Copyrighted material. For private use only.
The Orthodox church carefully examines candidates for canonization.
Two important events in the life of the Russian Orthodox church have happened. Yesterday at the monastery of the Presentation in Moscow occurred the canonization of Archbishop Ilarion Troitsky. A week earlier at the convent of the Protection in the capital the woman elder Matrona Nikonova was canonized. Both ceremonies were conducted by Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus.
Canonization of saints in the Russian Orthodox church (as, incidentally, among Catholics) is a lengthy process. There exists a synodal commission on the canonization of saints, whose members study carefully every fact of the biography of a candidate for sainthood and test every doubtful spot in the distinctive "application" (primarily questions of cooperation with the secret police and participation in schisms) over the course sometimes of several years. God forbid that a candidate "gave information" in the inquest of his colleagues or even was a civilian informer of the special services (it is known that in the 1930s many informers were shot). For example, at the beginning of the 1990s among possible candidates for sainthood was named Archbishop Varfolomei Remov, who was executed in 1936. When the archives were opened, it became clear that he had not only secretly converted to Catholicism but also eight years before his death had signed a commitment to cooperate with the GPU. He was shot specifically because he was an derelict agent. There is reason to suppose that these data were made public only because Varfolomei had become a secret Catholic; the names of informers who maintained external loyalty to Orthodox have still not been announced. The danger of a slip-up from inattentive examination of the biographical data is great; after all the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, in 1981, canonized the Catholic Aloisius Trupp, who was shot along with the royal family (no attention was given to the name that is quite unusual for an Orthodox person).
Both Archbishop Ilarion and Elder Matrona are honored as local saints, that is, their veneration will be observed within the boundaries of the Moscow diocese. Churchwide recognition of a saint can be carried out only by a local or bishops' council. But the last local council was held in 1990 and the last bishops' council was in Februry 1997. At that one three bishops were canonized who perished in the years of persecution against the church, metropolitans Petr Poliansky and Serafim Chichagov and Archbishop Faddei Uspensky. In the interims between councils the dioceses conduct recognition of locally venerated saints, some of whom, but by no means all, subsequently will be worthy of churchwide veneration.
It is difficult to find two saints who are so unlike each other as Elder Matrona and Master Ilarion, although their faith in God unites them as does their honor from the church public. The peasant girl Matrona Nikonova was totally illiterate and she was seventeen years old she lost her feet. In 1925 she moved to Moscow where she lived more than a quarter century, healing people, predicting the future, and fighting witches. Formidable passions swirled round her canonization, and no wonder. After all, all sorts of things were said about Matrona. For example, that she spoke sympathetically about Stalin: "He loves Russia and put his whole spirit into the war." Another reproach against the new saint put forward by a number of theologians is sorcery. Orthodox publicist Deacon Andrei Kuraev even declared that no icon of Matrona will be produced until it is proven that she was not a sorceress. On the other hand, thousands of pilgrims come to "mother Matrona" and in the book devoted to her mention is made of dozens of cases of healing or other help on account of her prayers. She broke one woman of the habit of shouting obscenities and helped another gain admission to an institute, while for a third she saved her daughter from deafness and found work for a fourth. The patriarch, deciding in favor of canonization, officially admitted that even without it the veneration of the saint was going on.
In contrast to Matrona, Archbishop Ilarion received a splendid education. He graduated from the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy and at age 27 became a professor there, receiving renown for his criticism of western influence on Russian theology. In 1917 he was one of the initiators of the restoration of the patriarchate and then he was one of the closed counsellors of Patriarch Tikhon. In 1923 he was arrested and spent six years in the Solovky prison camp. The all-powerful GPU of the time considered that the bishop, who was an opponent of the politicization of church life, could be permitted to cooperate with the "organs," but it miscalculated. Bishop Ilarion not only rejected the suggestion to become an informer, although he was offered "help" in becoming a metropolitan, but he reported this suggestion to his friends, for which he received a new sentence. In 1929 the archbishop died from typhus in the hospital of the Kresty prison in Leningrad, but his relatives could not find out when his body was turned over for burial. His casket contained an emaciated old man, although the bishop was only 43.
Elder Matrona and Bishop Ilarion obviously will not be the last saints canonized in this century. The Holy Synod has already approved several candidates worthy of churchwide veneration. Among them are bishops Germogen Dolganev and Varsonofii Lebedev, who were shot in 1918 during the "red terror," Metropolitan Kirill Smirnov, Archbishop Alexander Shchukin, and bishops Serafim Zvezdinsky and Arkady Ostalsky, who died in 1937, Archbishop Petr Zvereb, who died from exhausting labor at Solovky, Metropolitan Agafangel Preobrazhensky, one of the closest associates of Patriarch Tikhon, and others. Also in this list is the name of Archbishop Ilarion. They all did not renounce Orthodoxy in the period of persecution, did not lower themselves to informing, and did not try to save their own lives by betrayal. Thus the upcoming bishops' council most likely will confirm the opinion of the synod. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 1 June 1999)
BLESSED MATRONA OF MOSCOW GLORIFIED
by Olga Kiryanova
Tserkovnyi vestnik, no. 8, 1999
On May 2 an event which was eagerly awaited by Orthodox faithful took place in Moscow: the venerable Blessed Matrona of Moscow (Matrona Dmitrievna Nikonova) was glorified among the ranks of saints. Blind from birth, as a child she received the gift of "spiritual sight" from God. Through her prayers, the sick, the suffering, those struggling with mental and physical illness were healed. Following her righteous death people came daily to her grave at the Danilov cemetery and, having prayed to her, received comfort and help.
In 1997, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis, the pious woman's revered remains were transferred from the Danilov cemetery first to the Danilov monastery and then to the Protection Cathedral of the Holy Protection women¼s monastery in Taganka. Since that time pilgrimages of thousands of faithful who revered the venerable and righteous Matrona or "Matronushka", as she was affectionately known among the people.
Today the monastery receives hundreds of letters from those who are suffering, who are in need of spiritual comfort and healing from maladies, asking for prayers to the Blessed Matrona. Some letters are addressed directly to her. According to Mother Feofania, abbess of the Holy Protection cloister, many of the petitioners received speedy and effective help from the venerable Matrona. A special book is kept by the Sisters for recording incidents of miraculous intercessions and Divine help from prayers of the venerable Matrona. The residents of the Holy Protection monastery are themselves not infrequent witnesses of this, firmly believing that it is the venerable "Matronushka" herself who aids them in the cloister's restoration.
The Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, by direction of His Holiness, spent more than one month inquiring into the possibility of glorifying the righteous Matrona. In examining the selfless life of the pious Matrona Dmitrievna Nikonova, her popular devotion and miracles, the commission could find no obstacles to her glorification among the ranks of locally venerated saints.
People from all over Moscow came to the Holy Protection monastery on that May morning. Many carried flowers. The cloister¼s courtyard was filled. Following the early Liturgy in the Protection Cathedral's lower Church, the final Panichida was celebrated for "Matronushka." The majority of the faithful remained at the monastery to participate in the solemnity of the righteous Matrona¼s glorification.
The line of people wishing to pay their respects to Matronushka¼s relics kept growing. Beginning with the center of the monastery courtyard it wound half way around the large Holy Protection Cathedral and then approached the cathedral doors. Those who were going to the later Liturgy were given candles: "Please place them there, at the relics."
His Holiness Patriarch Alexis performs the festal Divine service in the Cathedral¼s upper Church, joined by other hierarchs and clergy. Prior to the Liturgy the clergy bring in the reliquary covered with a red Paschal pall, containing the venerable Blessed Matrona¼s remains, placing them to the right of the solea.
The clergy sing the final prayer for the repose of the soul of God¼s servant Matrona. There is a final chant of "Memory Eternal." Then His Holiness pronounces the decision for the canonization and the inclusion among the locally revered saints of Blessed Matrona of Moscow. Beneath the Cathedral rafters there was the sound of youthful voices singing for the first time the troparion to the venerable Saint Matrona. Everyone present in the Cathedral join the Primate of the Russian Church in singing "We magnify thee, the Holy and Blessed venerable Matrona! And we venerate thy holy memory."
Admission to the Cathedral's smaller upper Church was limited on that day. Most of the people remained outside of the Cathedral walls, listening to the Patriarch's service through speakers. When there was a momentary silence within the Cathedral, one could hear through the open windows a many-voiced chorus from outside singing "We magnify thee, the Holy and Blessed venerable Matrona!"
The day was overcast and cold. A shower of hail fell three times, but the desire of the Orthodox people to venerate the relics, to participate in the magnificent spiritual event was stronger than the human desire to seek shelter from the bad weather. By midday, the sun unexpectedly shone through the gray clouds. Its rays lit up the subdued crowd and brightened the red Paschal vestments of the clergy escorting Archbishop Arsenii of Istra who descended the Cathedral steps to commune the faithful gathered in the courtyard with Christ's Sacred Mysteries.
Following the Liturgy the Primate escorted by the clergy descended into the Cathedral's lower Church. There, before the relics of the venerable Blessed Matrona, he celebrated the first Service of Intercession to the newly glorified saint. Following that, the Patriarch blessed the foundation of the monastery bell tower that was destroyed during the years of persecution. He greeted his flock in the courtyard on the occasion of the glorification of the venerable Matrona of Moscow "who, we believe, was and will continue to be, the prayerful protector of our longsuffering people, our Church and our Fatherland."
The festival is over but the experience of the wonder that took place has not left he soul. One more star is shining in the Church heavens. One more of God¼s favorites has been added to the ranks of prayerful protectors of our ancient capital. Endless masses of Orthodox faithful are going to the Holy Protection cloister to pay homage to the venerable Matrona of Moscow, believing in the power of her intercession, recalling her own words: "All and every one of you, come to me and tell me about your sorrows. I will see you and hear you and will help you." (tr. by A.S.)
(posted 3 June 1999)
Does religious faith have an influence upon political convictions? What role will the religion factor play in the upcoming elections? These questions were discussed by participants in a "round table" held on 26 May at the editorial offices of the Novoe vremia journal.
Although as a rule religious leaders declare that they maintain their distance from political battles, instances of their interference in matters of the state system are obvious. Quite recently Patriarch Alexis II openly called the State Duma of Russia to confirm Sergei Stepashin to the post of prime minister. On the other hand, politicians also continually make a show if not of their religiosity then at least of their affinity for religious values (we recall at least their demonstrative presence, with candles, in churches).
Nevertheless the upcoming elections, both parliamentary and presidential, give evidence that the religiosity of citizens affects their political convictions extremely little. The diversity in the religious belief of the members of various parties is so great that it is difficult to discover any trend. In the 1996 presidential election the percentage of voters of any given confession was identical for both Ziuganov and Yeltsin.
However this does not mean that in the future religious leaders and religious organizations will not give in to the temptation to gain power (let's say, that they would not try to create in the State Duma an Islamic or Orthodox fraction). How the voters would respond to this is a different matter. Addressing the session of the "round table" duma advisor on matters of religious organizations and public association Viacheslav Polosin stated that he thinks this would lead to the opposite result, that is, to the decline in the authority of religious leaders. The majority of believers consider religion too exalted, spiritual matters to sully it with political games. They also evaluate attempts of one or another politician to exploit voters' religious feelings in the same way. When some candidate for the legislature tried to conduct campaigning at the gates of a church, declaring himself "divinely selected," believers practically killed him.
Secretary of the department of external church relations of the Moscow patriarchate Vsevolod Chaplin assured those present at the "round table" that although the patriarchate cannot be indifferent to what happens, it will not interfere in politics. All indications suggest that Russian voters approve such a stand. According to sociological research, only 7 percent of Russians consider that religious orgnaizations should play a substantial role in politics. True, at the patriarchate words often do not correspond with deeds. Thus, its open opposition to the so-called "nontraditional" religions is nothing other than interference in the political life of the country. But in this matter the patriarchate does not get support from the majority of Russians. Forty percent of those questioned declare that all confessions should have identical rights and only 16 percent maintain the opposite opinion. (tr. by PDS)
Russian text at Ekspress khronika
(posted 1 June 1999)
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 27, 1999--Attorneys with the Russian Center for Law and Justice, in cooperation with the American Center for Law and Justice, have succeeded in a court challenge aimed at closing down a Christian Pentecostal church in Russia.
"This is a major victory for religious freedom in Russia," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who is working with the Russian legal team. "This church was clearly the target of religious discrimination by the government. It is encouraging to see the courts stand up for the church and its members."
The case involves the Word of Life Church in Magadan, a city in the extreme eastern region of Russia. The Russian government attempted to liquidate the assets of the church, which is affiliated with the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Pentecostals, by alleging that the pastor engaged in hypnosis and brainwashing in his appeal for donations from parishioners to support the work of the church. Russian authorities harassed church members and confiscated church records. In January, most of the church's 500 members signed a declaration requesting political asylum in the United States.
After lengthy delays, the case was heard last week in the City Court of Magadan. And after a four-day hearing, the Court ruled May 21 in favor of the church -- saying it found the allegations brought against the church to have no legal basis. At the same time, the Court reprimanded the prosecutor in the case. The Court said the prosecutor violated the privacy rights of church members by illegally videotaping church services and attempting to forge court documents.
The prosecutor has until next week to decide whether to appeal the decision. If the decision stands, church members are expected to withdraw their request for political asylum.
Sekulow said: "This decision sends a powerful message to the government: those charged with protecting and enforcing the law are not above the law. Just because the Russian government doesn't like the way this church practices its Christianity, it cannot legally discriminate and harass church members. This is an important victory for people of faith in Russia."
Attorneys Anatoly Pchelintsev and Vladimir Ryakhovski represented the Word of Life church. Both attorneys, who work closely with the ACLJ, presented detailed evidence in the case including the testimony of more than 20 witnesses.
The Russian Center for Law and Justice was formed in 1998 by the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ), an international arm of the ACLJ. The ECLJ, which is headquartered in Strasbourg, France, is involved in international legal work on religious freedom and human rights.
The American Center for Law and Justice is an international public interest law firm based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
PUBLIC APPLAUDS AS JUDGE MAKES DECISION IN FAVOUR OF A PENTECOSTAL CHURCH
SCLJ attorneys win four-day-long battle for the Word of Life Church in the City Court of Magadan
SCLJ (21.05.1999)/HRWF (28.05.1999) - The case on liquidation of the
Word of Life Church (Magadan City) filed 10 June 1998 by the prosecutor
of Magadan Region was heard during four days in Magadan City Court.
The court decided the case in favour of the Church, having found
all allegations against it legally baseless. As Judge T. Arshinskaya
read the decision, 70 people present in court applauded. The Court
also issued a private statement against the Prosecutor. The reasons for
this were, as it was found during the court process attempts to forge proofs,
to execute pressure on the Court secretary, to present proofs acquired
by illegal means, and also disrespectful attitude towards the Court.
In particular, the Prosecutor severely violated articles 23 and 24
of the Russian Constitution protecting private life of citizens.
Among the illegal means of getting proofs were included regular videotaping
of the Church services by the Federal Security Service. Earlier this
case was heard in court on August 28, 1998. As the Prosecutor then
turned to be unable to prove adequately any of the claims, the hearing
was postponed for an indefinite period of time. Prosecutor's claims
stated in his appeal were to liquidate the Church on the ground that
its activity is harmful for people's mental health, morality and
well-being of the family. The Church ministers were accused of using
hypnosis in order to make people donate to the Church. The SCLJ attorneys
V. Ryakhovski and A. Pchelintsev who represented the Church in court,
summoned witnesses and gathered proofs demonstrating that no harm
whatsoever was done to mental health of the parishioners. This was also
proven by [a] psychiatrist who presented [an] expert statement to the Court.
Accusations [of] breaking families and extortion of money were also broken
by abundant proofs and testimonies of more than 20 witnesses. "During
the process we all witnessed gross violation of the law by the Prosecutor,"
said the SCLJ attorneys. "Outward persecution of the Church is executed
by those who are in charge of protecting law in the region." The
Court decision will gain legal force in 10 days unless the Prosecutor
files a cassation case, which will be considered by the Magadan Regional
Court.
Source: Slavic Centre for Law and Justice
RUSSIAN COURT REJECTS CHURCH BAN
by Nick Wadhams
The Associated Press , 28 May 1999
MOSCOW (AP) -- A Russian court has rejected an attempt to ban a Pentecostalist church in the far east under a controversial religion law, a defense lawyer said today.
Prosecutors in the port city of Magadan had accused the chief pastor of the Word of Life Pentecostalist Church of hypnotizing congregants to extort donations.
They tried to ban the congregation under a religion law that gives courts the right to outlaw religious groups found to be inciting hatred or intolerant behavior. The law has been used against several groups recently.
Congregants said local authorities, media and private citizens had harassed them so much that more than 400 of them applied for asylum in the United States at the end of January.
However, a Magadan court ruled Monday that the prosecutors' allegations had no legal basis, said Anatoly Pchelintsev, a lawyer working with the Slavic Center for Law and Justice in Moscow, which monitors religious rights violations in Russia.
``The prosecutor's office bears responsibility for the situation that arose around this case,'' he said today.
The court also said the prosecutors had violated the congregation's rights by illegally videotaping church services and attempting to forge court documents.
The prosecutor has until next week to appeal, which is expected. If the court's decision is not reversed, the congregants are expected to withdraw their appeal for asylum in the United States.
``This decision sends a powerful message to the government.
The style of worship varies in different Pentecostalist churches. Many worshippers exercise Holy Spirit ``gifts,'' including speaking in tongues, faith healing and modern-day prophecies.
The religion law, passed in 1997, recognizes Russian Orthodox Christianity as the nation's leading faith and pledges to respect Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. But other denominations face a host of restrictions and have to prove they've had a presence in Russia for at least 15 years before they're permitted full legal status.
Human rights groups have protested Russia's religion law as a violation of the Russian Constitution, which protects the freedom of religion.
courtesy of Ray Prigodich
(posted 1 June 1999)
"WORD OF LIFE" CHURCH WINS CASE
Nezavisimaia gazeta--religii
2 June 1999
The Magadan city court delivered a decision refusing to satisfy the petition of the procurator of Magadan province for the liquidation of the "Word of Life: church, finding the request to be judicially without foundation. The interests of the church in Magadan city courty were represented by attorneys Riakhovsky and Pchelintsev. The procurator of Magadan province submitted a representation for liquidation of the Word of Life church on 10 June 1998, but on 28 August, after first hearing, the case was postponed indefinitely since the procurator turned out to be unprepared to prove his claims. In the representation of the procurator for liquidation of the church, in particularly, it was affirmed that its activity causes harm to the psychological health of citizens. Ministers of the church were accused of using hypnotic techniques in order the get parishioners to contribute to the church. Besides this, in the opinion of the procurator, the activity of the church faciliated the breakup of families.
In the course of the judicial investigation it was shown that the premises provided by the procurator for the liquidation of the church were completely baseless. The only cases of breakup of families and psychological illness were not shown to be the result of the church's activity. The conclusion of the president of the Independent Psychiatric Association, Dr. Yury Savenko, who participated in the trial as an expert witness, confirmed the insubstantiality of the accusations regarding the deliterious effect of the church upon the psychological health and morality of parishioners.
The court also delivered a separate opinion directed to the procurator of the province. It was based on the attempt of the procurator to present as substanial evidence videotapes of services of the church which had been made and acquired by illegal means. Besides this, the opinion stated that the procurator tried to falsify substantial evidence and to put pressure of the court secretary, and also frequently displayed disrespect toward the judge and to the parties in the case. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 3 June 1999)
Interview with Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk, administrator of affairs of the Moscow patriarchate and permanent member of the Holy Synod.
--Your holiness, what could you say by way of comment regarding the scandal that is raging in Ekaterinburg diocese?
--This scandal is incomprehensible to me; it makes absolutely no sense. A commission of the Holy Synod went there and investigated and did not find sufficient evidence which could confirm any of the accusations against Bishop Nikon. We found a single path to reuniting the diocese, the essence of which was that the Holy Synod is the only judicatory for a bishop, and until the final decision by the Holy Synod there were to be no hostile attacks from either of the sides. But quite unfortunately, the side of the accusers began again some collections of signatures against Bishop Nikon and again made certain "documents" public. Although these papers which were presented cannot be considered documents in the strict sense of the word. From our point of view, many matters simply necessitated the testimony of a confessor. This was simply emotion. In the administration of affairs of the Moscow patriarchate we have many more papers in defense of Bishop Nikon, which arrived before the commission traveled to Ekaterinburg and which were introduced in the Holy Synod's session, on the basis of which the affair of Master Nikon was investigated.
The second submission of accusatory papers against Bishop Nikon naturally caused concern to the Holy Synod and forced it to make appropriate decisions. If one carefully studies the synod's decision, it is impossible to find in it the slightest vindication of Bishop Nikon. It contains a summons to reconciliation. But the mass media say that it mentioned only the "conduct of a number of priests." But it should be noted that they quoted the words of the commission of the Holy Synod that nothing of the sort would be done. Besides, the affair has become obviously absurd. For example, Fr Vladimir Ziazev (it's bitter to relate this incident), in response to the question from Bishop Evgeny of Tambov asking why he was not opposing Bishop Nikon when Bishop Nikon had granted him church awards, tore off these church awards and threw them onto the table and said: "Take them; we don't need them." This exceeded all limits of patience, but Fr Vladimir received a very light reprimand.
As regards fathers Tikhon and Avraam, they were not dismissed from their positions because they were initiators of the uproar in the diocese. Fr Tikhon's monastery in Verkhoture had extremely bad conditions, despite his having supposedly restored it. Actually the governor, Mr. Rossel, restored it. The commission found out about the deficiencies in the spiritual life in the Verkhoture monastery; for example they did not not know what the vigil service was and often observed vespers and they did not know what the fraternal prayer service was. The abbot himself was in absentia for the six months prior to the Holy Synod's pre-Pascha session. All of this was to Fr Tikhon's detriment. He was dismissed from his position precisely because he caused damage to monastery life.
Father Avraam also received appropriate requirements from the Holy Synod which had come to the attention of the commission; for example, that Fr Avraam denied the sanctity of certain saints. This is unthinkable for a monk! It was ascertained that Fr Avraam used physical force during confession, beating not only monks but also parishioners upon their cheeks and heads. It was characteristic that his discussion sessions in the monastery were closed and the "unsanctified" were not permitted to attend. There is substantial evidence from people who were thrown out of these meetings at which statements were made against the hierarchy. The Holy Synod decided that such a person could not be head of a monastery; besides the commission established that it was he who was the instigator of the burning of the works of Archpriest Alexander Men. Actually, he put the bishop up to this. I hope that after these explanations it becomes clear that we did not punish anyone but we called them to repentance.
Perhaps it is a bit inappropriate, but I would like to recall the words of the Ekaterinburg [Muslim] mufti who said that the sin of division is widespread in Ekaterinburg and Sverdlov province. Among Muslims there also recently was such a disturbance. I would like also to mention the words of the local rabbi, a young man born in Israel who arrived recently in Ekaterinburg. He said: "Don't listen to what is being said against Bishop Nikon. There are people who wish for God's name not to be honored in Ekaterinburg diocese. If the Holy Synod removes Bishop Nikon from his position, this would be the harbinger of a wave which could roll over the whole Russian Orthodox church." It seems to me that these are wise words of a person who knows the situation.
As a believer and a bishop of the church, I do not understand the reaction that has come after the session of the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod is the supreme judicatory for a bishop as well as for a priest. If the Holy Synod has made its decision in this situation regarding the "Ekaterinburg affair," then priests must submit to that decision absolutely. And it is even more so the case now that the conflict has flared up and all of this filth has been broadcast in secular circles and the television, radio and press have been used. For me the question arises: are these church people? Are they really working for the purity of the church? We have a rather strict principle: whoever is not with a bishop is outside the church. They are priests of Ekaterinburg diocese, and of course Bishop Nikon has acted rather leniently since in this situation he has not excommunicated them or forbidden them to minister. But they must recognize their sin and see that it is dishonorable and evil to behave in this way. If they have something new to report, which really would convince the Holy Synod, its members are available to everyone; let them testify! But they must testify the truth and not some emotional fantasies from somebody or other. We, the members of the commision who were working in Ekaterinbut, sensed a very difficult and tense atmosphere and a lack of desire for reconciliation, although it seemed that liturgically all were reconciled. Fr Avraam as a person of the opposition said at the time: set the most holy patriarch's heart at ease because now there is peace on Ekaterinburg territory. But he did not restrain himself very long. I saw a videotape of the testimony of Fr Gennady Vedernikov who said that he could not calm down even if it meant he would be unfrocked and that they were expecting that the session of the Holy Synod would dismiss Bishop Nikon. I do not know who gave Fr Gennady assurance that Bishop Nikon would be dismissed; the commission never promised any such thing but merely called for submission to the Holy Synod as the highest judicatory of our church.
--In connection with this conflict the press has been rife with rumors about the sin of sodomy, which are attributed to certain participants in this uproar. To what extent are these rumors justified and what can you say about them?
--I think that this question is not for public discussion. There is the concept of personal sin and personal moral state, and the church has long ago rejected public confession. As regards evidence against Bishop Nikon, the commission did not find sufficiently convincing the testimony of those witnesses who presented it. There were only two of them. One of them did not believe in God and his testimony was discounted. It was obviously that this man had no concept of honor or conscience. The second one was drunk and could hardly remember a thing and when he came before the bishop in such shape he was expelled from the school. He also seemed to us to be impertinent. This witness, who has been shown on television, did not give evidence against the bishop but against his driver and some other young man who, he said, was a student in the diocesan school and had corrupted the youth who were students there. I was at that church school. The students simply are fellows from the village and the countryside. I would not want to accuse them in such a way or cast such reproach upon them. They have pure and bright hearts and a clean cut appearance. I felt the pain of the rector who said: "They have poured such filth on us that we don't know what to do now." This pertains not only to the bishop but to several hundred young people. Of course, we now have what we have.
Diverse people come from the public with various evils, but the church accepts everyone and heals them of these evils and people become more pure. Otherwise the church would not be doing its job. Of course it cannot be said that people come as saints and innocents. But I again repeat: I was simply ashamed for all these fellows because they were also accused before our commission. It is strange that they have been talking not about the monastery but about the school, about young people aged 18 to 20. Well, were they especially summoned from the Urals with such inclinations? This is simply bad and indecent.
--Tell me, what is the church's canonical procedure for resolving such scandals?
--When our commission reported to the Holy Synod regarding such accusations against a bishop, we advised its members to summon an authoritative confessor so that the bishop could made his confession. But the Holy Synod did not do so, considering it sufficient that the commission had not found substantiatiated accusations against Bishop Nikon. After discussion with him, members of the Holy Synod had no intention of summoning a confessior for resolving these matters. The usual procedure is, of course, the cross, the Gospel, and a confessor and his evidence about what he knows without suspicion, and it has nothing to do with any ordeal.
--Are there such persons in the Russian church?
--We have some remarkably holy persons. This could be Fr Kirill Pavlov of the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra, or Fr Ioann Krestiankin, or Fr Nikolai from Zalit island, as well as other experienced confessors.
--But if a confessor heard a confession, would he then be able to present its contents to the Holy Synod? Would not this really be a violation of the secrecy of the confessional?
--This would be an extraordinary case. In such a case, to establish truth the confessor can, without describing details, say whether someone is "guilty" or "not guilty."
--Is there any truth to the report that you proposed calling someone who supposedly had been subjected to the bishop's solicitation? And that when they came you said that even if it were the case, it would not hinder the administration of the diocese? Does this incident correspond with reality?
--No. My position as the chairman of the commission was that both sides should be reconciled. I could not create a division among the clergy. Fr Avraam Reidman was the initiator of the accusations against Master Nikon. I brought him in ten or so times on this matter and suggested discussing other questions because a person who suffers from sodomy cannot administer a diocese. This is clear to everyone. This is not a matter for discussion. Then Fr Avraam accused me of not including it in the agenda and then he upset young priests who, perhaps, do not even know what the sin of sodomy is. Then I asked that these priests make a defense and I created a real storm. These priests wrote a letter to the patriarch requesting that Fr Avraam be unfrocked for lying. Fr Foma Abel's testimony on this matter is absolutely false. Fr Foma is a very emotional man. Perhaps he thought that I would not condemn him. But I could not say the thing that he has ascribed to me. I could not then have anything to do with Ekaterinburg diocese.
--In connection with this scandal there has been mention of connections of local diocesan persons implicated in the scandal with structures that deal in extracting and refining gold and precious stones. And the real essence of the conflict is seen by some as relating to the dealings of enterprises that have to do with precious stones. To what extent is this true?
--I am not about to confirm the extent to which this is true. The territory really is quite complex both politically and economically and the uproars in it have not settled down. This uproar began when the diocesan council decided to exempt newly opened churches from remitting a part of their income to the diocese. Then the need of paying such so-called exempted monies was transferred to the monasteries. Earlier all monasteries were completely exempt from any remittances to the diocesan treasury. This was the initial step that led former supporters of Master Nikon suddenly to start talking about his conducting unlimited exactions, even though they were approved at sessions of the diocesan council.
As regards the involvement of Bishop Nikon or Fr Avraam, there are various reports on this matter; we do not have any reliable information. Representatives of power structures have informed us that the clergy have unfortunately been involved in some criminal events which have to do with precious stones, narcotics, and alcohol. I would like to remind such priests that not all money is good for the church. And that in such cases the church conscientiously declines. The church must be pure and its finances must be ethical. You cannot establish purity and sanctity by immoral means. Using what has happened, I would like to ask both Bishop Nikon and the abbots who have fallen into the web of discord to be reconciled for the sake of the church. The public is quite divided. If the church also is divided, then we will be doing something that is horrible and unpatriotic. I would like to hope that we can rise above our passions and recall the words of the Gospel: Before judging your brother you must first remove the log from your own eye. (tr. by PDS)
APPEAL OF CLERGYMEN OF EKATERINBURG DIOCESE
BROTHERS AND SISTERS
A great misfortune has overtaken our diocese, the danger of schism, which is a sin whose guilt cannot be washed away even by a martyr's death. A small group of priests, many of whom by God's grace already have repented, have stirred you, our parishioners, up by various means and devices. Despite the wise decision of the Holy Synod they not only have persisted in their struggle against the ruling bishop of Ekaterinburg diocese, who was appointed to this see by the most holy patriarch, but more than this they have drawn into their struggle, which is destroying the church, outside forces: newspapers, television, radio, and the public which has little or simply nothing to do with the church. This small but aggressive group of people are discrediting by their actions the Orthodox church in the eyes of all residents of our province.
Under the guise of the worthy goals of the "struggle with sin," they simply are tearing apart the body of Christ's church. They have slanderously defamed not only the bishop but also the Holy Synod, which had reviewed carefully all accusations against the master, as well as all the clergy, who have not even supported Bishop Nikon personally but rather the ruling bishop who was legally appointed for us by the hierarchy.
Brothers and sisters! Neither priests, nor deacons, nor laity have the canonical right to judge a bishop! This right belongs to the Holy Synod and the patriarch. "If some presbyter or deacon, on the basis of some accusations, despises his bishop before a conciliar investigation and review and completion of his condemnation, and dares to break off fellowship with him and will not commemorate his name in holy prayers at the liturgy in accordance with church tradition; let such a one be subjected to removal and deprived of all clerical ministry. For . . . one who on his own condemns his father and ruling bishop is not worthy of the office or even the name of presbyter. . . . If such are monks or laity, then let them be cast out of the church entirely until they break off fellowship with schismatics and return to their own bishop." (Rule 13 of the Constantinople local council). It is horrifying to contemplate the guilt of those who dare to do such a thing even after the conciliar decision of the Holy Synod!
Brothers and sisters! We beg of you! Flee this sin! Don't separate yourself from the church of Christ! Don't follow the blind pastors who are leading you to destruction!
We all are for the purity of Orthodoxy. And we do not defend the sins of the bishop, which like every person he has, and perhaps even more so. We all are guilty of some sins. But the power to judge belongs not to laity and not to priests, as the holy church canons state and which to ignore is schism. There is a hierarchy; there is the omniscient and almighty Lord, which will judge everyone, bishops and priests and each of us. Will you be able to answer Christ on the Day of Judgment: who gave you to right to judge a bishop? What will you answer? Will you say: "Fr Vasily"? And what will Christ say to you? Christ will say: "But you were told that Fr Vasily has not been given such a right!" What awaits such a "zealot for truth" in the life eternal?
Over and over we beg you, brothers and sisters! Flee this sin; don't follow those who are without wisdom. Guard your loved ones from this sin! We shall pray that the all-merciful Lord will bring to their senses these pastors who are blinded by envy and pride so that they will not lead their flock to destruction and that we all will be able to be justified at Christ's judgment seat for our deeds. For the Lord will judge us for them, for our deeds, and not for the sins of others. God, be merciful to us sinners!
Priests of the Ekaterinburg diocese who are maintaining canonical faithfulness to mother church
source: Pravoslavnaia gazeta
CHRONICLE OF DIOCESAN LIFE
Ekaterinburg Diocese
Prvoslavnaia gazeta
Despite the loud campaign of slander that has been unleashed by a number
of political and economic structures and the mass media they control, his
holiness Bishop Nikon of Ekaterinburg and Verkhoture has continued his
active archpastoral ministry for the Ekaterinburg diocese. The holy
master regularly celebrates the divine liturgy in churches of Ekaterinburg
and the province, he preaches, he communicates with the clergy and flock,
he receives visitors in the diocesan administration, and he also take an
active part in the most noteworthy church and civic events.
23 April. Bishop Nikon opened and consecrated the City Orthodox Library
that is located in a building given to the diocese by the provincial authorities
and is situated in the very center of the city. The treasury for
the library was established about two years ago with the blessing of his
holiness and at the present time it comprises more than 8,000 volumes of
religious literature. The opening ceremony of the Orthodox library
was attended and addressed by advisor to the governor V.P. Smirnov, the
provincial military commissar Major General A.A. Baturin, representatives
of the city administration, and students from the Urals State University.
The clergy was represented by the director of the missionary department
of the diocese, Fr Vladimir Zaitsev, prorector of the church school Fr
Petr Mangilev, and the director of the publishing department of the diocese,
monastic priest Dimitry Baibakov.
28 April. Bishop Nikon visited the Urals Medical Academy, where he gave best wishes to the rector, Academician Anatoly Petrovich Yastrebov, on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday and thirty-fifth anniversary of his scholarly activity. Along with the master, the celebrations were attended by the priest of the Holy Trinity diocesan annex of Ekaterinburg, and a medical doctor who chairs the department of medical psychology of the medical school, Professor Sergii Vogulkin.
3 May. Bishop Nikon marked the sixtieth anniversary of the history faculty of the Urals State University. In his commemorative address the master noted that the church cannot be indifferent to the worldviews with which students leave educational institutions. It should be noted that among the clergy of Ekaterinburg diocese, seven parish priests are graduates of the history faculty of the university.
5 May. In the presence of a large congregation the master conducted a prayer service and consecrated crosses for the newly constructed church in the city of Verkhnaiai Pyshma. The bishop delivered an address of gratitude to the management of the investment firm of Urals Electric, A.A. Kozitsyn, by whose help the construction was carried out, greeted the rector of the church, Fr Valery Lavrinov, the directory of the diocesan church archaeological society, and delivered his episcopal pastoral blessing to the parishioners. The prayer service was attended by representatives of the city administration, businessmen, the local Cossacks, and the media.
9 May. Bishop Nikon joined leaders of the city and provincial administration in celebrations of the Day of Victory holiday: a gathering and laying of flowers at the memorial of fallen soldiers and a military parade at the central squares of the regional capital.
10 May. Bishop Nikon donated to the regional hospital a supply of religious literature for the hospital's chapel, which was opened and consecrated by his holiness in June 1998. He donated about 200 titles constituting 415 copies. The master also gave his blessing to the head physician of the clinic, E.V. Samborsky, for constructing a hospital Orthodox church dedicated to the healer saints Kosmas and Damian, assigning the newly created parish to the church of the healer Panteleimon in the regional psychiatric hospital, which has already been operating five years.
11 May. Bishop Nikon delivered an episcopal sermon to the participants in the seminar for establishing the diocesan "rules for parish schools." Representatives of almost all 200 active Orthodox societies of the diocese participated in the seminar. The bishop stressed that the situation where there are parish schools in only half of the parishes cannot be tolerated for long. The archpastor called the attention of the assembled teachers and priests to the fact that the creation of such schools is the principal task of every, even the most remote, small, or new parish. Church parish schools must be created at the same time that a new parish is registered, his holiness also stressed.
12 May. Bishop Nikon received at his residence the command of the atomic submarine of the northern fleet, which is named in honor of the Orthodox capital of the Urals, Verkhoture. The master gave to the crew of the ship a library of religious literature, and the sailors gave the bishop a picture depicting the Verkhoture submarine. The officers also visited the church of Saint Simeon of Verkhoture. The meeting was attended by Major General A.A. Baturin, the director of the diocesan department for relations with the armed forces and law enforcement agencies, Lt. I.K. Novozhilov, and monastic priest Dimitry Baibakov, who served his hitch on one of the submarines of the northern fleet at the end of the eighties.
12 May. Bishop Nikon opened an exhibit of children's Easter drawings dedicated to the Day of Victory. The exhibit was located in a building that recently was given to the diocese as an orthodox cultural center. In it there already is a library of religious literature and soon there will be opened a church museum and Orthodox auditorium. The opening of the exhibit was attended by veterans of the Great Patriotic War, children, representatives of the regional and city administrations, and also the director of the diocesan department of culture, Fr Vladimir Bratenkov.
13 May. In the presence of a large congregation of local residents, members of families of soldiers, Bishop Nikon concelebrated with local city clergy a prayer service and rite of the consecration of crosses and bells for a church being constructed in the nineteenth military settlement of Ekaterinburg, consecrated to Saint Prince Dimitry of the Don. After the dedication the meeting was addressed by a member of the diocesan council, Archpriest Nikolai Ladiuk, who exhorted the Orthodox congregation of the closed military settlement. In his sermon, the bishop expressed thanks to the military command and gave his episcopal blessing to the worshippers.
14 May. His holiness Nikon, bishop of Ekaterinburg and Verkhoture, sent an archpastoral letter devoted to International Nurses Day to the city medical community. Events in the regional hospital devoted to this day were attended by Fr Sergii Vogulkin and Fr Vladimir Zaitsev attended the events at the regional psychiatric hospital. The priests gave greetings in the names of the bishop and the nurses of these principal medical facilities of the province.
15 May. On the day of the 55-th anniversary of the death of the most holy patriarch Sergius Stragorodsky, his holiness Bishop Nikon concelebrated with the clergy of the city churches (13 priests and 4 deacons) in the cathedral church a divine liturgy and requiem in memory of the patriarch. At the end of the liturgy, a sermon was delivered to the congregation by Fr Petr Mangilev, prorector of the Ekaterinburg church school. The most holy master also delivered a sermon to the parishioners devoted to the memory of the most holy patriarch Sergius.
19 May. After celebrating the divine liturgy in the cathedral church of St. John the Forerunner, Bishop Nikon served a prayer service and consecrated the cupola and crosses for the restored church of the Holy Trinity. The present cathedral church had the status of a cemetery church before the revolution; it is extremely small and on feast days some parishioners stand outside on the sidewalk because they cannot get in. The real cathedral of the Epiphany church was destroyed in the first years of soviet rule and now its place is occupied by the central square and the monument to Lenin. Incidentally, among the "sins" of which Bishop Nikon is accused by antichurch forces there is mention of "destruction for personal gain of one of the public's favorite cultural center, the motorists' club." Upon completion of the restoration work in the Holy Trinity church, where for a long time this club had been located, the episcopal see will be transferred and located practically in the center of Ekaterinburg and the church will become the new cathedral.
20 May. On the feast of the Ascension of the Lord, Bishop Nikon celebrated the divine liturgy in the Ascension annex of Ekaterinburg. The master was joined in celebration by members of the diocesan council Archpriest Vladimir Pommer, rector of the church of All Saints of Ekaterinburg, Archpriest Nikolai Ladiuk, rector of the Transfiguration church of Ekaterinburg, and also the rector of the church of Cyril and Methodius of Ekaterinburg, Fr Petr Mangilev and clergy of the cathedral. One of the largest churches of the diocese was filled almost to capacity by worshippers. After the liturgy the bishop addressed the flock with a homily devoted to the feast day and the unity of the church. Believers, as always, approached their bishop for blessing. In the evening of the same day, the master celebrated a vigil in the Kazan monastery of Nizhny Tagil along with clergy from Nizhny Tagil and in the presence of a large congregation.
21 May. On the day of St. John the Theologian, Bishop Nikon visited the church in Verkhnaiai Salda to commemorate its very own holiday. The master conducted the divine liturgy and delivered a homily to the believers and gave his episcopal blessing. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 28 May 1999)
On May 3, 1999, at 8.30 p.m., Mr. Aleksandr Li and Mr. Umid Sultanov, both Jehovah's Witnesses from the City of Chirchik, were walking along the road when they were stopped by the police. They checked their identity papers and found out that they had religious magazines with them. The policemen took Mr. Li and Mr. Sultanov to the police station where they asked them from where they had received the magazines. Mr. Li and Mr. Sultanov answered that their friends had brought them from Kazakhstan.
On May 5, 1999, Mr. Li and Mr. Sultanov were judged on the basis of Article 240 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, entitled "Violation of Legislation on Religious Organizations". This article provides that performing illegal religious activity, keeping leaders of religious organizations from registering a charter, organizing and practicing special children's and teenagers' meetings by religious ministers and by members of religious organizations, shall be punished by a penalty from five to ten minimal monthly salaries, or administrative arrest up to fifteen days.
It also provides that converting believers of one confession to another one (proselytism) and other missionary activity shall be punished by a penalty from five to ten minimal monthly salaries or administrative arrest up to fifteen days.
Mr. Li and Mr. Sultanov were sentenced to an administrative arrest of 15 days and were taken to prison immediately.
Legal history of the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in the City of Chirchik
The congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in the City of Chirchik was registered on December 17, 1994. On May 1, 1998, the new law on religious organizations was accepted in Uzbekistan. It required re-registration of registered religious organizations by August 15, 1998, at the latest. An agreement of a local khokim with the legal address of the organization is required for re-registration (and also for new registration). However, the khokim of the City of Chirchik refused - without any explanation - to sign the agreement. Therefore on August 26, 1998, a complaint was sent to the Ombudsman of the Republic of Uzbekistan and to the Committee for Religious Affairs with the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Some weeks later, the prosecutor visited responsible members of the congregation and promised them his assistance in registration. He took the documents for registration but has not come back up to the present date.
Source: Lubomir Muller, Attorney at Law - May 17, 1999 483360 Almatinskaia Oblast, City of Iesik, Gastello street 90, Kazakhstan phone/fax: (32775) 2 2564, e-mail: kazakhstan.office@wtbts.org.ru
courtesy of Ray Prigodich
(posted 28 May 1999)
MOSCOW, APR 25 (ZENIT).- According to the Keston News Service, on April 1 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation refused registration to the Russian branch of the Jesuits under the 1997 law on religion.
During an interview on April 17, Jesuit Father Stanislav Opiela told Keston's Moscow bureau that the 1997 law "contradicts itself. It states that it does not interfere in the internal affairs of the Church but, in fact, this is not true."
At the request of Galina Krylova, the lawyer who had drawn up the registration documents for the Jesuits, the Ministry of Justice set out its reasons for refusal in writing. The following are extracts from this document.
1. According to its founding documentation, the founder of the Society of Jesus is a foreign religious organization -- the International Order of the Society of Jesus. In accordance with Article 13 of the federal law 'On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations,' a foreign religious organization may be given the right to open a representative body on the territory of the Russian Federation. Foreign religious organizations are not given the right to found religious organizations.
2. In its statement and adopted charter, the Society of Jesus terms itself a centralized religious organization. However, according to Part 4, Article 8 of the law, only an organization consisting of no fewer than three local religious organizations is regarded as a centralized religious organization.
3. The name of the organization does not contain an indication of its organizational-legal form or confession, which contradicts Article 54 of the First Civic Code of the Russian Federation, and Part 8, Article 8 of the law. Moreover, according to Part 5, Article 8, as the name uses the word "Russian," evidence must be submitted proving the legal existence of the Society of Jesus on the territory of the Russian Federation over the course of not less than 50 years.
4. Several provisions in the adopted charter do not conform to the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation:
-- Religious organizations do not have the right to create other local religious organizations (communities) as, according to Part 1, Article 9, they are founded by citizens.
--The envisaged procedure for formation of the religious organization contradicts the requirements of Articles 8 and 9.
--Property liquidated by a noncommercial organization is not subject to distribution among its members, but is directed at the purpose in the interests of which it was created, or for charitable purposes.
Despite the numerous citations from the new religious law, Father Opiela is determined to continue to fight for the re-registration of his Order. He told Keston News Service on April 17: "We did not change the procedure for formation of our organization.
The Ministry of Justice's position that Jesuits do not have the right to found religious organizations and that centralized religious organizations must consist of three local ones, contradicts the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the European Convention on Human Rights and the law on religion.
In accordance with this law, a religious organization is created and carries out its activities in keeping with its own hierarchical structure. The independent Russian Branch of the Society of Jesus is a structural division of the Order of Jesuits and is created in accordance with the norms of canonical law and its own hierarchy.
Father Opiela also showed Keston News Service documents confirming that the Jesuits were operating in Russia 200 years ago.
By an imperial decree of October 18, 1800, the Jesuits were given the Church of Saint Catherine in St. Petersburg, and by a decree of October 12, 1800 they were allowed a novitiate in Polotsk.
On November 20, 1800 Tsar Paul I wrote: "I was pleased to invite the Jesuits to my state and to afford them a firm position, to be helpful to such an esteemed Order as yours, which has always had as its foundation and aim the dissemination of the principles of salvation which strive for the improvement of morals, bringing benefit both to individuals and to society at large."
In the words of Father Opiela, "After 1919 there was no official activity by the Order in the territory of the USSR, but individual Jesuits (e.g. Father Iosif Werth, at present the Roman Catholic Bishop of Novosibirsk), did operate in the territory of the Russian Federation."
On April 16, lawyer Galina Krylova sent the Ministry of Justice another request for registration. She included the documents confirming the existence of the Order in Russia for 200 years, as well as an amended charter and a document certifying that the Society of Jesus is a structural part of the Roman Catholic Church -- the Moscow apostolic administration, which the Ministry has already registered as a centralized religious organization. ZE99042304
RUSSIA MIGHT PROHIBIT PRESENCE OF CATHOLIC ORDERS
Jesuits' Rejection Concerns Russian Catholics
MOSCOW, APR 25 (ZENIT).- The Russian Federation's prohibition of the Society of Jesus from establishing communities on its territory is not limited to the Jesuits; it affects all Catholic orders and congregations in Russia.
Father Boguslaw Steczek, adviser to the Jesuit superior of the Slavonic province, said that the Jesuits were the first victims of the new law, because they were the first to present their application to the authorities of the Ministry of Justice.
The Society of Jesus was approved by a law promulgated in 1992, during the time of Mikhail Gorbachov. But, in 1997 a new decree was published, "On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations," which is much more selective and tends to favor traditional Russian religions.
"In a certain sense, we were expecting something like this to happen because, the way the current law was drawn up, makes it virtually inapplicable. Among other things, it requires every order to have at least three communities in the country, with ten Russian religious in each. A condition which no congregation can meet at present or will be able to for quite some time," Father Steczek explained.
The Moscow Ministry of Justice's arguments have been refuted by the Jesuit provincial, Father Stanislav Opiela, who has reiterated his request for re-registration. Father Opiela is also secretary of the Episcopal Conference and, as such, in charge of the Catholic Orders and Congregations in Russia.
The Jesuits are determined to denounced the rejection of their re-registration in Russia before the European Union. "We expect a long battle. All religious should be abreast of events so that we can decide together the best way to proceed," Father Steczek said.
JESUITS SEEK TSAR'S HELP IN COURT
by Andrei Zolotov Jr
St. Petersburg Times, 23 April 1999
MOSCOW - The Jesuits are hoping for some help from Tsar Paul I in persuading the Justice Ministry to re-register the Roman Catholic order under the 1997 law on religious associations.
It is a copy of his letter inviting the Jesuits to Russia in 1800 that the order's Russian chapter submitted, among other documents, to the government to prove the Jesuits have been in the country for more than 50 years.
Under the religion law, a group must prove this to qualify for the status of a "centralized" religious organization and thus be allowed to have registered branches around the country.
After the Jesuits' first request for registration was denied on April 1, they re-applied on April 16.
The Rev. Stanislaw Opiela, the regional superior of the order, said the Justice Ministry refused to re-register his organization claiming it could only be a "representative office" of a "foreign" religious organization, since the order is ruled from the Vatican.
The ministry, he said, recommended it be registered as a branch of the Roman Catholic Church in Russia, whose Apostolic Administration is already registered as a "centralized" body. But this would contradict the canonic law of the Church and the order's statute, because Jesuits are outside the jurisdiction of a local bishop.
"This is interference into the internal structure," Rev. Opiela said in an interview Wednesday.
"But this [1997 Russian] law states that it does not interfere in the internal affairs of religious organizations. This law contradicts itself."
Opiela said his Independent Russian Region of the Society of Jesus, which was established in 1992, today counts about 10 to 15 Jesuits in Russia out of about 40 members in the CIS countries, who report to him.
As elsewhere in the world, they are primarily involved with educational and missionary work, teaching in the Roman Catholic school in Novosibirsk and in the St. Thomas Aquinas College for lay people in Moscow. Opiela denies that the Jesuits proselytize, as many in Russia believe.
In a letter to the Jesuits in 1800, Tsar Paul I wrote: "I was pleased to invite the Jesuits to My state and to afford them a firm position, to be helpful to such an esteemed Order as Yours, which has always had as its foundation and aim the dissemination of the principles of salvation which strive for the improvement of morals, bringing benefit both to individuals and to society at large." The letter was written at a time when Russia was the only place in Europe where Jesuits could legally operate after Pope Clement XIV abolished the order in 1773 under pressure from some European governments. Paul's mother, Catherine the Great, refused to comply for her own political considerations. But then in 1820, several years after Pope Pius VII re-established the society, Paul's son, Alexander I, expelled Jesuits from Russia.
Opiela, who is a Polish national educated in France and Italy, said that during his seven years of service in Russia he has "very rarely" been confronted with hostilities and that the order has been able to change the perception of Jesuits among many people in Russia. He laughs when he considers the graffiti written on the wall near the order's Moscow headquarters representing a bizarre mix of anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic prejudice: "Death to Judeo-Catholics from Cossacks." Opiela couldn't say whether the registration denial was a purely bureaucratic obstacle or if it had any political backing. "We are just waiting" for the new decision, he said. (copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1999)
JESUITS GATHER EVIDENCE TO FIGHT RUSSIAN REFUSAL FOR REGISTRATION
by Andrei Zolotov
Ecumenical News International ENI News Service, 3 May 1999
Moscow, 3 May (ENI)--A letter written in 1800 by Russia's Tsar Paul I may become a vital piece of evidence in an appeal following the refusal of the Russian authorities to register the Society of Jesus, one of the Catholic Church's most prestigious orders of priests.
Last month the Jesuits - as the priests and brothers of the Society of Jesus are known - became the first major Roman Catholic organisation to be denied the right to function as an independent organisation with branches across Russia..
Under Russia's new religion law, all religious groups have been required to re-register with the Russian authorities. The controversial law, approved by President Boris Yeltsin on 26 September 1997, has drawn sharp criticism from minority churches in Russia and from Protestant and Roman Catholic churches abroad because it makes a distinction between religious "groups" which are relatively new in Russia and therefore have only limited rights, and religious "organisations" which have been in Russia for at least 15 years and therefore have greater rights.
For "centralised" religious organisations which, like the Society of Jesus, wish to operate throughout Russia, the requirement is an official presence in Russia of at least 50 years' standing.
Stanislaw Opiela, regional superior for the Jesuits, told ENI that the ministry of justice refused to re-register his organisation, claiming it could only be a "representative office" of a "foreign" religious organisation, since, the Russians claimed, the order was ruled from the Vatican.
Opiela rejected a recommendation by the ministry of justice that the Society of Jesus be registered as a branch of the Roman Catholic Church in Russia, whose Apostolic Administration is already registered as a "centralised" body.
This would contradict Catholic canon law and the statutes of the Society of Jesus, because Jesuits were outside the canonical jurisdiction of the local bishop, Opiela said.
"This is interference in the internal structure," Opiela said. "But this [1997] law states that it does not interfere in the internal affairs of religious organisations. This law contradicts itself."
Among the documents submitted by the Jesuits to the government to prove that the order of priests has functioned in Russia for more than 50 years is a copy of a letter written in November 1800 by Tsar Paul to the then Russian principal of the Society of Jesus.
In the letter, the tsar wrote: "I was pleased to invite the Jesuits to my state, and to afford them a firm position, to be helpful to such an esteemed order as yours, which has always had as its foundation and aim the dissemination of the principles of salvation which strive for the improvement of morals, bringing benefit both to individuals and to society at large."
The letter was written following the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773 by Pope Clement XIV under pressure from some European governments. But this did not mean that the Jesuit order disappeared - Frederick II of Prussia and Russian Empress Catherine the Great, Paul's mother, refused to comply with the papal directive. In 1820, however, several years after Pope Pius VII re-established the society, Paul's son, Alexander I, expelled the Jesuits from Russia.
Opiela said that the "Independent Russian Region of the Society of Jesus", which was established in 1992, now included about 10 to 15 Jesuits in Russia out of about 40 members in the Commonwealth of Independent States, all of whom reported to him. As elsewhere in the world, they were primarily involved with educational and missionary work, teaching in the Roman Catholic seminary in Novosibirsk and in the St Thomas Aquinas College for lay people in Moscow.
Opiela denied that his organisation was proselytising - seeking converts from among Russian Orthodox faithful - as has often been alleged in Russia.
Opiela, a Polish national educated in France and Italy, said that during his seven years of service in Russia he had "very rarely" met hostility. The order had been able to change the perception of Jesuits among many people in Russia, he said. He laughed as he quoted the graffiti written on the wall near the Jesuits' Moscow office suggesting a mix of anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic prejudice: "Death to Judeo-Catholics by Cassocks." (c) Ecumenical News International
LONG HISTORY OF JESUIT PRESENCE IN RUSSIA DENIED
"Jesuits are an historical presence in Russia;" government's rejection of order is "absurd"
ROME, APR 29 (ZENIT).- Father Boguslaw Steczek, adviser to the Slavic province of the Society of Jesus, fails to understand why the Jesuits have been denied official registration by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. "We are in Russia not just to teach but also to learn. Why all these barriers?"
"We have been in Russia since 1772 -- Father Steczek told the daily 'Avvenire' --. We returned in 1992, we registered officially and opened two communities, in Moscow and Novosibirsk. Then, in 1997, the new law on the liberty of worship was promulgated, imposing a new registration, which is what we are being denied."
"Given the evidence, it is an absurd procedure. The Jesuits are an historical presence in Russia. They were present during the Soviet period, and Bishop Vert, the current apostolic administrator of Siberia, is a Jesuit. And it is even more absurd that the law of a State imposes obligations which not even the strictest canonical laws demand. They are asking for three communities and at least ten Russian religious in each community, in a country in which, up until recently, religion was illegal."
The Jesuits' case highlights the problems the new law has created. Experts say it has been written to favor "traditional" Russian religions, that is, Orthodox, Moslem, Buddhist and Jewish, and is very hard on the others, including the Catholic and Protestant.
Father Steczek pointed out the contradictions of the requirements of the Russian government, such as having ten religious members in each community. "It is one of the many discriminatory aspects of the 1997 law. This law is in open contradiction to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the International Convention on Human Rights and, as such, should be revoked. For example, the Ministry of Justice requests the Jesuits to register as a foreign organization with headquarters in Rome. The problem is that if the Jesuits were to comply with this request, they would be unable to work in the religious sphere, which is precisely their concern. The Ministry also needs the Jesuits to demonstrate the Order is an integral part of the structure of the local Catholic Church. But the 1997 law itself says the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of religious organizations or in their canonical ordering."
The Jesuits have presented an appeal attesting to the fact the Order is part of the Catholic Church and, in particular, of the Apostolic Administration of European Russia.
RELIGIOUS INVENT STRATEGIES FOR RECOGNITION IN RUSSIA
Franciscans and Salesians Do Not Register as Religious Congregations
MOSCOW, MAY 4 (ZENIT).- The Russian Ministry of Justice's refusal to register the Jesuits has caused concern among religious communities throughout the world. It is possible that the Russian authorities will disallow the registration of Catholic religious congregations and orders.
According to 'VID,' the religious communities' information service, the Franciscans and Salesians in Russia have had to "play games" to be able to operate. Consequently, they have decided not to register as independent orders, and have found other ways to avoid the hundreds of obstacles the law places as, for example, having to demonstrate that they have been in the country for at least fifty years, and have a minimum of three communities, with at least ten Russian members in each one.
The Salesians decided to register their l7-student seminary as part of the jurisdiction of a local parish on the outskirts of Moscow. Salesian Father Wladyslaw Kloch, professor of English and Latin, has said they are in no hurry to present the petition for registration as an independent congregation.
As regards the Franciscans, Father Grigory Cioroch, superior in Poland, has disclosed that the conventual friars of Moscow decided to register as the Catholic Community of Saint Francis in 1998. They have not called themselves an order, which avoids a lot of problems. "From the practical point of view, there is no difference," the religious explained..
(posted 26 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.