor that at the session Bishop Nikon intended to discipline ten priests who had signed complaints against the bishop for the Holy Synod. At the last moment the agenda of the diocesan council was changed.
On Sunday 25 April around 300 believers and dozens of priests gathered at the place of the execution of the tsarist family for a prayer service, after which a spontaneous demonstration took place; Orthodox believers again insisted on the punishment of the ruling bishop in accordance with church canons. Thus the conflict between a part of the clergy and believers of Ekaterinburg diocese and Bishop Nikon of Ekaterinburg and Verkhotur had entered an overt and, it seems, decisive phase.
The conflict in Ekaterinburg diocese did not begin just yesterday, by any means. The first signs of discontent with the policies of the bishop began to be expressed by the diocesan clergy around a year ago. The reasons for it were mainly economic: capricious collections of money from parishes, establishment of fixed deductions for the diocesan treasury without regard to the welfare of the parish, and confiscation of valuable churchware from churches. The personnel policy of the bishop also evoked dissatisfaction, particularly his tendency to transfer priests to other parishes. However, all of this remained an intra-church matter.
In the summer of 1998, with the blessing of Bishop Nikon, there were instances of burning books by Orthodox theologians, the priests A. Men, J, Meyendorff, and A. Schmemann, in the Ekaterinburg diocesan school. The causes of this auto-da-fe have remained a mystery to the present; one of the existing versions says that Master Nikon wanted to establish himself in the eyes of the local clergy, especially the monks, as an Orthodox traditionalist and spiritual heir of the late Metropolitan Ioann of St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Whatever the case, in connection with the bookburning there arose a hullabaloo which became the official reason for the cancellation of a visit to Ekaterinburg diocese by Patriarch Alexis II.
However, this did not settle the conflict down. At the end of last year a delegation comprising the abbot of the Verkhotur Saint Nicholas monastery, Hegumen Tikhon Zatekin, the abbot of the Ekaterinburg monastery of the All-merciful Savior, Hegumen Avraam Reidman, and the abbess of the Ekaterinburg convent of the Tikhvin Mother of God, the nun Liubova, met with the patriarch and delivered to him complaints from the clergy against the ruling bishop. At the December session of the Holy Synod it was decided to send a special commission under the chairmanship of the administrator of affairs of the Moscow patriarch, then Archbishop Sergius of Solnechnogorsk, for "a study of the situation and a review of the complaints."
The synodal commission arrived on 20 January and worked four days, receiving from clergy 85 reports comprising 160 pages. The subject matter of the reports was broad: from information about confiscation of precious churchware and ancient icons from parishes and compulsory collection and financial assessments by the bishop personally to accounts of drunkenness, gross perversion, fisticuffs, and the unnatural immoral lives of the ruling bishop and persons close to him.
"I call to the attention of Your Holiness the so-called financial audits of Bishop Nikon, for which he sent students from the church school, during which they confiscated all funds designated for holidays, so that during the holiday not a kopeck remained. Bishop Nikon justified these audits as the obligation of our church, although it grew out of the assessments he had made. . . . Such financial measures were confirmed by the bishop in his favorite expression: 'Money is the church's blood.'" (from the report of the rector of the church of Michael the Archangel in Kushva, Fr Dimitry Menshikov).
"The bishop is unrestrained during divine services; he cures and yells at the brothers of the monastery for the most vacuous reasons. Once when he was serving in the monastery he thought that the priests attending at the altar were completely ignorant of the episcopal service and he forbade us to read the Holy Gospel, prayers, and religious books up to Holy Pascha, which was six months off, and he ordered us to read only the episcopal service." (from the report of the spiritual council of the Verkhotur Saint Nicholas monastery).
"An elderly lady with a child approached the bishop. She requested that the master bless her sick grandson and pray for him. The master, who already was extremely intoxicated, blessed the child, after which he placed his hands on him and raising his face heavenward began to shout the words of the prayer loudly (if it can be called a prayer). . . . Then Bishop Nikon, yelling hysterically, loudly proclaimed that the boy was healed." (from the report of the rector of the church of Saints Zosima and Savvaty, Fr Alexander Urakov).
"Whether sobor or drunk Master Nikon might curse any priest, using obscenities, and even hit him. Once, while drunk, in the presence of several military officers, he unexpectedly hit me with all his might in the chest, so that I could hardly remain standing. When I came to I heard one general say to the bishop: 'Master, what have you done?' And he added: 'If I struck a subordinate like that, even a lieutenant, then I'd surely be demoted right away.' The bishop said: 'I won't beat these s.o.b. priests like that again.' (from the report of the mitred archpriest of the church of Christ's Birth in Ekaterinburg, Vladimir Ziazev).
"In September 1997 I was sent along with other students of the Ekaterinburg church school to work at the diocesan administration, from where several of us were taken to Bishop Nikon's dacha, supposedly to work, but there we were given vodka, taken to a sauna, and shown videotapes. Then Master Nikon arrived and went into the sauna with a certain Alexander. . . . Alexander came out of the sauna and summoned me to go with him into the sauna. . . . There I saw the bishop completely naked. . . . Then he and I went into his room. There he kissed me and then he said that he would assume the role of the woman and that I should sleep with him. I did what he wanted and lay with him." (from the report of a former student of the Ekaterinburg diocesan church school, Dmitry Romanov).
At the bottom of each report, in addition to a signature, are the words: "Ready to testify in my own words before the Holy Cross and Gospel."
Before the commission left, it extracted from the clergy a promise to cease their struggle with the bishop until the decision of the Holy Synod. At the February session of the synod the question of the Ekaterinburg diocese was not reviewed and in March an urgent complaint was sent to the patriarch and synod over 108 signatures, 53 of which belonged to clergy.
"After returning from Moscow following the celebration of the seventieth birthday of His Holiness, Master Nikon declared to the clergy that he had been forgiven and retained in his see. Without the possibility of learning whether his words corresponded to reality, we were seized with the most violent confusion," the signatories declared in an appeal sent to His Holiness. The letter briefly recounted the evidences about the immoral conduct of the bishop, including cases of blasphemy which earlier had not been reported. "I is especially horrifying to speak about this and thus earlier we kept silent about this case. While completely drunk, Master Nikon threw vodka upward and, addressing God, said approximately the following: 'Who are you? I'm a bishop!'"
The writers of the letter also accused the ruling bishop of slander against the patriarch, since the bishop declared that His Holiness had known for a long time that Bishop Nikon was gay, and had done nothing to him, and they complained about the accusations against them of schism. "A complaint to you who are the hierarchy now has become a sign of schism. This is because we do not wish to reconcile ourselves with the presence of a blasphemer and sodomite in the archepiscopal see, like some second Metropolitan Zosima," they wrote in their appeal, having stressed their resolve to fight to the finish, "and not for our own positions but for the removal from the body of the church of the Ekaterinburg diocese the cancerous tumor of pederasty and cynicism which already has metastasized throughout our clergy."
At its session on 31 March-1 April the Holy Synod reviewed the report of the chairman of the synodal commission for assessment of the complaints of the Ekaterinburg clergy. As a result, the instigators of the appeals process, Hegumen Tikhon and Hegumen Avraam, were dismissed from their posts as abbots of the monasteries, a number of clerics received reprimands as initiators of the repetition of the submission of complaints against their bishop prior to the synod's decision, and Bishop Nikon was given a reprimand "for dereliction in leadership of the diocese and for insufficient attention to the spiritual life of the monasteries of the diocese, which led to the situation that had transpired."
The synod's decision was announced at the diocesan council in Ekaterinburg on 5 April and at the time several of its participants emerged from the session and declared their own dissent from the decision of the synod. But both Hegumen Tikhon and Hegumen Avraam left their monasteries in accordance with the synod's decision. Hegumen Tikhon received a church in the same city of Verkhotur, where he is an honorary citizen. Hegumen Avraam moved to the skete of the Tikhvin convent, of which he has been the confessor for many years.
However, the situation continued to intensify. During Holy Week a rumor spread that following Hegumen Avraam two other monks, Fr Peter and Fr Andrei, were advised to leave the monastery of the All-merciful Savior, after which parishioners, mainly women, actually blockaded the monastery. They remained there over the course of five days, until a official document arrived from the diocesan administration stating that no reorganization of the monastery was planned. The believers were asked to leave the grounds of the monastery by the two monks themselves. Soon demonstrations began in Nizhny Tagil, where believers proposed to declare outright that the city was a "Nikon-free zone."
A genuine information war erupted in the Ekaterinburg press between opponents of the bishop and his supporters. The chief apologist of the bishop was the editor of the local "Pravoslavnaia gazeta," monastic priest Dimitry Baibakov. "Several priests and monasteries are quite closely tied with a number of economic structures, which are well known in our city, and thus with political structures," he declared in an interview with the local television station ASV. "All this brought the conflict to life with accusations on the ethical plane. This is a centuries-old technique. Because it is easy enough to check out and prove or disprove accusations of misuse of church resources, but it is much more complicated to wipe out accusations of immorality."
Besides this, Fr Dimitry reported that by training he is a psychiatrist and his parish is located on the grounds of the local psychiatric hospital. "There were several cases when from the Tikhvin monastery which Fr Avraam served there came for treatment women who simply has suffered psychological breakdowns from the methods that Fr Avraam practiced." Soon afterward there was a television program, "Land of Sannikov," in which Fr Avraam explained that people come to the monastery in various conditions, and not always healthy from the start, and this does not at all mean that their psychological breakdowns are the fault of the monastery.
During Passion Week the local television station ATN showed a clip of one witness to the sodomy that occurred in the diocese. In response the newspaper Vechernie vedomosti issued an expose of Hegumen Avraam. He was, according to the text, "an Odessa Jew by birth," who "once was engaged in religious activity in Tobolsk but was expelled from there for immoral conduct, that is, for drunkenness and fornication." Another article reported about the underground production of jewelry and utensils, created by the efforts of Hegumen Avraam in the skete of the monastery of the All-merciful Saviour, which supposedly was closed by Bishop Nikon's efforts and which then was the reason for the hegumen's conspiracy against the bishop. Ekaterinburg television channel 4, repeatedly stressing Fr Avraam's descent "from Odessa Jews," reported that "Father Avraam pays attention to schismatic ties with the Church Abroad and particularly to the valuable gifts given to bishops of the Church Abroad who separate from the bishop."
In response to this, the local newspaper Podrobnosti published a copy of several reports sent to the patriarch while the most spicy details from them were emphasized in several news programs displaying magnified texts of the documents across the screen. It also reported that the Urals movement for the rights of homosexuals had come out in support of Bishop Nikon.
The population of Ekaterinburg and Sverdlovsk provinces is mainly factory workers who do not understand unnatural excesses and do not draw fine distinctions, so the bishop can hardly hope for understanding on their part. The publicity of the "personal sins" of the bishop has certainly deprived him of the support of the local authorities. In August there will be an election of the governor and the election campaign already is ablaze, and none of the candidates, including the incumbent Eduard Rossel, can afford to lean on a bishop with such a reputation.
Meanwhile neither the diocesan clergy nor the parishioners are about to abandon their positions. At the same time the transfer of the bishop to another diocese is not being arranged. As one of the priests says: "It would be good for him to be removed from us. But he will not change in another place. That's just the way it is." (tr. by PDS)
(posted 15 May 1999)
Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov loves the Moscow patriarchy. That's why he breaks laws and exceeds his authority by lovingly handing out city property and money as freely as if it were his own. Even the partial information we have been able to uncover attests to the fact that the patriarchy has received, at the mayor's behest, not only a huge amount of money, but also large tracts of land in the elite community of Peredelkino, worth tens of millions of dollars.
On May 11, 1993, Luzhkov signed a Moscow governmental decree, according to which "for the organization of territory and use of buildings and facilities of the suburban residence of the Patriarch" the patriarchy received unlimited and free use of a 2.6 hectare plot of land in Peredelkino.
Seeing how the patriarch's residence was not badly organized and had been in successful use for many years before the resolution, one can say with assurance that the mayor's office simply gave the patriarchy a plot of land worth 2.6 million dollars. Under the same resolution, another 17 hectares of land adjacent to the patriarch's residence (worth 17 million dollars) was transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church, again for unlimited and free use. It is all, of course, "not for profit," but intended for the construction of a complex of buildings and facilities for a "Biblical scientific center."
Dozens of families had been living on that land and a veterans' center had been located there. They were all evicted. Or as it says in the fourth point of the resolution, they were "to withdraw in the manner prescribed by law from the tracts of land…in use by citizens, with their approval." So it was that all residents were evicted, not all with their approval. Some tried to protest and filed suit. They were unsuccessful.
The authors of the resolution, foreseeing future complications, suggested to the patriarchy the possibility of a "low-rise building" on the "withdrawn" territory, including cottages, for the veterans' center. It is clear though that the veteran's center is unlikely to allow itself to build cottages, since "the low-rise builders, that is, the builders of two- or three-story cottages, remain staff of the patriarchy who had no earlier relationship to Peredelkino."
On his way to spiritual perfection, Luzhkov issued Instruction no. 486-RM of June 20, 1997, which allows the patriarchy to build an "Orthodox heritage center" on the tracts of land transferred to it. The mayor required the head architect of Moscow to "collaborate in attaining the agreement of the supervisory bodies in order to shorten the time necessary to prepare the documentation and receive permission for the construction." The rush was probably to bury the hopes of the evicted residents of appealing to a higher court, which would then have to rule the eviction de facto.
The eighth point of the Instruction is noteworthy: "To require Moslespark (the Moscow parks authority)and Moskompriroda (the Moscow Committee on Nature) to give permission for the felling of plant life in the area of the construction in accordance the plan for development and improvement of the whole territory." "The felling of plant life" in this case means the annihilation of age-old trees around the patriarch's residence.
In Instruction no. 733-RM of September 18, 1997, Yury Luzhkov fully exempted any land used by the Moscow patriarchy for religious facilities from any rental payments. That benefit does not extend to other religious organizations. Besides its obvious unconstitutionality and violation of laws on relations between the church and state, there is some doubt as to where the mayor had the discretion to provide these benefits.
In another Instruction, (no. 1084-RM, October 27, 1998), Luzhkov ordered " the financial-economic department to pay and the Department of Finances to finance, in the course of the current year, work on the preparation of a marble postament (shrine) to readiness for the ritual interment of a saint's relics and its installation in the Church of St. Grigory the Victorious on Poklonnaya Hill." The lawfulness of these actions can be judged authoritatively from the commentary to the Russian Constitution published by Academic B. Topornin, "Under conditions of the selection of religious groups by the government, it should be noted that the practice of financing religious groups with government funds is a serious violation of this constitutional principle."
The above mentioned shrine for the relics cost the taxpayers a total of 131,270 rubles, a tiny sum in comparison with expenses from the city budget for the restoration of 39 of the Moscow patriarchy's religious edifices. Just for water hook ups, 27 million rubles were spent. Among those buildings probably is the residence of the senior priest of the Optina hermitage, illegally built on the territory of Sheremetyev House Museum at Ostankino. The senior priest was given a home church by Count Sheremetyev several years ago, but the Optina hermitage has never had any relationship to the Sheremetyev House at all. The monks in retreat on the territory of the museum have been in a fight with the museum staff the whole time they have been there. In the course of this disagreement, they have seized a notable portion of the museum's grounds and caused the museum expenses.
The apotheosis of Luzhkov's attachment to the holy Orthodox faith and Aleksei II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' came in the mayor's Instruction no. 1290-RM of February 19, 1999. It concerns the transfer of real estate, that is, the donation of government property, to a religious organization. The text of the instruction is so flowery that it is fitting to reproduce it in whole, to preserve its style and orthography:
In commemoration of the contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church to the renewal of traditional spirituality and culture, on the event of 70 years' passing from the day of the birth of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', Aleksei II, in accordance with the God's proposal of the Department of Government and Municipal Property of Transformation the city of Moscow:
1. Transfer of a complex of buildings to the ownership of the Moscow Patriarchy at the following address: Seventh Lazenki Street 42: building 1-Church of the Transformation of the Lord, 262 sq. m.. building 2-112.5 sq. m.. building 3-93.0 sq. m.. building 4-144.3 sq. m.. building 5-13.0 sq. m.. building 7-11.0 sq. m.. building 8-117.4 sq. m.. building 9-31.0 sq. m.. building 10-519.0 sq. m.; Seventh Lazenki Street 42B: building 11-766.4 sq. m.
2. The Department of Government and Municipal Property will transfer the complex of buildings outlined in point 1 of the present instruction in good condition within two months.
3. The Moscow Committee on the Registration of Real Estate Rights and Transactions will register the property rights of the Patriarch of Moscow to the complex of buildings in accordance with point 1 of the present instruction without charging for drawing up the documents.
4. First Vice Premier of the Government of Moscow, O.M. Tolkachev, is responsible for the fulfillment of the present instruction.
What kind of contribution of the Moscow patriarchy to "the renewal of traditional spirituality and culture" does Mr. Luzhkov have in mind? Maybe the shameful collaboration of the hierarchs with organs of government security throughout the entire history of the Moscow patriarchy? Or the destruction of museums and burning of the books of Orthodox philosophers with non-Orthodox names and the demeaning of other confessions? Maybe by "culture" the mayor means the scandals with the Church's tobacco and alcohol businesses?
But even if Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov has his own "wide" definition of the term "culture," is it right for him to give away city property to those who had never owned it in the past? The Church of the Transformation of the Lord in Peredelkino, given by the mayor to the patriarchy, is a cultural monument and, by law, it cannot be given away. But the question of the church is better posed to the court than to Luzhkov.
(posted 15 May 1999)
By Andrei Zolotov Jr.
STAFF WRITER
The Russian Orthodox Church is facing an unprecedented public scandal over homosexuality, with a group of priests from one of Russia's largest dioceses accusing their bishop of coercing seminarians into sex.
Such matters have been dealt with quietly by the highly traditional church, which considers homosexual conduct a grave sin. But the priests from Yekaterinburg, in the Ural mountains, have made their complaints against Bishop Nikon impossible to ignore by airing their grievance in the news media.
Although the homosexuality of some monks and bishops is an open secret within church circles, church leaders have acted as if homosexuality within the church does not exist. While Western churches have extensively debated the place of homosexuals in the church, discussion of the issue has remained off-limits in Orthodox Christianity.
The bishop's supporters say the accusations are false, and that people were bribed into testifying against him. They say that behind the conflict lie the financial interests of priests, who do not want to share their revenues with the diocesan office.
Nikon, 38, whose lay name is Oleg Mironov, was appointed bishop in 1993 and led what appeared to be a spectacular religious revival in Sverdlovsk region, of which Yekaterinburg is the capital. The number of churches has grown from 80 to about 250, and 13 monasteries have been started, along with the restoration of missionary, educational and social work.
Earlier this year, local clergy brought to the Holy Synod signed statements from seminarians saying they had been abused by Nikon. The synod, the church's ruling body of 12 bishops chaired by Patriarch Alexy II, sent a commission led by the synod's chancellor, Metropolitan Sergy of Solnechnogorsk, to investigate. Based on the commission's investigation, the synod decided April 1 to remove the bishop's chief opponents, Hegumens Avraam Reidman and Tikhon Zatekin, from their posts as abbots of the region's biggest monasteries.
The Synod called on the clerics to "repent and make peace with the bishop." Nikon was reprimanded for "omissions in management of the diocese."
A group of local clergy were so discouraged by the synod's decision that they went public. Reports about the conflict appeared in the local media and were placed on a web site called "The Pain of the Church" .
"We disagree with the synod's decision, which has actually supported a homosexual bishop," a group of church intellectuals from the town of Nizhny Tagil wrote in an open letter to Patriarch Alexy earlier this month.
"We had hoped for a just solution of this case within the church. But the synod's decision shocked us -- because it is far from the truth."
A signed statement addressed to the patriarch says former seminary student Dmitry Romanov was sent to the bishop's dacha soon after his enrolment at the seminary in August 1997 under pretext of helping with chores. He was under 18. There, his statement says, he was given vodka and taken to bishop in the adjacent bath house, where the bishop took him by the hand, kissed him and then took him to his residence, where he pressured him for sex. "I carried out his wish and lay down with him," Romanov wrote. Later, the statement says, Nikon told Romanov that if he told anyone, even during confession, he would be "buried under another coffin." Soon after, Romanov was expelled from the seminary. "I am ready to witness to what is said here before the cross and Gospels," Romanov wrote at the bottom of his report.
Sergei Tsyganov, a worker at the Verkhoturye monastery, said in his statement that in 1996 he was given 6 million rubles in exchange for "playing the man's part" during sex with Nikon.
Other reports tell how Nikon instructed priests to supply him with men, confiscated valuable icons and vestments from parishes, extorted bribes, such as a Volvo car, from monasteries, beat up subordinates and held drunken parties with top regional officials and generals.
Several complaints corroborated news reports last year that Nikon had ordered books by leading 20th-century Orthodox theologians to be burned.
Bishops, who are selected from among celibate monks, have absolute canonical power in their dioceses. However, they are financially dependent on parishes, which prompts frequent tensions between bishops and priests.
When the scandal spilled to the local media, Nikon's opponents were accused of defending their own financial interests by forging ***kompromat,*** or scandalous material, against the bishop. The Yekaterinburg newspaper Podrobdnosty alleged that Hegumen Avraam was involved in smuggling gold and precious stones and money laundering for shady businesses.
The diocesan newspaper editor, Hieromonk Dmitry Baibakov, said on Yekaterinburg television that the anti-Nikon campaign was like a medieval inquisition. "If they wanted to destroy a woman, she was accused of witchcraft and men - of sexual perversion. Such charges are impossible to disprove," he said.
In April, when dozens people holding signs such as "No Place For Sodomites In Our Church!" and "Our Bishop is a Pederast!" appeared outside churches, Nikon disappeared from the public eye. The telephone in his office was not answered.
One of the protesting priests, Foma Abel, said in a telephone interview from Nizhny Tagil that the information war has undermined people's trust in the church. Churches in the diocese have become visibly emptier, he said. Abel said other bishops realized Nikon was gay but quietly supported him because he was a good administrator. "This is an attempt at a brutal self-assertion by the church's gay lobby," he said. "Orthodoxy and sodomy are incompatible."
Metropolitan Sergy replied through an assistant he could grant an interview only on the basis of its full publication. He told Nezavisimaya Gazeta's religion supplement, NG-Religii, that the commission "did not find the accusations against the bishop sufficiently persuasive." One of the only two witness was drunk and the other "appeared unserious," he said.
Nikon's opponents continue to appeal to the patriarch. They also say the case is a test of whether church authorities can be accountable to church members. "The church is not only bishops and priests, but lay people as well," said Sergei Yelnikov, a translator and parish member from Nizhny Tagil. "Even if laymen do not make decisions [regarding the appointment to church offices], they should have a mechanism to articulate their opinion regarding the bishops. Otherwise it leads to a total lack of control."
RUSSIAN BISHOP IN GAY SEX SCANDAL
by Alice Lagnado,
Times Newspapers, 13 May 1999
THE Russian Orthodox Church has been hit by its first homosexuality
scandal.
Priests in Yekaterinburg, a town in the Ural Mountains east of Moscow, and one of Russia's biggest dioceses, have accused their bishop of forcing under-age seminary students and workers to engage in homosexual acts with him, according to The Moscow Times.
Supporters of Bishop Nikon, 38, whose real name is Oleg Mironov, deny the charges and say the "victims" were bribed to make false accusations.
Bishop Nikon has led a remarkable religious revival in Yekaterinburg and the surrounding Sverdlovsk region since being appointed in 1993. He has increased the number of churches from 80 to 250.
Earlier this year, local clergy took signed statements to the Holy Synod, the Church's ruling body, in which seminary students and workers alleged that they had been sexually abused by Bishop Nikon.
But the synod allowed him to continue his work, merely reprimanding him. Some clergy then went to the press to "out" him.
But while some elderly parishioners may share the Church's professed shock, most Russians see church leaders as hypocritical.
Many worked for years as KGB agents, and today the Church gains from government tax concessions to make impressive profits by importing alcohol and tobacco.
Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.
ORTHODOX BISHOP IN "GAY ORGIES" SCANDAL
by Nick Holdsworth
Daily Telegraph, 8 May 1999
A BISHOP in the Russian Orthodox Church has been humiliatingly "outed" as a homosexual.
The claims against Bishop Nikon, of Ekaterinburg in the Urals, were made in a lurid account of alleged bathing-house orgies and drunken rampages by a tabloid newspaper yesterday.
The bishop, who was the subject of an investigation by a Church commission earlier this year for alleged mismanagement and financial impropriety, is said to have plied young men with alcohol until they were senseless before taking them to bed, Komsomolskaya Pravda said.
The newspaper alleged that Bishop Nikon wore nail varnish and dressed in women's underwear beneath his cassock. The story will embarrass the Orthodox Church which in April sacked two senior clergymen in Ekaterinburg after they made allegations against the bishop.
He was alleged to have asked potential young male employees in the Church sexually explicit questions. One man quoted in the newspaper said he had been invited to a sauna and plied with drink. He claimed that he awoke, naked, to find himself in Nikon's bed.
The existence of homosexual clergy has long been acknowledged privately in Russian Orthodox Church circles, while the leadership turned a blind eye to it. This is the first time a homosexual clergy scandal has reached the press.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 1999
(posted 14 May 1999)
MOSCOW, May. 09, 1999 -- (Reuters) An armored limousine carrying Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Alexiy crashed into another car near the massive new Christ the Savior Cathedral in central Moscow on Thursday, police said.
Alexiy was not hurt in the accident, and witnesses told Russian NTV television the patriarch immediately left his slightly damaged black Mercedes 600, transferred to his security service's off-road vehicle and left the scene.
Police did not comment on the details of the accident which they said would be investigated, but witnesses said the limousine was crossing the square near the cathedral at high speed, which apparently led to the accident.
NTV showed a young woman whose car was seriously damaged by patriarch's limousine.
"I was just sitting there crying, but nobody paid any attention to me. They just all left, first the patriarch and then his driver," she told NTV.
(c) 1999 Copyright Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
(courtesy of Gleb Glinka)
THE SECRET OF THE PATRIARCH'S ARMORED CAR CRASH
by Vitaly Romanov
Segodnia, 8 May 1999
Crashes on the street that involve vehicles of highly placed persons of state are no rarity in the capital. And it is no secret that the culprits in them most often are either pedestrians or the owners of private vehicles. However the accident that happened this Thursday on the square of Prechestensky Gate in Moscow may violate this tradition. It is possible that the blame for the accident involving the patriarch's Mercedes will fall upon the driver of the car from the fleet of the presidential adminisration.
We recall that on Thursday, at about four o'clock in the afternoon, on the square in front of the cathedral of Christ the Savior a cavalcade was moving at great speed led by a car which was an armored Mercedes 600. On the passenger's side was Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus. The official vehicle veered into the opposite lane and its driver, trying to avoid a collision, turned the wheel sharply to the right.. As a result of this maneuver he sideswiped a Toyota in the next lane. A twenty-two year old passenger, Natalia Pavliuk, suffered injury. The police escort stopped immediately and the officers who jumped out, following standard procedure, immediately removed the distinguished passenger from the said vehicle and put him in a security jeep. It left the site of the acccident immediately and the Mercedes and Toyota were left on the street. Police officers who had observed the accident from across the street approached the drivers of both cars and took reports from eyewitnesses. After this the damaged vehicles left and the report about the event was immediately hushed up. It even was not entered into the daily log of incidents of the state administration of internal affairs.
Neither on the day of the accident, nor yesterday [Thur.] in any precincts of GIBDD which Segodnia's correspondent called, could anyone comment on the events. However from sources in the Moscow GIBDD it could be established that the fifth department of GIBDD handled the incident. According to preliminary information its officers came to the conclusion that administrative measures of punishment will be assessed against the driver of the patriarch's car and not against the owner of the Toyota. To be sure, in the fifth department itself yesterday everybody refused to comment on the matter. In general the position of regular policemen in such a case is quite understandable: they know well that untimely comments can lead to official investigations.
The head of the Moscow GIBDD department himself, Nikolay Arkhipkin, had to issue an explanation on behalf of his subordinates. To be sure, even he did not give any clarification because he explained that it would take a month to investigate the accident and only some time later would a final conclusion be reached. However the reasons that official persons were in no hurry with explanations are quite understandable. After all, in this case, according to eyewitnesses, the driver of the official vehicle obviously was in violation of highway regulations. And if the investigators take this into account, this might turn out to be the first case in history of such incidents where the true culprit of an accident was charged despite his highly placed "protection." At least in the capital's GIBDD they could not recall any case in recent years when the person who caused the accident was the driver of the official vehicle. That has been due primarily to the powerful protection of the highly placed passengers. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 10 May 1999)
PUBLIC APPEAL OF PARISHIONERS IN THE DIOCESE OF EKATERINBURG.
Dear Fellow Countrymen! Brothers and Sisters! Believers and Unbelievers!
How long must we tolerate this cynical outrage upon our feelings? It has been six years now that Vladyka Nikon (in the world, Oleg Vasilievich Mironov) has ruled the long-suffering Ekaterinburg diocese, all the while violating State laws and Church canons. During that time the Bishop, maddened by greed and vice, carried away hundreds of ancient icons which make up the cultural heritage of our region and which have now disappeared without a trace. It is not beyond him remove icons even from the churches which have been restored from ruins. He cynically grabbed and took away ancient silver artifacts, crosses, gospel books, chalices and other goods. A hierarchical visitation will set back even the most impoverished parish not less than ten thousand New Rubles. According to testimony from rectors and parish starostas, the bishop's envelope must contain three thousand rubles as well as from 300 to 500 rubles for each of his suite: the driver, deacons, subdeacons and others. And on top of it all, the dinner which, by personally written instructions from the bishop, must be preceded by serving "delicate" expensive wines. If Nikon's eye lands upon some interesting items or furniture, an order is given immediately to deliver these to the bishop's residence. But this was not enough for him.
He began to covet our sons and has corrupted numerous and numerous young people. It is well known that lately no small number of ordinations took place only by way of Nikon's bed. Our bishop assigns sexual perverts to parishes and monasteries of our region who provide him with boys for his comfort and pleasure. Those who try to protest, are dirtied by calumny, hounded out of the diocese, driven out of their parishes, sent off to the wilds or placed in positions of near poverty. Vladyka organized drunken orgies with church funds and paid for nightly pleasures (up to five thousand for the procurement of delights for Nikon). A visit by a miraculous icon to a city would generate a clear profit of up to 115 thousand New rubles daily. This was when the dollar was worth four rubles. Both miracle working icons were in the city for a total of four months. It isn't hard to figure out how many millions of dollars Nikon grabbed for himself. He said that he bought apartments for priests and provided assistance for needy parishes. This is but a drop in the ocean compared to what he spent. Merchandise which Nikon bought in Moscow for one price was re-sold to parishes with a huge mark-up. For example, each packet of candles was bought for 16 rubles and was re-sold to parishes for 100-115 rubles and the parishes were forbidden to buy this on their own, only through the diocesan store. Such profitability was not even dreamed about by our "New Russians." Furthermore, more than 300 thousand rubles a month is collected for the support of the diocese. The monthly maintenance of the bishop's table required up to 10 thousand rubles. Festive receptions are augmented by additional subsidies of money and produce The most profitable churches are designated by the bishop as his "podvoryes" from which all funds are illegally extracted.
Brothers and sisters! Believers and unbelievers! How long can we tolerate this pervert, thief and cynic in the bishop's office? He robs all citizens of our region. Money which could be used for the restoration of churches, establishment of free soup kitchens, assistance for the needy and the poor as well for other charitable and social needs. This money will never be returned. The icons and artifacts which he expropriated represented our common heritage. Alas! these will never be returned. But let it be known that for each day that Nikon remains in the diocese is a new opportunity for the stealing of funds and irreplaceable artifacts, icons and valuables, etc. Each day that he remains in the diocese is an opportunity for that sexual pervert to corrupt new souls.
It is time to stop this iniquity! We cannot be silent, for silence is the betrayal of God!
(Translated from Russian.)
(posted 9 May 1999)
Watch Tower Public Affairs Office
Press release, 6 May 1999
On Wednesday [5 May 1999], the Russian Ministry of Justice informed Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia that they are now reregistered as a "centralized religious organization" under the 1997 religion law, acknowledging the place of this Christian religion in Russian history.
"We are pleased that the Ministry of Justice was willing to investigate our religion honestly rather than listen to innuendo and rumor," said Vasilii Kalin, director of the Witnesses' Administrative Center in St.Petersburg. "After living through persecution for my religious beliefs under the Communist regime, I am happy to see that the freedom to practice my religion openly that was granted in 1991 will continue."
"Administrative Center for Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" is the religious organization's formal name. Use of the word "Russia" is permitted under the 1997 law only for religions that have been active in Russia for more than 50 years. Jehovah's Witnesses hope that the formal acknowledgment of their long history in Russia and of their respect for Russian tradition will help to remove the prejudice, harassment, and violence experienced by some of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia today. More than 100 local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses have also been registered under the new law.
"Russia's willingness to register Jehovah's Witnesses is a significant step forward," said Lyudmila Alekseyeva, president of the International Helsinki Federation. Alekseyeva's voice has been part of an international chorus expressing concern over unjustified efforts to ban Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow. "We must keep in mind, however, that the struggle for freedom of religion and of association is not over yet. Moscow's efforts to ban Jehovah's Witnesses in that city continue. The Russian Federation's decision to reregister Jehovah's Witnesses is the right decision. We hope that local officials in Moscow will follow suit."
Jehovah's Witnesses have been active in Russia nearly 100 years. Thousands of Witnesses served in the labor camps under Stalin's rule. More than 250,000 in Russia today attend their religious services. Worldwide more than 13 million attend their services, and they are legally registered in 155 countries.
JEHOVAH WITNESSES REGISTERED UNDER NEW RUSSIA LAW
MOSCOW, May 6 (Reuters) - The Jehovah's Witnesses, fighting a bid to ban their group in Moscow, said on Thursday that Russia's Justice Ministry had re-registered them as a religious organisation nationwide under a controversial new law.
"We are very pleased with this development and hope that it will have a positive impact on the court case in Moscow," Judah Schroeder, a spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses, said by telephone from the United States.
He said the group had been re-registered under the name "Administrative Center for Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia."
He added that the right to use the word "Russia" in its official name was given only to religious organisations that had existed in the country for more than 50 years.
All religious organisations in Russia have to be re-registered under the 1997 law "On freedom of conscience and religious organisations," which has been criticised by human rights groups and by the United States as discriminatory.
That law also gives the courts the right to disband groups they find guilty of inciting hatred or intolerant behaviour.
Moscow prosecutors began their attempt to close down the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Russian capital after accusing the group of breaking up families and preaching intolerance.
The Jehovah's Witnesses say the prosecutors have failed to produce any evidence to back up their claims and say the case recalls Soviet-era efforts to control all religious activity.
The group says it has existed in Russia for more than a century and claims about 250,000 members nationwide.
In March a judge overseeing the court case ruled that a panel of experts should decide whether or not to uphold the prosecutor's claims and ban the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Jehovah's Witnesses issued a statement welcoming the Justice Ministry's decision to re-register them.
Vasily Kalin, director of the Witnesses' Administrative Center in St Petersburg, said the move underscored Russia's shift towards democracy and respect for human rights.
"After living through persecution for my religious beliefs under the Communist regime, I am happy to see that the freedom to practise my religion openly that was granted in 1991 will continue," Kalin said.
Human rights groups also hailed the ministry's move.
"The Russian Federation's decision to re-register the Jehovah's Witnesses is the right decision. We hope that local officials in Moscow will follow suit," said Lyudmila Alekseyeva, president of the International Helsinki Federation.
Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited.
RUSSIA RENEWS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
Associated Press, 6 May 1999
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia has renewed the registration of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious organization, even while authorities in Moscow are trying to ban the group, church officials said Thursday.
The registration of all religious groups in Russia had to be renewed after the passage of a religion law in 1997. Any denomination that fails to secure a new registration would be effectively banned from practicing in Russia.
The Justice Ministry took six months to study the literature and operations of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and finally granted registration on Wednesday, church spokesman Alexei Nazarychev said.
``The federal government is trying to follow constitutional principles and support, as far as possible, the freedom of worship,'' Nazarychev said in a telephone interview. ``One can see the difference between (federal policies) and individual bureaucrats who are trying to unleash religious persecution.''
The Moscow city prosecutor's office is trying to ban Jehovah's Witnesses from Moscow, using a provision in the religion law that gives courts the right to outlaw religious groups found guilty of inciting hatred or intolerant behavior.
Prosecutors say the Christian group creates rifts between family members because of its practice of not celebrating national holidays, and threatens lives by pressuring sick people into refusing medical aid.
A court hearing against Jehovah's Witnesses was put on indefinite hold in March, when the judge decided to allow experts to study the New York-based group's literature.
The Justice Ministry had its own panel of experts study Jehovah's Witnesses before renewing the church's registration, but the Moscow court refused to use the favorable findings of the federal experts, Nazarychev said.
``It would make a lot more sense to use a panel appointed by the state than to turn to random people,'' he said. ``But the judge said ... we handle our affairs ourselves.''
The denomination has appealed, but no ruling has been made yet, he said.
Despite federal registration, individual cities may still outlaw local branches of a religious group.
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the fifth-largest Christian group
in Russia, with about 10,000 members in Moscow and more than 250,000
across the country.
(posted 6 May 1999)
MOSCOW, May 1 (Reuters) - Two separate explosions went off near Moscow's most prominent synagogues on Saturday night, causing light damage to nearby structures but no injuries, officials said.
Police at both scenes denied that the synagogues had been targeted, but the blasts appeared quite similar and occurred within a short period of each other on the Jewish sabbath.
One explosion took place near Moscow's main Choral Synagogue at about 9:30 p.m. (1730 GMT) as a religious service was taking place with about 50 people inside, Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt said afterwards.
There was no damage to the synagogue, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited in March, but glass was strewn about outside a nearby medical building and pharmacy belonging to the Interior Ministry.
``There is no way this could have had anything to do with the synagogue,'' district police head Vladimir Belko said. ``This is a dark and deserted street. If a terrorist had wanted to attack the synagogue, he could have come a lot closer to the building.''
``This was not done by a professional but by an amateur.''
Yet as Belko gave his assessment, police were investigating the second blast near the back of Marina Roshcha synagogue, which was previously damaged by a bomb in May 1998. It was attacked in 1996 and 1993 as well.
In an eerie parallel, a medical building nearby, also belonging to the Interior Ministry, was slightly damaged in the Saturday blast.
``There has no damage to the synagogue. The explosion apparently took place in a metal garage, no less than 50 metres away from the synagogue,'' a police colonel at the scene said.
``The only building that has been damaged is the police medical centre nearby. I don't know about the other blast but this one does not seem to be targeted at the synagogue.''
A team of explosives experts surrounded the single car garage near the Marina Roshcha synagogue to look for evidence.
Near the Choral Synagogue, a 10-15 minute drive away, officials blocked off the darkened street and searched the area with flashlights.
The attacks came on the Russian May Day holiday after several opposition marches in the capital rallied against the the West and outside enemies. Such rallies have sometimes carried anti-Semitic undertones in the past.
``I have no doubt that both of today's blasts were aimed against Russian Jews inside the synagogues,'' Interfax news agency quoted Alexander Osovtsov, deputy head of the Russian Jewish Congress, as saying.
``The fact that the explosions did not take place in the buildings but nearby is connected only with stepped up security at synagogues and other Jewish institutions.''
The Choral Synagogue has been suffered a series of small attacks in recent years including stones thrown at the windows and Nazi swastikas drawn on the building.
The Choral Synagogue's chief rabbi, Adolf Shayevich, has blamed the official failure to take stronger action against anti-Semitism for the growing exodus of Jews from Russia.
Officials say more Jews have left Russia this year than in the same
period of 1998 because of economic troubles and rising anti-Semitism.
RUSSIA PROBING SYNAGOGUE ATTACKS
.c The Associated Press
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia formed an elite task force today to investigate bomb blasts near two Moscow synagogues, and hinted that it suspected neo-Nazi activists.
Interior Minister Sergei Stepashin said it wasn't clear that the synagogues were the targets of the bombings, however, noting that both blasts occurred near police medical facilities, the Interfax news agency reported.
He specifically named an extreme nationalist group, Russian National Unity, suggesting it might be under suspicion.
``During the past two or three months, all law enforcement bodies and the Moscow government have been actively working to suppress Russian National Unity and other pro-Nazi organizations,'' Stepashin said in a television interview. ``Therefore, I do not rule out that this is some type of reaction.''
Stepashin said the blasts would be investigated by a team drawn from the federal prosecutor's office, the Interior Ministry and the Federal Security Service, the main successor to the Soviet KGB.
The two bombs went off Saturday evening, one in a parking lot about 100 yards from the Choral Synagogue, not far from the Kremlin. The second explosion was outside a hospital near a synagogue that has been the site of several attacks.
The explosions caused damage to nearby buildings, but the synagogues were not damaged. There were no reports of casualties.
No one claimed responsibility for either explosion, the Federal Security Service said.
Police have said the bombs were set off by hooligans, and Stepashin said he believes vandalism was the most likely motive.
Russian Jewish Congress Executive Vice President Alexander Osovtsov claimed that communist extremists were to blame for the bombings, Interfax reported.
Osovtsov said the bombings were linked to May Day protests staged Saturday by predominantly Communist protesters. Jews have been a target of some communist groups in recent years.
Anti-Semitism has been spreading in Russia in recent months, with desecrations of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, and rallies by neo-Nazi groups. Russia's parliament refused to censure Communist lawmakers who made anti-Semitic remarks recently.
Russia's chief rabbi, Adolf Shayevich, blamed police indifference for the attack. ``The impunity factor once again played its bitter role yesterday,'' Interfax quoted him as saying.
According to Osovtsov, the only reason the bombs didn't inflict major damage on the synagogues was because of better security following the periodic attacks on Jewish places of worship.
``The bombs were planted near, not inside, the synagogues only because tighter security measures have been taken,'' Osovtsov said.
AP-NY-05-02-99 1702EDT
courtesy of Ray Progodich
(posted 3 May 1999)
Coprighted material. For private use only.
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page.