Copyrighted material. For private use only.
Regarding an article by the chairman of OVTsS
The chairman of the Department of External Church Relations (OVTsS) of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, published in one of the Moscow newspapers an article in which he criticizes the existing international standards in the area of human rights as "exclusively western and liberal." "Unfortunately," writes Master Kirill, "for ideological and political reasons, the Orthodox spiritual and cultural tradition was not at all represented by soviet diplomacy in the working out of the contemporary standards of interstate relations and human rights." Had it been otherwise one should imagine that international standards would be different today.
The thesis formulated by the chairman of OVTsS has not only theoretical but also practical significance. The more discriminatory articles of the law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" adopted in 1997 are being studied now by the Constitutional Court. It is expected that a decision will be rendered by autumn. It cannot be ruled out that the court will recognize a number of provisions of the law to be in contradiction with the constitution and international obligations of Russia (as commissioner for human rights O. Mironov was forced to do recently, who when he was a deputy from KPRF voted in the duma for the document that he now criticizes).
Two court cases connected with the violation of the rights of believers in our country as a result of the adoption of the law have been taken for review by the European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg, whose jurisdiction after Russia's entry into the Council of Europe has been extended into our country. The outcome of at least one of these cases is foreordained: in a similar case involving Greece the Strasbourg court supported those whose rights to religious choice conflicted with the laws of that country.
Protests against "external interference" are useless. We, like the Greeks, have supported within the parameters of the Helsinki process the obligation worked out jointly with other member countries of CSCE not to consider matters of human rights as exclusively within the competence of the government of any single state. And we can, or more we must, try to see that these rights are equally observed precisely in North America and in western Europe, and in the countries of the former "socialist camp," including our own.
It was under these circumstances that Metropolitan Kirill decided to advocate a review of international standards and began a campaign in support of this idea with a speech in Athens, which was then presented in the form of an article. He said that it was a "moral obligation of both postcommunist Russia and other countries which belong to the spiritual and cultural tradition of Orthodoxy to present to the world community its own view of the problem."
The metropolitan points out to the Orthodox "the great and difficult tasks of formulating and defending their own position before the world public in the UN and other international organizations." This also requires a dialogue "with other churches, denominations, and religions."
What does this special Orthodox position consist of? From Kirill's words only one thing follows for now: a new balance must be found between respect for the rights of the individual and preservation of the national and cultural and religious identity of individual nations. As if the concepts of individual rights and of religious identity are placed in the opposite trays of the balance and are not supplementary and supportive of each other.
Master Kirill rightly notes that in signing several documents on human rights the leaders of USSR were hypocritical and, while they acknowledged in words the world standards, they did not follow these standards. He correctly identifies also the causes of such hypocrisy. It was the wish to "refute the West's accusation of adherence to totalitarian methods of control and administration" and to turn "the two-edged propaganda sword against their ideological opponents." But here is what is curious. The author of the speech (and article) criticizes the Kremlin leaders of the soviet period not so much for their hypocrisy as for the very fact that they signed the final result of the international documents which now constitute an inseparable part of the domestic legislation of the countries of CSCE.
We recall, however, how humanity lived before the appearance of these standards. Religious wars continued from century to century. Dissidence was suppressed with singular cruelty in both East and West. Persons suspected of departure from the postulates of the dominant religion and dissent from the official doctrine of the state were subjected to amazing torture and martyr's death. For centuries these methods served the powers that be by means of the attainment of homogeneity of thought in both East and West.
The French revolution, which developed in the ten years before humanity entered the nineteenth century, would not have happened without centuries-long universal violation of human rights. The same was true of the bolshevik revolution of 1917. Slavery in USA and Russia was eliminated only in the middle of the past century. The regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco in the West were essentially mirror images of "eastern" stalinist totalitarianism. Thus neither violation of human rights nor, on the contrary, the development of juridical standards in defense of these rights has the least relationship to the special characteristics of any particular country, including Russia.
The chairman of OVTsS maintains that supposedly western Christianity, "which accepted the postulate that human freedom was the supreme value of earthly existence as a social and cultural given, then sanctified the union of a neopagan doctrine with Christian ethics." In order to expose the incompatibility of this harmful "postulate" with "the unadulterated standard of faith," he connects its appearance back to "Jewish theological thought," which, as the metropolitan writes, came "through Spanish culture and the Jewish emigration into Holland and nearby countries" and along with "neopaganism" exerted an influence on the formation of the "liberal standard."
As a result, writes Master Kirill, before the countries with many millions of Orthodox inhabitants the question arises what will life in accordance with ethical and values standards that are alien to them mean for them on the plane of preserving their spiritual, cultural, and religious identity. How can one oppose this danger? The answer is obvious: by peaceful coexistence between East and West while maintaining mutual noninterference in the "internal affairs" of each other.
For ideologues of our recent past this was the coexistence of two mutually antagonistic social, economic, and ideological systems; for the archpastor of RPTs it is coexistence of "the divergent empires of neoliberalism and traditionalism."
In order to solve this task it is necessary to find allies "from the other side." "Perhaps it would be extremely fruitful," Metropolitan Kirill proposes "in this regard to have a dialogue with the Roman Catholic church." The bishop is at least 35 years too late. Vatican council II which was held in 1962-1965 declared that by virtue of its missions and its nature the church is not linked with one specific form of culture nor any political, economic, or social system. Everywhere, including those countries where Catholics constitute a majority, the official position of Catholicism in matters of church-state relations is identical: religious associations must be equal before the law.
The chairman of OVTsS mentions other possible allies as well: Israel with its state religion, Judaism, and Muslim countries, which profess some kind of Islam. We recall, however, that only a small number of Jews who are believing adherents of Judaism live in Israel. The rest have long ago simply assimilated to the life of other countries with all the consequences that flow from that.
As regards the "Muslim world," in reality it is extremely varied inasmuch as within it there exist not only regimes oriented to the suppression of human rights but also states which reject theocracy and show their actual autonomy by following the path of recognition of general human standards. The metropolitan, however, has staked his position not on this group of countries but on those where the free proclamation of other religions, including Christianity, is considered criminal behavior and entails the death penalty.
The Iranian citizen Mekhdi Dibay, who became a Christian pastor about fifty years ago, was arrested in 1984 and sentenced to ten years in prison. When he was released as the result of the protests of the world community he became the victim of a terrorist act. In 1994 another Iranian Christian, Bishop Ovsesian, died at the hand of a murderer. Several weeks later the Christians buried yet another Christian leader, the saintly Mikaelian, who replaced Ovsesian in the position of chairman of the council of protestant missionaries.
Quite recently, in February of this year, in the same Iran a German businessman Helmut Hofer escaped this sad fate literally by a miracle. Under pressure from the government of FRG the Supreme Court of Iran removed the death sentence issued to the businessman, who incautiously began a relationship with a female Muslim. Hofer's bride was at the same time sentenced to 100 lashes.
In the same month an official representative of the Corps for the Protection of the Islamic Revolution, which held a trial in Iran, affirmed the death sentence on Salman Rushdee, who published in the West the "Satanic Verses." "The advocates of freedom and human rights should not nurture the hope that the leadership of the Islamic Republic will cancel the effective sentence; it remains in force," declared the "protector of the revolution." I recall that in accordance with this sentence anyone who eliminated Rushdee would receive 2.5 million dollars and one of the Iranian villages would materially maintain him and his family for a century.
From the point of view of Muslims, blasphemy in whatever form deserves condemnation. But at the end of the twentieth century it is absurd to send someone to death for commentary on verses of the Koran, even untraditional commentary. God forbid that we, following the example of our southern neighbor, would return to the dark customs of the middle ages and again recognize as legal and normal such a method of struggle with dissent and free thinking on the basis of an extremely idiosyncratic concept of the "religious identity of peoples."
Meanwhile, judging by everything, this is what we again are being called to. Recently in Moscow there was a session of the joint Russian-Iranian Commission on Dialogue of Islam and Orthodoxy. In and of itself such a dialogue is quite possible and even necessary. The only question is what is its final goal: joint construction of normal human coexistence or a new division of the world, this time on religious principles.
The commission, created on the initiative of Metropolitan Kirill and Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Tashiri, declared: "We cannot be reconciled with sinful actions and satanic delusions. . . . Each nation must have the right to autonomous achievement of its historic mission and to adequate representation and defense of its interests within the boundaries of the world community." It is not necessary to be reconciled with sin. But is it thinkable to justify the wildest tyranny with respect to people by means of appeal to the "autonomous achievement by each nation of its historic mission"?
Indeed, an exhaustive answer has not been given to all questions of international law. Thus the world still must learn to observe the right of nations to self-determination without infringing the rights of national and religious minorities. But at the same time it is necessary carefully to note with whom we are dealing: with our natural allies in legal state and world religions or with those who are ready to recognize only such a "beauty of multiplicity" of the world when this world which has barely escaped from the "iron curtain" of soviet times would again be curtained under the pretext of defense of "religious identity."
RM editorial note: this article was written for the newspaper that printed the essay of the chairman of OVTsS. Unfortunately it was not published. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 25 July 1999)
On 21 July, 1999 the Dzerzhinsky Federal Court of St. Petersburg closed a civil case initiated by a suit of the Interregional Committee for Salvation from Totalitarian Sects against the St. Petersburg branch of the Collegiate Association for the Research of the Principle (CARP). The committee withdrew its claims against CARP, a youth organization of followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church.
Four years earlier, on the exact same date, 21 July, 1995, the committee launched its suit demanding $3.3 million in compensation for moral damage supposedly inflicted by CARP on the adult children of the committee's members. The amount of compensation demanded gradually grew and reached $10 million. The committee also demanded the liquidation of CARP, which allegedly brainwashed its members and destroyed their brain functions. The suit even made the absurd allegation that CARP, and by implication, the Unification Church was responsible for diluting the genetic pool of Russia. In addition the suit claimed that the organization prevented its members from fulfilling their social responsibilities as required under the Russian Constitution.
The absurdity of the allegations and the juridical machinations were very obvious from the beginning. Nevertheless, enjoying the support of the state organs and above all the Department of Justice of the City of St. Petersburg, the anti-cult group prolonged the case using every possible pretext.
During this time this youth organization of few members, busy with Unification Principle studies and charitable activities, experienced many examples of the questionable application of Russian law. In 1995 about 20 Tax Police officers, armed with automatic guns, expropriated all the organization's documents from the CARP offices and conducted a search of CARP members' private belongings. After all this, no tax violations were found.
Since the anti-cult committee depicted CARP members as "brainwashed" and demanded their forced psychiatric hospitalization for the treatment of "brainwashing," the children of the leaders of the anti-cult group were compelled to undergo a court-appointed psychiatric examination. Psychiatric experts found them to be perfectly sane, recognizing that any conflicts with their parents had their roots in their families long before they ever became involved with CARP.
Referring to the above court case, the Justice Department of St. Petersburg refused to register the local branch of the Unification Church and also warned CARP to stop violating its charter. The Justice Department of St. Petersburg was later ordered by a court to rescind its warning.
During the past four years many publications referred to this court case as evidence of the negative influence of foreign missionaries. Later the same sources ignored the fact that the anti-cult group had withdrawn all its claims.
The Interregional Committee for Salvation from Totalitarian Sects provides a vivid example of how authorities use anti-cult attitudes. Its activities ignore basic human rights, namely freedom of conscience and the inviolability of private life, and is directed toward inter-religious strife. The committee's activities direct many complaints to various authorities demanding the liquidation of a number of religious organizations and the prosecution of their leaders and members in accordance with criminal law. Although all examinations have proven the absence of any violations, the process of the investigations, accompanied by supportive media interviews of the anti-cult activists, creates negative publicity for new religions in Russia.
Such activities are widely supported by the Russian state. This can be seen by the fact that the St. Petersburg anti-cult group during this entire court case continued to receive financial support from the Administration of the City of St. Petersburg. The issue of money and the anti-cult committee's leadership style created controversy within the group. Calling the style of its chairwoman, Mrs. Ninel Russkikh, "totalitarian" during one of its meetings, the majority of members left the committee. Besides financial issues the break-up of the committee was due to its members' realization that it actually aggravates the conflict between its members and their children who are members of new religious movements.
At present the committee's chairwoman, Mrs. Russkikh, and her deputy, Mr. Babkin, have submitted to the court individual suits against CARP demanding $0.8 million each, on the same basis of experiencing moral distress through their children's membership in CARP. A few months ago they already sued the Unification Church with the same claims for $333,000 each at Kuzminsky District Court of Moscow. The court declined their demands, having found that their children had made their free choice of conscience according to the rights granted them by the Russian Constitution.
How long will the new case last?
(posted 24 July 1999)
An Uzbek Court of Appeals confirmed severe prison sentences on July 13 against three local Christians, accused of what church leaders in Uzbekistan insist are trumped-up drug charges.
The three Uzbek Christians had been ruled guilty of drug possession and trafficking on June 9 by a city court in Nukus, capital of the Karakalpakstan autonomous region of northwest Uzbekistan. The one pastor among the three was also sentenced under three separate articles of the criminal code that punish unregistered religious activity.
Pastor Rashid Turibayev, 22, was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, while Parakhad Yangibayev, 30, and Issed Tanieshov, 35, were both given 10-year labor camp sentences. The court ordered the confiscation of the property of the defendants, all married with children.
Last week's failed appeal left the three defendants "depressed, white, and very thin," a close relative reported yesterday. Wives of the sentenced men confirmed last week that their husbands were all beaten severely during their investigation. The men were reportedly tied up and then beaten on the soles of their feet with a wooden stick.
According to reports, Turibayev was a particular target for mistreatment, and was also deprived of any food for three days after his beatings. The pastor was still serving a two-year forced labor sentence handed down in October 1997 for holding religious meetings while trying to get official government registration for his fast-growing Full Gospel Church. His wife, Mariya, is jobless, with an 8-month-old son. Her parents are no longer alive.
Church sources confirmed that the prison administration has refused to allow Yangibayev medication to treat his case of tuberculosis. They claim the medicines could contain illegal drugs. Yangibayev and his wife Tamara have a 3-year-old son.
Due to a previous accident and resulting six-month coma, Tanieshov remains partially handicapped, entitling him to a secondary-level disability allowance. Since his imprisonment, however, the government allowance has been discontinued, leaving his wife and three children, ages 7 to 13, destitute.
The prisoners are allowed only one visit per month -- limited to 10 minutes -- and only with close relatives. The visitors are separated by glass from the prisoners, who speak to them through a telephone. Prison authorities allow families to send one 12-kilo (26 lbs.) food package per month to each prisoner. "But usually the administration open it first and help themselves," a relative reported.
Incarcerated in the Nukus Prison since their arrest five months ago, the three Christians are expected to be transferred soon to a labor camp for political and other dissidents. Yangibayev and Tanieshov currently share a cell with 16 or 17 other prisoners sentenced to the "normal" labor camp level, although Turibayev is under lock and key in a "heavy regime" cell with five others.
Families of the defendants tried in vain during the trial proceedings to secure a lawyer willing to represent the ethnic convert Christians. Advocate Gary Kasparov of the Nora law firm in Tashkent agreed this week to explore the legal alternatives remaining in the case.
In a similar judicial ruling, Uzbek pastor Na'il Asanov was sentenced to five years in prison by a Bukhara court on June 30 for alleged possession of drugs and "spreading extremist ideas." Asanov was jailed in early March and beaten harshly. His parents have categorically denied that their son, who pastored a Pentecostal church unable to get government registration, had ever been involved in drugs, and called for international support for his release.
Under a harsh 1998 revision of Uzbekistan's law on religion, it is a crime to carry out religious activities without formal government registration. The law requires at least 100 adult citizens in a congregation before it can even apply for registration.
In Uzbekistan, local church members urged Christians around the world to send letters and cards of encouragement to the "Nukus Three" at their prison address: Ministry of Internal Affairs Main Punishment Administration Karakalpakstan Autonomous Republic 742000 Nukus U YA-64/IZ-9 Uzbekistan
Felix Corley contributed to this report from London
(posted 23 July 1999)
Anton's mother, a member of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" sect, will not permit giving a blood transfusion to her son.
Recently in the Rostov district children's hospital a thirteen-year boy has been dying. Anton came here at the beginning of April of this year with the diagnosis of lymphosarkoma. "The prognosis was not bad; there was no spread into the bone marrow and the first stage of treatment was accepted by his organism well," reported the head of the department of hematology, Liubov Fisenko. "The chances of conquering the disease were about fifty-fifty (for this diagnosis that is a rather good percentage)." But the moment arrived when the boy needed an urgent transfusion of blood and the mother of the child, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect, did not permit taking advantage of this chance. According to the law, the mother has this right. She simply presented to the physicians a notarized document in which she refused this procedure, although she knew from the words of the hematologists that only a blood transfusion and blood products could save the boy's life. Physicians of the department recall the first time they talked with relatives about transfusion in the presence of the boy; when the grandmother sharply refused transfusion Anton turned toward the wall and began crying.
The condition of the child worsened from day to day. Physicians conducted a battle for his life, in the strict sense of the word. Only after the head physician of the hospital, a deputy of the legislative assembly Olga Borozova promised members of the sect that she would give this case wide publicity did they bring to the hospital so-called "blue blood," but it was too little. Today only a blood transfusion can save Anton; otherwise the worst cannot be escaped. In the words of Liubov Fisenko, a constant negative process has been observed in the boy and his hemoglobin has sharply fallen. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 22 July 1999)
On Monday late in the evening the regular session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church came to an end. It was extremely tense.
The Russian church has been shaken by enormous scandals. The sharpest one before the Holy Synod was the problem of homosexuality, which has become more deeply dispersed among the episcopate and clergy. Holy Scripture recognizes it as one of the mortal sins. bishop Nikon Mironov of Ekaterinburg, who was accused of this sin by diocesan clergy, was removed from his office and sent into retirement. Somewhat earlier Bishop Gury Shalimov also was removed and sent into retirement, accused of the same sin of sodomy by Parisian parishioners.
But the great paradox was the decision of the Holy Synod to postpone the local council which had been scheduled for February 2000. According to the regulations of RPTs, local councils are supposed to be called regularly every five years. After the extraordinary council of 1990, at which His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus was elected, a regular local council in 1995 was postponed without any reason. The Holy Synod's panic fear in the face of the democratization of church life drove the members of the synod once again to violate the regulations of RPTs and this time to postpone the council by replacing it with a jubilee bishops' council. (tr. by PDS)
CHURCH WILL DECIDE QUESTION OF CANONIZATION OF NICHOLAS II
Segodnia, 21 July 1999
(Interfax) The position of the Russian Orthodox church on the matter of the canonization of the last Russian emperor, Nicholas II, and members of his family will be finally decided next year at the jubilee bishops' council. This decision was made at the session of the Holy Synod of RPTs. The bishops' council will be held instead of a jubilee local council which had been scheduled for the year 2000 where also it was planned to decide the matter of canonization of the last Russian monarch.
Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus occupies a cautious position
on the matter of canonization of Nicholas II. In the opinion of the
church's primate, the course of the emperor's life did not satisfy the
requirements necessary for glorification among the saints. However,
Alexis II considers that Nicholas II could be viewed as a victime of the
bolshevik regime and canonized as one of Russia's new martyrs. (tr. by
PDS)
(posted 22 July 1999)
Early in the morning, two unknown persons broke into the home of the rector of the chruch of Elijah the prophet in the village of Ilinskaia sloboda, Mozhaisk district. It is simply inconceivable to image how a hand with a heavy object was raised against the eighty-four-year-old Archpriest Boris Ponomarev. The blow was directed straight to the head. He died from the wounds he received. As VM was told in the Main Administration of Internal Affairs of Moscow province, the murderers stole four icons, several bottles of alcholic beverages, and they tore a pectoral cross from a ninety-year-old female relative who was visiting the rector.
The criminals took off in an unknown direction. "Immesurable grief and sorrow has been evoked among Orthodox people by the news of the murder of Archpriest Boris Ponomarev," wrote Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus in his condolences. "Viewing the crimes that has been committed as a profound offense against the laws of God and mankind, we at the same time express serious concern about the use of methods of terror against our church and its ministers for the destabilization of society, the promotion of discord and division within it, and the creation of an atmosphere of distrust and fear." To the sad news about the murder of Archpriest Boris Ponomarev has been added news about the burning of the church of Filaret the Merciful in Zelenograd, which evoked grief and concern of millions of Orthodox believers. Law enforcement agencies are conducting an investigation of the murder of the priest. The initial account that has been worked out is that it was a robbery. (tr. by PDS)
AGAIN IN RUSSIA PRIESTS ARE BEING MURDERED, CHURCHES BURNED
by Evgeny Strelchik
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 21 July 1999
Yesterday parishioners of the church of Elijah the Prophet buried their priest father. The rector of the church of Elijah the Prophet, Archpriest Boris Ponomarev, was buried yesterday in the village of Ilinskaia sloboda, Mozhaisk district. After delivering a fatal blow to the head of the eighty-four-year-old priest with a heavy object, the bandits plundred his home. The murderers took four icons and tore a pactoral cross from a ninety-year-old female relative who was visiting the rector. . . . [Statements from Patriarch Alexis II and Metropolitan Kirill are printed.]
Law enforcement agencies are conducting an investigation of the murder of the priest. The initial account that has been worked out is that it was a robbery. Attacks upon priests are the result not only of the collapse of the moral structures of society but also of the vigorous rumors about the wealth of clergymen. Publications in the mass media about the participation of the church in secular business only pour gasoline upon the fire. Church vestments, icons, and the decoration of the churches create the impression of particular wealth. Thus, back in 1992 the home of a priest was burned at the church of the Holy Trinity in the village of Yazvishche outside Volokolamsk. Thieves stole candleabra which which thought were silver and in order to conceal the traces of the crime they set fire to the church. Fortunately, nobody suffered at that time. (tr. by PDS)
PRIEST KILLED IN MOSCOW SUBURB
by Ilia Skakunov
Segodnia, 17 July 1999
In the Mozhaisk district of Moscow province, in the village of Ilinskaia
slovoda, unknown persons killed the rector of the local church, Fr Boris.
As the UVD of the city of Mozhaisk reported, three unidentified persons
broke into the priest's home in the morning where besides him were his
severely ill wife and her sister. Having beaten the priest, the criminals
smothered him. After this they stole four icons from the house, a
small sum of money, and a silver cross, and then jumped through a window.
Those conducting the investigation are convinced that some local residents
were connected with the crime. It is quite obvious that the murderers
knew that Fr Boris never locked the doors of his house, located a few steps
from the church. Nevertheless investigators maintain that the icons
did not have great material value. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 22 July 1999)
Ekaterinburg Bishop Nikon sent away for repentence.
Late in the night of 20 July the session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church chaired by Patgriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus in his residence on Chisty Lane came to an end. It had begun the day before at the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra, where a liturgy in memory of Sergius Radonezh was conducted. Six permanent and the same number of temporary members of the Holy Synod over the course of two days reviewed current internal church matters, among which were the opening of new monasteries, personnel replacements, approval of reports of synodal departments, and churchwide declarations. Thus, the Holy Synod made a special appeal regarding events regarding Kosovo. As is known, RPTs took an active part in the resolution of this conflict; frequently delegations of our church visited Yugoslavia and Patriarch Alexis II made a peacemaking mission to Belgrade. "As before, tragedy has happened in Kosovo," the appeal of the Holy Synod states. "The shedding of blood has not ceased and peaceful residents have been subjected to force, expulsion, and humiliation, including priests and monks. Many Orthodox churches have been abandoned, damaged, or even burnt and destroyed. Viewing the pain of our brothers and sisters in Christ, we extend the hand of love and support to the Serbian Orthodox church, whose primate, His Holiness Patriarch Pavel, now is ministering with exceptional courage and steadfastness to Holy Orthodoxy and his suffering flock." In the appeal the synod noted that the establishment of justice for the Albanians should not give rise to hatred and peacekeeping forces should do everything possible to protect peaceful residence and places of divine worship from acts of violence and vandalism. The synod called for the convocation of a religious peacemaking conference on Kosovo in which religious leaders of Europe and the world, as well as representatives of all interested states and intergovernmental organizations, could take part in order to facilitate a rapid reconciliation of people who live in Kosove and restore war-torn Yugoslavia.
The synod also reviewed the question of the canonization (entry into the list of saints) of several dozen clerics who suffered in the years of soviet rule. After approval of the documents of the Commission of Canonization, the Holy Synod referred the material for final decision to by a bishops' council of RPTs.
The synod decided the fate of the notorious Bishop Nikon of Ekateringurg, about whom much detail has been provided in our supplement, NG-religii. He was sent for repentence to the Pskov monastery of caves, pending final resolution of his case. This decision of the Holy Synod becomes the first official acknowledgment and constructive response by the hierarchy with regard to such a high personage in the church hierarchy, against whom the accusation of the sin of sodomy was made. (tr. by PDS)
By The Associated Press, 22 July 1999
MOSCOW (AP) -- The Russian Orthodox Church removed a bishop who was accused of sodomy and extortion, officials said Thursday.
The Holy Synod, the church's supreme body, ruled earlier this week that Bishop Nikon of Yekaterinburg retire to a monastery far away from his diocese in central Russia. He is one of the highest-ranking church officials to be removed in recent years.
The Synod said in a statement that the decision was prompted by Nikon's ``mistakes,'' which ``led to a division between clergy and lay people and caused confusion among believers and the public.''
It said Nikon himself asked to be relieved of his duties ``for the sake of church peace.''
The Synod did not mention allegations made by other priests that Nikon engaged in sodomy and extortion.
The church has also set up a special commission to investigate the charges against Nikon, and may consider punishing him further.
``If found guilty of sodomy, he must be defrocked,'' Hilarion Alfeyev, a priest with the Moscow Patriarchate, told The Associated Press.
Nikon was appointed to preside over Yekaterinburg diocese, one of the church's largest, in 1993 when he was just 33 -- an unusually high position for such a young man.
He gained notoriety last year when he confiscated writings by Orthodox theologians he did not agree with, and then publicly burned the texts.
The Synod then sent an inspection team to check reports of Nikon's alleged misbehavior, including allegations that he demanded money to resolve disputes and tried to seduce young men in his seminary.
The team said it did not find sufficient evidence, and the Synod in April ruled to keep Nikon on the job while removing some of his most vocal foes.
But the protests continued and Nikon's critics leaked some of their allegations to the media, prompting the Synod this week to change its stance and send him to a remote monastery.
BANISHMENT OF A BISHOP
by Anatoly Dzhapakov, Alexander Korolev
Trud, 22 July 1999
By a decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church at a session held this Tuesday under the chairmanship of Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus, Bishop Nikon of Ekaterinburg and Verkhoture was relieved of his administration of the Ekaterinburg diocese and sent into retirement. The reason for the punishment of the infamous bishop sounds, in church fashion, mild: "for division among clergy and laith," and also "for confusion among believers and the public." Thus came to an end the grandiose church uproar which had shaken the Ekaterinburg diocese for a long time.
The issue is the furious conflict that arose between Bishop Nikon and a large groups of priests and monks, who were supported by a great number of laity. A stream of complaints against Master Nikon were sent to the Moscow hierarchy: he was accused of what in secular life is called abuse of office, arbitrariness, bribery, etc. The complaints reported that the bishop was guilty of drunkenness and, most horrifying, of the sin of sodomy (or simply homosexuality) and seducing young monks.
The problem that had arisen was discussed earlier at a session of the Holy Synod; in the end the bishop received a censure and hegumens Avraam and Tikhon, the chief opponents of the bishop, were removed from the positions. However zealots for church purity did not settle down and the flow of complaints against the bishop did not cease. Moreover, on the streets of Urals cities believers began emerging with placards such as "Nikon, the sodomite and heretic," and laity of Nizhny Tagil generally anounced that their city was "a Nikon-free zone."
To replace Bishop Nikon in the Ekaterinburg diocese, Archbishop Vikenty of Abakan and Kyzyl was appointed. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 22 July 1999)
RUSSIAN CHURCH REMOVES BISHOP AMID UPROAR
San Jose Mercury News, 22 July 1999
MOSCOW (New York Times) -- In an unusual disciplinary action, the Russian Orthodox Church has removed a bishop who has been widely accused of corruption and sexual impropriety.
Church officials said Wednesday that Bishop Nikon, 39, was being ``retired'' from his Yekaterinburg diocese for provoking divisions among the clergy and believers.
The decision, which follows more than six months of appeals from local priests, is intended to put an end to one of the most damaging church scandals since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Not only did the episode spur debate within the church, but, to the embarrassment of the church, it also was seized on by the Russian press.
``This is the first time that a bishop has been removed with such a public fuss,'' said Anatoly Krasikov, the head of a research institute on church-state relations. ``Clergymen have been removed for drunkenness, but those scandals were handled quietly. This case was talked about throughout the church.''
Clergy members said they expected Nikon to leave Yekaterinburg within a week. The bishop has previously declined to discuss the allegations and could not be reached Wednesday for comment.
The Holy Synod was split at first, according to Krasikov. Two abbots from the Yekaterinburg region who initiated the complaints against Nikon were ordered by the synod to leave their monasteries for repeatedly pressing their case.
In the end, however, the mounting allegations and the unusual public vetting of the bishop's private life in the Russian press appeared to persuade the synod that it had to act. More than 50 priests had accused Nikon of demanding huge fees to resolve administrative disputes, drunkenness and open homosexuality.
The synod's ruling was far more circumspect. It avoids any direct reference to the allegations swirling around the bishop, saying only that mistakes by him ``have led to division among the clergy and lay people.''
Under the synod's ruling, Nikon will be stripped of his church rank but will not be defrocked.
A clergyman in Yekaterinburg said Nikon had sought to avoid harsher punishment by asking to be transferred to a monastery northwest of Moscow.
The synod's ruling does not say whether the two dissenting abbots will be restored to their monasteries. But it says a new commission will look into the scandal.
Father Avraam, one of the ousted abbots, said the protesters would accept the synod's ruling and stop their campaign of complaints against Nikon.
``We are ready to listen to the ruling bishop and fulfill our duty,''
he said. ``The appeals to the press will be stopped.''
ACCUSED BISHOP IN RUSSIA IS STRIPPED OF HIS RANK
by Michael R. Gordon
New York Times, 22 July 1999
MOSCOW -- In an unusual disciplinary action, the Russian Orthodox Church has removed a Bishop who has been widely accused of corruption and sexual impropriety.
Church officials said Wednesday that Bishop Nikon, 39, was being "retired" from his Yekaterinburg diocese for provoking divisions among the clergy and believers.
The decision, which follows more than six months of appeals from local priests, is intended to put an end to one of the most damaging church scandals since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Not only did the episode spur debate within the church. To the embarrassment of the church, it was also seized on by the Russian press.
"This is the first time that a bishop has been removed with such a public fuss," said Anatoly Krasikov, the head of a research institute on church-state relations. "Clergymen have been removed for drunkenness, but those scandals were handled quietly. This case was talked about throughout the church."
Clergymen said they expected Bishop Nikon to leave Yekaterinburg within a week. The Bishop has previously declined to discuss the allegations and could not be reached Wednesday for comment.
His successor in Yekaterinburg, the church's third most important diocese, is 45-year-old Bishop Vikenty. In contrast to Bishop Nikon, who owed his appointment to connections with powerful Soviet-era church officials, Bishop Vikenty has a strong background in theological studies and a record of service in some of the poorest regions of the former Soviet Union.
The Bishop was born in the former Soviet republic of Moldova. His original aim, church officials said, was to live as a monk.
The church later assigned him to restore a monastery in Moldova. Most recently, he served as the Bishop of Abakan and Kyzyl, two towns in the Tuva region near the Mongolian border. It was not a glamorous position. The region has only 15 churches.
While his appointment will almost certainly improve the church's image, the move did not come easily.
The Russian Orthodox Church has been struggling to re-establish its moral voice in post-Soviet society while maintaining church unity. And like Russia's political institutions it grants its representatives in the nation's far-flung regions considerable authority and takes a dim view of challenges to their authority.
The Holy Synod was split at first, according to Krasikov. And two abbots from the Yekaterinburg region who initiated the complaints against Bishop Nikon were ordered by the Holy Synod to leave their monasteries for repeatedly pressing their case. In the end, however, the mounting allegations and the unusual public vetting of the Bishop's private life in the Russian press appeared to persuade the Holy Synod that it had to act. More than 50 priests had accused Bishop Nikon of demanding huge fees to resolve administrative disuptes, drunkenness and open homosexuality.
The synod's ruling avoids direct reference to the allegations swirling around the Bishop, saying only that his mistakes "have led to division among the clergy and lay people."
Under the ruling, Bishop Nikon will be stripped of his church rank but will not be defrocked.
The ruling does not say whether the two dissenting abbots will be restored
to their monasteries. But it says a new commission will look into the scandal.
(posted 24 July 1999)
Master Gundiaev has taken the wheel
A reception was given in the Kremlin on 12 June for the celebration of Russia's Independence Day. Following his ceremonial speech, Boris Yeltsin made for the tables--to congratulate and in a relaxed atmosphere to chat with the guests. The guests were in a relaxed mood also. At the table accommodating the heads of the religious denominations of multinational Russia Petr Konovalchik, head of the Evangelical Christians, proposed that his brethren go and congratulate His Holiness Aleksiy II, patriarch of Moscow and All Rus. "What for," Kirill, metropolitan of Kaliningrad and Smolensk, brusquely objected.
There was an awkward pause, after which some of the guests made, all the same, for the table at which the patriarch was sitting. This attitude of an Orthodox hierarch toward the patriarch astonished more than just the heads of Christian denominations, of course.
Buddhists, Muslims, and the chief rabbi of Russia were disconcerted also. A trifling matter? But it clearly testifies to the complex attitude of Metropolitan Kirill--the leader of a small, but influential part of the Orthodox episcopate--toward the primate of the Russian Church.
Anyone who comes into contact with ecclesiastical institutions notices their utmost closedness. It is hard for the outsider to grasp the actual structure of the church hierarchy. Clearly, the leader of the church is the patriarch. Around him is the Holy Synod.
Members of the Synod would have people believe that any disagreement here is simply impossible. But the last patriarchal elections point to quite the opposite. And some are already preparing for new elections. Does that mean that there will be new opposition and new intrigues?
Aleksiy II has amid the storms and anxieties been steering the ship of the Russian Orthodox Church for 10 years now. He understands full well that in the present disorder only the church can be a unifying principle.
His main headache consists in the scandals and escapades of the episcopate. He understands also that the scandals of the "tobacco metropolitan" did colossal damage to the Russian Church. What is most deplorable is that he is alone also in his endeavor to help Russians not only with words of comfort but in deed also. Life's burdens borne by His Holiness have not broken him. He has not lost his faith in people, although he knows each bishop well. He was for 22 years the administrative officer of the Russian Orthodox Church. He is moderately conservative and believes that revolutionary changes could only make the situation worse. He was the sole member of the episcopate to immediately, at the time of the 1991 putsch even, sharply condemn the attempts at a coup d'etat. This was, perhaps, the clearest evidence of the demarcation between the patriarch and the Holy Synod.
Metropolitan Kirill also began long since to make active preparations for the coming patriarchal elections, although His Holines Aleksiy II, patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, who recently celebrated his 70th birthday, is hale and full of energy. But Kirill evidently thinks differently. And if there are to be elections, it will mean that money will be needed, and a considerable amount at that. And Metropolitan Gundyayev actively involved himself in business back at the start of the 1990s. As distinct from church diplomacy, his business developed successfully.
Fledglings of Kirillov's Nest
The "tobacco metropolitan" has formed a powerful team. Archimandrite Feofan (Ashurkov), Gundyayev's first deputy metropolitan, remains the No 1 figure (today the Russian Church is attracting our own businessmen. And not only by possible privileges). He readily arranges audiences with the patriarch, signs numerous applications to the government, and busies himself with ecclesiastical awards. Not without recompense, naturally. He is well matched with Sergey Zhitenev, former vice president of the National Sports Fund, and Igor Malakhov, former vice president of the Mezhdunarodnoye Ekonomicheskoye Sotrudnichestvo stock company. The tobacco and alcohol business of the Department for External Ecclesiastical Relations was coordinated by Zhitenev. But now Zhitenev has been thrown into a most responsible and moneymaking arena: he is pushing for an OVTsS [Department for External Ecclesiastical Relations] monopoly on pilgrimage business of the year 2000.
But the real Speckled Hen laying golden eggs for Metropolitan Gundyayev has been Igor Malakhov. As vice president of the Mezhdunarodnoye Ekonomicheskoye Sotrudnichestvo stock company and on leaving it, he took with him not only the commercial secrets of a powerful entity that until recently had exported 8 percent of our oil. He hereupon took charge of the independent Menatep-Impeks firm and managed to earn a considerable amount of money on Cuban sugar.
Then the Peresvet Bank was formed, and Metropolitan Gundyayev called on his business associates to pool their capital. The church's financial empire flourished. The latest undertaking of the church capitalists was the presentation on Maundy Thursday in the Balchuga of the Vital joint venture. An avid motorist, Metropolitan Gundyayev had his whole life dreamed of his own small vehicle-manufacturing plant.
Now this dream has come true: a BMW assembly plant has been opened in Kaliningrad, in the free economic zone.
The Vital joint venture is directed by the irreplaceable Igor Malakhov. We could rejoice at the Russian businessmen's successes if we knew that they were, in actual fact, looking out not only for their own pockets but for the needs of their parishioners also. In actual fact, the business of the OVTsS has long been semi-criminal. No one knows how much Metropolitan Gundyayev earned in the cigarette trade and where this money went. Had the metropolitan imitated the mayor of Moscow, he would long since have been driving a "Prince Vladimir." But no, give him a BMW....
Of course, not everything is a success in the enormous household of Metropolitan Gundyayev. Things are worst when it comes to church diplomacy. Ukraine's Greek Catholics are demanding the return to them of places of worship, and it would seem he should go to Ukraine, but there's not time for everything. Then a scandal involving the activity of one further fledgling--Bishop Gury (Shalimov)--breaks. The metropolitan assigned him to Paris, forgetting about his nontraditional sexual orientation. In his absent-mindedness he sent to assist him another employee of the department--Aleksandr Sollogub.
When Metropolitan Gury saw the handsome fellow, he fell for him and set about seducing him. He took the boy to Nice, fed him oysters, plied him with expensive wine.... The story had a deplorable ending: Sollogub not only held out and refused to indulge the affectionate bishop but sued him for $2 million. And six months remain until the celebration of the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ.... It would seem we should be preparing for the festivities; the pope dreams of visiting Russia; and here we have scandal after scandal....
The Primate
Recognizing the tremendous damage that had been done by the commercial activity of Metropolitan Kirill, three years ago the patriarch formed the "Reconciliation and Accord" charitable fund. It was the sole fund that enjoys no privileges. Evidently His Holiness the Patriarch wanted to demonstrate to Russians that the existence of a fund not raking in money for itself but helping the needy is actually possible. For three years the activity of the patriarch's Reconciliation and Accord fund had not been advertised. And only this spring did the patriarch appeal for a pooling of efforts and a charity drive by the whole world. Hundreds of orphanages in 19 regions received clothing, footwear, medicines, textbooks, and toys. It seemed that this initiative would benefit other Russian funds, but, instead, publications discrediting both the president of the fund, the entrepreneur Gulnaz Sotnikova, and the patriarch himself began to appear. Critics dislike Sotnikova's non-Russian first name, and they are annoyed that she is ethical, does not bow before the proper people, the patriarch heeds her opinion.... The Russian businessman Boris Berezovskiy, the associate and friend of Metropolitan Gundyayev, reproaches the patriarch in his independent newspaper with the fact that the United States is holding back humanitarian aid to Russia supposedly on account of the patriarch's fund, not owing to the tobacco swindles of the OVTsS. Berezovskiy is probably endeavoring in this original way to persuade the patriarch that he, not Sotnikova, should have been chosen president of the patriarch's fund. The sole consolation is that our deafish Themis has finally taken up in earnest an inquiry into the activity of the Government of the Russian Federation's Russian Bureau for International Humanitarian and Technical Assistance. The Office of the Attorney General has approached in earnest problems of the flow of cigarettes, which in the guise of humanitarian assistance passed through the Department for External Ecclesiastical Relations. The OVTsS experienced no problems, incidentally, when in the guise of humanitarian assistance, tons of imported cigarettes passed through customs. When, on the other hand, the patriarch's fund attempted to obtain modest humanitarian aid from overseas, alas, thousands of barriers arose....
In May, during a meeting with the chief editors of the capital's publications and TV directors, His Holiness Aleksiy II, patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, answering journalists' questions, noted that the church's most serious problem was personnel. It is no secret that the Holy Synod is a body that is far more conservative and clumsy than the CPSU Central Committee. It is with good reason that ecclesiastical wits have nicknamed it the Metropolitburo. You get the impression at times that it is a millstone around the neck of the patriarch and the Russian Church.
The process of recovery of the church is proving slow and difficult. It seems to many members of the Synod that it is they who represent the church. At times they think in categories of the past, casting an affectionate at Zyuganov affectionately and recalling the communist servitude.
The coming Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which will be convened next February, is to consider the most urgent problems. This includes personnel problems. We need to hear the account of the OVTsS and its chairman, Metropolitan Gundyayev, on the commercial work that has been done. And then it could be that there are among the 22 Russians whose Swiss bank deposits are today being studied by the Swiss Attorney General Karl del Ponte church names with which we have long been familiar: Gundyayev, Ashurkov, Zhitenev, Kapalin, Mogilev, and others.
from Johnson's Russia List (translation edited by PDS on basis of comparison with original)H
(posted 21 July 1999)
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.