Copyrighted material. For private use only.
The priest Georgy Kochetkov, who has been banned from ministry, continues to preach and teach.
by Dmitry Gorin
Nezavisimaia
gazeta--Figury i litsa,10 December 1999
Recently in Moscow the second churchwide evangelism congress was held. They talked about the serious shortcomings in evangelistic activity in the Russian Orthodox church and the need for a regeneration of evangelism and catechesis. It is strange that under such circumstances many priests and simple believers who have genuine positive experience of such ministry were not invited to the congress. Absent from the congress was the well known contemporary Orthodox evangelist Fr Georgy Kochetkov, a master of theology and prorector of the Saint Filaret Moscow School of Advanced Orthodox and Christian Studies, and editor in chief of the Pravoslavnaia obshchina magazine.
Father Georgy (Yury Serafimovich) Kochetkov was born in 1950 in Moscow into a family of the intelligentsia. His father was a chemical engineer and inventor. His mother was an economist who worked in the apparat of the USSR Council of Ministers. The future priest came to faith independently while he still was a school child. He was a parishioner of the patriarchal cathedral of the Epiphany in Moscow. After finishing high school with a medal he matriculated at the general economics department of the Plekhanov Institute and became a graduate student at the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of USSR in 1974. Until 1980 he worked in the Central Scientific Research Economics Institute and in the "Rosrestavratsiia" association.
Beginning in 1971 Yury Kochetkov actively engaged in systematic evangelistic activity and in catechesis of adults, preparing them for baptism and conscientious church life. In 1980 he matriculated at the Leningrad Ecclesiastical Academy, having taken the exams for the entire seminary curriculum as an external student.
In the spring of 1983 he was ordained a deacon. While he was a student in the academy he continued active evangelistic and catechetical activity for which in the autumn of 1983 he, a patriarchal scholar, was expelled from the last course upon the initiative of KGB. The cause for his expulsion was his preaching Orthodoxy among Baptists at their request. Having gotten on the "black list," he worked in Moscow as a temporary bookkeeper and served unofficially as a reader in the church of the Sign near the "River Terminal." He completed the last course at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy in 1990.
From May 1988 Deacon Georgy Kochetkov was able to serve officially in a distant parish in Moscow region and on 24 September 1989 he became a priest. Until 1997 he was rector of three churches in order: Trinity church in Elektrougli, the Vladimir cathedral of the former Presentation monastery in Lubianka, and the church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Pechatniki on Sretenka. The priest and his parish were deprived of the last church in 1997 after a notorious internal church conflict. By order of the patriarch Fr Georgy was banned from ministry pending special instructions of the church hierarchy.
In 1988 Fr Georgy created an unofficial Christian school of advanced studies (institute) for preparing evangelists and catechists. By his efforts the large and also informal Transfiguration brotherhood was created as well as the educational and charitable brotherhood of the Presentation, which has opened and reconstructed a number of churches in Moscow. In August of the same year he began publishing the Pravoslavnaia obshchina magazine (by now 53 issues of the magazine have appeared). In 1993 in the Saint Sergius Institute of Paris, with the blessing of Patriarch Alexis II, Fr Georgy defended his master's dissertation on the subject "A sacramental introduction to Orthodox catechesis." Thousands of people have come to God and the church through the Open School operating under the Saint Filaret School of Advanced Studies.
Fr Georgy's published works are numerous. Among the main ones, besides his dissertation, may be named catechisms for adults, "In the beginning was the Word" and "Go and teach all nations," and a series of sermons and lectures on Christian ethics. In continuation of a two-centuries-old Russian church translation tradition, with the help of Academic Sergei Averintsev he put out a three volume translation into Russian of the basic divine services of the Orthodox church, which over the course of eight years have been preliminarily tested in practice.
For his faith and vigorous church activity Fr Georgy has often in his life been subjected to intense persecution. Despite it all, Fr Georgy Kochetkov is one of the consistent leading advocates of the spiritual regeneration of the Orthodox church on the basis of openness and conciliarity. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 15 December 1999)
"In the conditions of freedom Orthodox clergy have not prevented the spread of sects." Thus concluded participants in a conference on problems of totalitarian sects and the occult.
by Maria Kozlova
Nezavisimaia gazeta--religii, 8 December 1999
The first Moscow area academic and practical conference on problems of totalitarian sects and the occult took place on 25-26 November in the cities of Zhukovsky and Ramenskoe. It was conducted under the auspices of the Ramenskoe deanery of the Moscow diocese. Participants included clergy and laity from Moscow, Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Tver, and Yaroslavl.
The opening address to the participants in the meeting was delivered by State Duma deputy Sergei Popov, a member of the Committee on Security. He provided data about the totalitarian information war being waged against Orthodoxy. In his words, the Congress of USA has allotted 40 million dollars to an anti-Orthodox campaign in the press, and 30,000 members of the sect of "Jehovah's Witnesses" were sent into Russia as "agents of influence" with the goal of destroying the Orthodox church and the Russian government. The war in Yugoslavia and Chechnia, in Sergei Popov's opinion, does not have a religious basis. The opposition between Orthodox and Muslims in these conflicts bears a provocational character.
The greater portion of the reports was devoted to the activity of totalitarian sects which have been introduced into Russia from the East: from Korea (Unification Church, Moonites), from India (Brakhma Kumaris, Sakhadj Yoga), and from China "Witness Lee"). Whereas much is known about the Jehovah's Witnesses, some participants in the conference were hearing about "Witness Lee" for the first time. The sect, which arose in the 1920s in China, has been spread throughout the world quickly since the end of the 1940s. Its centers are located in America, Australia, Germany, Nigeria, Egypt, and India. Since the beginning of the 1990s the sectarians have been active in Russia and a number of Muslim countries. They call themselves simply "Christians," hating church hierarchy and rejecting the church, calling it Babylon and a whore. In their doctrine the adherents of the Chinese sect do not distinguish among the persons of the Holy Trinity. For them God the Father was incarnated, becoming God the Son. After his ascension the Son became the Holy Spirit. The leader of the sect, Witness Lee, who died recently, is considered to be a pipeline or channel of the Holy Spirit. One million seven hundred thousand dollars were spent to publish for distribution in Russia the so-called "reconstructed translation" of the New Testament comprising 1500 pages, the greater part of which is commentary by Witness Lee. According to data of conference participant Fr Peter Ivanov, a historian and sinologist by secular education, the sect of Witness Lee is trying to create its center in Moscow.
Fathers Konstantin Bufeev and Mikhail Dubovitsky called attention not only to sects that have come into Russia from outside but also to sectarianism within the Orthodox church. They declared the activity of the parish of Fr Georgy Kochetkov, who has been banned from ministry, sectarian. In doing so the priests cited the first rule of Bishop Vasily the Great, containing the definition of the concepts "heresy," "schism," and "self-ordained assembly." Fr Konstantin Bufeev declared that members of Fr Georgy Kochetkov's parish fall under the definition of all three concepts: they are "heretics," "schismatics," and "self-ordained."
A methodology for struggling with sectarians was proposed by Deacon Andrei Kuraev, who heads the department of apologetics at the Saint Tikhon Theological Institute. As the foundation he took the Orthodox doctrine of soteriology, expounding the essence of and path to salvation of a person. "When we discuss with the adepts of other religions and sectarians, we can easily determine how they are deceived after we learn their notion of how the salvation of a person for eternal life happens," Fr Andrei said.
The concluding document of the conference, read by the chairman of the Evangelism Commission of the Moscow diocese, Archpriest Mikhail Redkin, took note of the extraordinary need for the creation of a legal basis for liquidating numerous sects which threaten the national security of Russia. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 13 December 1999)
"Scandalously famous"--that's how Fr Georgy Kochetkov is referred to in church circles. He has acquired broad fame in Russia and abroad as an evangelist. Thousands of people have learned about Christianity and received baptism thanks to the work of his parish. However the intense evangelistic activity of Fr Georgy has evoked a mixed attitude within the episcopate. He has been subjected to persecution. He has been accused of insubordination, resistance to the church, and sectarianism.
Two and a half years have passed since the time when the newly ordained priest Mikhail Dubovitsky, who was appointed by the hierarchy "to assist," that is to watch the rector of the church Fr Georgy Kochetkov, tried to correct his actions during the liturgy. This evoked discontent among parishioners. Indignation erupted during the liturgy at the time when Fr Mikhail began consecrating the Holy Gifts, standing at the altar in the sanctuary along with the rector. The affair ended in scandal. Parishioners called the police and an ambulance. Fr Mikhail Dubovitsky was taken to the hospital. After some time Fr Georgy was banned from ministry by patriarchal order. Along with him twelve of the most devoted of his parishioners were subjected to excommunication.
--Fr Georgy, for two years there has been neither sight nor sound of you. . . .
--As regards the past two years, they have been rather complicated for me and my parishioners. On one hand we have gone through a lot. We have continually returned to those notorious events with the question: where were we guilty? After all, since we know church tradition we understand well that in no serious conflict is the right exclusively with one side. And however we may feel about the punishment that was meted out to us, we have found much in ourselves of which we must repent and again and again we have reviewed our faults in order to make our repentance more effective.
--I recall that you have actually repented. . . .
--On the first day after the patriarchal decree came out we made our repentance before the diocesan confessor and he said that he saw no impediments to the removal of the punishment from us. Nevertheless for two years I and our twelve parishioners have been under discipline and we have not received communion. We greatly regret that His Holiness the patriarch has not found it possible to meet with us.
--And now, after two years, haven't you tried to appeal to His Holiness again?
--There have been attempts at contact. For example, several times I met with Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk, the administrator of affairs of the patriarchate. This year on Repentance Sunday we even managed a short conversation with the patriarch in the church. I asked for forgiveness in the traditional way and handed His Holiness a letter in which I asked for help in arranging a meeting with Fr Mikhail Dubovitsky so that the church would not doubt our repentance. His Holiness promised to look into it, but there still has been no forgiveness. I personally consider that the continuation of the conflict has had a negative effect upon church life. After all the church is a living organism that needs fresh air but the sprouts of what is new and living are being suppressed. The saying "Keep your head down or you'll get it cut off" has become practically an axiom of our church life. This is abnormal as the church is risking that it will cease to be the living body of Christ.
--Father, you are a rebel!
--By no means. We are completely obedient to God and the church; we have never done anything without the knowledge of the hierarchy and we have never thought of going into schism and we will not. We are for spiritual freedom but not for willfulness and temptation. We understand that even we must repent.
--Father Georgy, the issue still is that the church, which is one of the departments of state even though formally separated from the state, is not very fond of the intelligentsia, including the ecclesiastical intelligentsia. . . .
--Just today a woman believer related to me her conversation with her confessor who frankly declared to her that "intellectuality is sin." Intellectuality irritates; enlightenment irritates; they manifest the arrogance of the mind, authoritativeness, sectarianism. But quite simply the intellectual person knows how to maintain dignity and to bear personal responsibility before God.
--Isn't this why in today's church there appears a deficit of intellectual youth?
--Alas, in the past few years much has been done to frighten away youth and the intelligentsia from the church. This deserves tears. Because youth are always searching and what is more they are in a bad spiritual state and need spiritual help, but they definitely do not need declarations of the form "we will save Russia from . . . ." As for our intelligentsia, it lacks unity; it is divided, overwhelmed by a feeling of its own weakness alongside the businessmen that are flourishing. At the same time the intelligentsia is afraid of getting involved in church; it is afraid of going head to head with the authority of heirarchical power which forces it to forget about its efforts and talents and to become ordinary slaves. I think that until we again find in the church the spirit of the liberty of Christ, we will not be able to give our parishioners the promise of trust and love.
--What are your relations with the Moscow parishes like, or do you only go to churches where you are welcomed?
--No, I go to different churches and my relations with the priests have been developing in various ways. Sometimes we face harsh attitudes, but sometimes they are extremely cordial. I have also noted on pilgrimages about the dioceses that our experience hasn't been rejected anywhere in the church. The only place where the attitude toward us is negative is in Moscow. But we know that we have to bear our cross and that we should be humble and wait. If earlier in our youthful days we sometimes ignored other people because we were dealing with our own inner problems, now a great deal in life has changed. We do not live by the principle that "whoever is not with us is against us," but we take as basic the other evangelical principle: "whoever is not against us is for us." (tr. by PDS)
PERSECUTION OF THE PARISH OF FR GEORGY KOCHETKOV CONTINUES
More than 100 parishioners were left on Sunday without communion
On 28 November in the Moscow church of Saint Theodore the Studite the rector, monastic priest Ermogen, bid farewell to parishioners before the beginning of the Christmas fast. After he reported that he had received a revelation directly from God, and referring from time to time to notes on which his points were written, Fr Ermogen suggested that his audience depart immediately. He noted that the church is in discord and a part of the "Kochetkov deviation." Thus the parishioners of the church (the overwhelming majority of whom are the spiritual children of Fr Georgy Kochetkov) must again study all the articles that contain the accusations against their spiritual father. The rector suggested that the parishioners spread themselves around different churches and recognize how they are offending those around them. Those who are present suggested that the rector's harshness was directly connected with the service conducted in the church by Bishop Alexis recently, who is one of the constant persecutors of Fr Georgy Kochetkov (in the past few years Bishop Alexis has signed more reports against Fr Georgy than against any other priest, after which he headed the commission for investigating the incident in the church of the Dormition in Pechatniki and was the chief insitgator of finishing up the work of the commission before documents exonerating the parish appeared). At the end of the liturgy the rector did not give communion to any of the parishioners (except for infants). For some time the people continued singing "Receive the body of Christ," but the rector and several singers quickly finished the service and Fr Ermogen advised all to go to other churches for communion. The majority of those present went to the church of Christ the Savior where they were given communion.
Information: the church of Saint Theodore the Studite is the last
of four churches opened by the Presentation brotherhood (the brotherhood
had consequently been thrown our of three churches in 1993-1997, the church
of the Nativity, Vladimir's church of Presentation monastery, and the church
of the Dormition in Pechatniki). Monastic priest Ermogen was appointed
rector in 1998 without the consent of the parish. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 13 December 1999)
Orthodoxy that is infected with nationalism, monarchism, and idolatry may not be rejected by "the world community" but by Orthodox Russians themselves.
A dialogue with Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad.
by Marina Silonova
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 8 December 1999
In his article "Circumstances of modern life" Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad began an extremely important conversation about vital contemporary social and religious problems. After having expressed gratitude to Master Kirill for having raised the subject, it is impossible not to respond to this article. I would like to welcome his words placed at the end of the article that "Europe with its traditions of a manifold cultural structure, tolerance, and openness could make a decisive contribution to the process of global harmonization of religious, cultural and sociopolitical traditions. An important place in it must belong to Christians."
While on the whole supporting these words, one involuntarily raises the question: if the liberal traditions of Europe do so well in creating global harmonization, then why did it turn out that the main part of the article was devoted to creating in the reader a very negative image of liberalism? Why at the start does the concept of liberalism appear in a form that is distorted beyond recognition, and then is debunked in the main part of the article, while at the end the author suddenly discovers an entirely correct understanding of the essence of this phenomenon and affirms its value?
It seems to me that some views propounded in the main part of the article are extremely debatable and even offensive and thus the wish arises to carefully demolish the propositions of the article, especially in light of the fact that the author is a prominent and authoritative hierarch of RPTs and many will attend to his words.
What is the meaning in the article of the words "traditionalism" and "liberalism"? The liberal world-view complex is determined by the recognition that "the individual" by definition is the absolute and ultimate value. One can agree with this, but only with the qualification that this definition is incomplete. It must be added that liberalism professes a moderate attitude toward society and an understanding that the urge toward totalitarianism is no less powerful in society than the urge toward freedom.
When the discussion gets to the subject of the definition of traditionalism then the confusion and deception begin. The author writes that the West and the East face the task of jointly finding the "balance between progress in the sphere of observance of the rights of the individual and minorities, on one hand, and preserving the national, cultural, and religious identity of separate people, on the other." This phrase is amazing. Do the rights of minorities and the preservation of the national, cultural, and religious identity of different people really contradict one another? In the article it is said that monarchy and the republic are two irreconcilable opponents in the twentieth century (such as the constitutional monarchies in Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, etc.?), as are fascism and communism (although very many people view fascism and communism as two forms of one and the same totalitarianism which have so clearly linked up together in our time). Only the third couple of opponents, totalitarianism and democracy, do not evoke dissent.
It is impossible to agree with the point of view that asserts that globalism and universalism express the principle of the universal while conservatism and traditionalism express the principle of the individual and the unique. In our Russian reality, ecclesiastical conservatism and traditionalism, which are professed by a substantial portion of the church public, explicitly reject the principle of the individual and the unique and they demand complete unification and will not accept any "individualist" and "unique" departures from the generally accepted details of rituals and customs.
The author complains that the liberal standard, which is indispensable in international politics, "is recommended as obligatory for organizing the internal life of countries and people, including those countries whose cultural, spiritual and religious traditions did not participate in the practical formation of this standard." To this it may be answered that if on the strength of its tradition at the end of the twentieth century any nation commits genocide of another nation, who could view indifferently such an "organization of the internal life" and such "cultural, spiritual, and religious traditions"? The iniquities of nationalism contradict Christian morality, which has exerted an indelible impact upon the views of contemporary humanity, in particular, and on liberal doctrine, which in the article under review is debunked without any basis.
Metropolitan Kirill worries about the question of what the spread of western liberal values will mean for countries of the Orthodox confession. As an example he cites the case of the adoption of the new Russian law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations." This law, which the Moscow patriarchate supported, according to the official statement of the church was intended to restrict the activities of foreign preachers and totalitarian sects in Russia. But the struggle with totalitarian sects, which violate the constitution, is a matter for law enforcement agencies. The church can and must resist both the non-Orthodox preachers and the spread of totalitarian sects by the force of its own Christian ministry alone and by the example of spiritual superiority. Besides, in supporting the discriminatory law RPTs demonstrated the weakness of its own faith and uncertainty about its own spiritual authority. Such a policy actually evokes an attempt to resolve the most important problems of the faith by secular methods. But if one examines more deeply then one can discover the true ecclesiastical and political motives of the Moscow patriarchate's support for the law: RPTs has received from the state the mandate for monopoly representation of Orthodoxy in Russia. Orthodox Christians who do not agree with the bureaucratic command methods of administration in RPTs, which have lost their spiritual potential, are now unable to prevent the ruling church structures of RPTs from doing their will in the church. If the dissenters were to create their own religious associations, thanks to the law these associations would be illegitimate in the eyes of the state, would not have the status of legal entity, would not be able to preach or open educational institutions or rent facilities, etc. Apparently that's where the trouble lies.
It seems that many western leaders appealed to the president of Russia to block the law, understanding that it may violate freedom of conscience not only for Catholics and protestants but also Orthodox Old Believers, representatives of the Church Abroad, etc.
And there is another essential point. The author writes: "We are continually pointed to the dilemma: either Orthodoxy 'changes' or it will be rejected 'by the world community.'" This affirmation displays two inaccuracies. First, Orthodox believers do not exist only in Russia and the diseases of Russian Orthodoxy are not found in all Orthodox churches. Thus the majority of autocephalous churches have changed their attitude on the language of the liturgy and they conduct the liturgy in the language of the worshippers. The majority of Orthodox churches have adopted the new calendar. All Orthodox churches are not infected with the heresy of ecclesiastical nationalism. In this regard the Orthodox Church in America is exemplary: both in its name and in the language of the liturgy it is faithful to the apostolic tradition. It is truly a local church, striving to unite the Orthodox Christian nationalities that live in America. The second inaccuracy (or deliberate deception?) is that an Orthodoxy that is infected with nationalism, monarchism, and idolatry may not be rejected by "the world community" but by Orthodox Russians themselves. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 13 December 1999)
in the case of the test of the constitutionality of the third and fourth paragraphs of the third point of article 27 of the federal law of 26 September 1997 "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" regarding the appeals of the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses of the city of Yaroslavl and the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification."
Moscow
23 November 1999
The Constitutional Court of the Russian federation, consisting of V.O. Luchin, presiding judge, and the justices M.V. Baglai, N.T. Vedernikov, Yu.M. Danilov, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilin, V.D. Zorkin, V.G. Strekozov, and O.S. Khokhriakova, with the participation of representatives for the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl, V.A. Gladywhev and A.E. Leontiev, and representatives for the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification," G.A. Krylova and A.V. Pchelintsev, as well as the permanent representative of the State Duma to the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation, V.V. Lazarev and representatives of the Federation Council, N.F. Vorobiev, V.G. Ulianishchev, and M.G. Sharts,
guided by article 125 (part 4) of the constitution of the Russian federation, point 3 of the first part, parts two and three of article three, point 3 of the second part of article 22, articles 36, 74, 86, 96, 97, and 99 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation,"
has reviewed in open session the case of the test of the constitutionality of paragraphs three and four of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law of 26 September 1997 "On freedom of conscience and religious association."
The occasion for the review of the case were complaints of the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl and the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification" (city of Abakan, republic of Khakasiia) against the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens by the aforesaid provisions of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious association." The basis for the review of the case was uncertainty over the question whether these provisions, applied in the cases of the plaintiffs, conform to the constitution of the Russian federation.
Inasmuch as both complaints pertain to one and the same subject, the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation, guided by article 48 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation," joined the cases on these complaints into a single procedure.
After hearing the report of justice V.D. Zorkin, the explanations of representatives of the parties, the opinion of specialists V.V. Borshehev and V.V. Riakovsky, and the addresses of invited representatives from the Commission on Relations with Religious Organizations of the presidency of the Russian federation, A.E. Sebentsov, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian federation, A.I. Kudriavtsev, the General Procuracy of the Russian federation, N.A. Poverinov, and after studying documents and other materials that were submitted, the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation ruled:
1. According to point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," religious organizations that do not have a document confirming their existence in a given territory for at least fifteen years enjoy the rights of legal entity on condition that they reregister annually until the expiration of the aforesaid fifteen-year period (paragraph three); in the given period the aforesaid religious organization do not enjoy the rights provided by point 4 of article 3, points 3 and 4 of article 5, point 5 of article 13, point 3 of article 16, points 1 and 2 of article 17, point 2 of article 18 (pertaining to educational institutions and means of mass communication), article 19, and point 2, of article 20 of the aforesaid federal law (paragraph 4). In particular, they do not have the rights of appealing to the president of the Russian federal requesting the exemption of clergy from military conscription; of forming educational institutions, of maintaining representations of a foreign religious organization and inviting foreign citizens for the purposes of preaching and religious activity; of conducting religious rituals in health service institutions, children's homes, nursing and old folks' homes, or penal institutions; of manufacturing, purchasing, exporting, importing or distributing religious literature, printed recorded or other materials of religious content, or establishing mass media.
In their complaints to the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification" and the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl maintain that the aforesaid legal provisions, as applied in their cases, restrict the rights of citizens on the basis of membership in a religious organization that does not have a document confirming their existence on the given territory for at least fifteen years, which violates the provision of the constitution of the Russian federation regarding the equality of religious organizations before the law (article 14, part 2), the equality of all persons before the law (article 19, part 1), freedom of religious profession (article 28), the guarantee of freedom of speech (article 29, part 1), the right of assembly (article 30, part 1), the right to education (article 43, part 1), the impermissibility of publishing laws denying or restricting human and civil rights and freedoms (article 55, part 2), and the recognition and guarantee of human and civil rights and freedoms in the Russian federation in accordance with generally recognized principles and standards of international law (article 17, part 1).
2. It appears from the materials of the case, on 24 February 1998 the procurator of the city of Abakan (republic of Khakasiia) sent to the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification" a notice to cease violations of the requirements of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations." In the note it was indicated that said religious association, which did not have documents confirming its existence in the given territory for at least fifteen years, had conducted frequent religious meetings in the club of the veterans' hotel of the republic of Khakasiia involving residents of the hotel, had distributed religious literature, had instructed citizens in the Bible school formed by the association, had invited foreign citizens to participate in services, had conducted religious meetings in an orphans' colony for minors, and had conducted an international conference in which foreign citizens participated.
A similar note was sent on 20 November 1998 by the procuracy of Dzerzhinsky district of the city of Yaroslavl to the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl, after the procuracy of Yaroslavl province on 26 January 1998 had delivered a warning about the necessity of observance by said religious society of the legislation on religious associations. The procuracy viewed as violation of legislation the society's selling religious books and pamphlets to believers and distributing religious magazines published abroad. In addition, a foreign citizen invited by the society had engaged in preaching activity in Yaroslavl and other cities of Yaroslavl province.
Thus the offices of the procuracy, as shown by the acts of implementation of the law which they issued, had indicated that the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification" and the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl did not have confirmation of their existence on the given territories for at least fifteen years and, on the strength of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," were obliged to reregister annually until the expiration of the given period of time and in this period did not have the right to engage in the aforesaid activity.
In addition, the complaint of the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl pointed out that by decision of the Kirov district court of the city of Yaroslavl of 18 May 1999, the appeal of a member of this society, I.M. Shchurov, against the action of the draft commission not allowing him to substitute alternate civilian service for military service was denied. The court came to the conclusion that members of a religious organization that did not have a document confirming its existence in the given territory for at least fifteen years, on the strength of paragraphs 3 and 4 of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," do not have the right provided in point 4 of article 3 of the aforesaid federal law whereby citizens of the Russian federation whose convictions or religious confession forbid performing military service have the right to substitute alternative civilian service for it. On 17 June 1999 the judicial college on civil affairs of the Yaroslavl provincial court left the decision of the court of the first instance unchanged and I.M Shchurov's appeal unsatisfied. On 3 August 1999 the chairman of the Yaroslavl provincial court denied a protest against this judicial decision.
3. The religious association "Christian Church of Glorification" was registered by the Ministry of Justice of the republic of Khakasiia in April 1992 and reregistered on 27 January 1997, and at the time of reregistration was a legal entity and a member of the All-Russian Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals). In accordance with the requirements of federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" (point 4 of article 27) this religious association underwent state reregistration on 19 March 1999 and at the present time in the capacity of a local religious organization "The Church of Christians of Evangelical Faith 'Glorification'" is a member of the centralized religious organization, the Association of Christians of Evangelical Faith 'Church of Faith,'" which was registered by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian federation on 13 August 1998.
The religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl was registered in February 1992 and was founded by the national Russian religious association, the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and it is a member of it. In the capacity of a local religious organization it underwent state reregistration in the department of justice of Yaroslavl province on 1 June 1999. The Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia underwent state reregistration as a centralized religious organization in the Ministry of Justice of the Russian federation on 29 April 1999.
Thus, the provisions of the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" were applied to the plaintiffs as religious organizations, founded (created) before the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" entered into force and they were constituent parts of centralized religious organizations.
Proceeding from this the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation, in accordance with requirements flowing from article 125 (part 4) of the constitution of the Russian federation and point 3 of the first part of article 3, as well as articles 96 and 97 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation," in the present case is examining the contested legal provisions only insofar as they are being applied to religious organizations established before the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" entered into force and (or) such as are members of the structure of centralized religious organizations. The question of the constitutionality of the indicated provisions in the part pertaining to their application to other religious organizations is not being reviewed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation in connection with the present complaints.
4. In accordance with article 28 of the constitution of the Russian federation, each person is guaranteed freedom of conscience and freedom of religious confession, including the right to profess individually and jointly with others any religious or not to profess any religion, to choose freely, to have and spread religious and other convictions and to act in accordance with them. Analogous standards of article 18 (point 1) of the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights correspond to this constitutional provision, as do those of article 9 (point 1) of the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
From article 28 of the constitution of the Russian federation in correspondence with its articles 13 (part 4), 14, 19 (parts 1 and 2) and 30 (part 1) it follows that freedom of religious confession presumes the freedom to form religious associations and the freedom of their activity on the basis of the principle of juridical equality, on the strength of which the federal legislature, carrying out its duties flowing from articles 71 (points "v" and "o") and 76 of the constitution of the Russian federation, has the right to regulate the civic legal status of religious associations, including the conditions for recognizing a religious association in the capacity of legal entity, the procedure for its formation, creation, and state registration, and to determine the contents of the legal capacity of religious associations.
At the same time, the legislature, taking into account the historically conditioned multiconfessional heritage in Russia, is obliged to observe the provision of article 17 (part 1) of the constitution of the Russian federation guaranteeing in the Russian federation the human and civil rights and freedoms in accordance with the generally recognized principles and standards of international law and in accordance with the constitutions of the Russian federation. Measures adopted by it pertaining to the founding, creation, and registration of religious organizations must not distort the very essence of freedom of religious professions or the right to association and freedom of activity of public associations, and possible restrictions affecting these and other constitutional rights must be justified and proportional to constitutionally significant goals.
In a democratic society with the religious pluralism that is essential to it, as follows from articles 17 (part 3) and 55 (part 3) of the constitution of the Russian federation and corresponding provisions of article 18 (points 2 and 3) of the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights as well as article 9 (point 2) of the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, such restrictions may be provided by law if it is necessary in the interests of public peace, the preservation of public order, health, and morality, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons. The state has the right to provide specified impediments so as not to grant the status of a religious organization automatically, to prohibit the legalization of sects which violate the rights of the individual and practice illegal and criminal activities, as well as to prohibit missionary activity (including the problem of proselytizing), if it is incompatible with respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others and for other constitutional rights and freedoms and particularly if it is accompanied by the offer of material or social benefits with the goal of recruiting new members into the church or illegal influence of people who are in need or poverty, or psychological pressure or threats of violence, etc.
It was to this, in particular, that the resolution of the European parliament of 12 February 1996, "On sects in Europe," and the recommendation of the Council of Europe, No. 1178, "On sects and new religious movements," called attention, as well as resolutions of the European Court on Human Rights of 25 May 1993 and 26 September 1996, after having explained the character and scope of a state's obligations arising from article 9 of the above named convention.
5. Uncertainty as to the understanding of the provisions of the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" is connected with the question of whether the legal consequences provided in them extend to religious organizations which were founded before the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" went into effect or which are members of the structure of a centralized organization while not having confirmation that they have existed on the given territory at least fifteen years.
In a literal sense the disputed provisions and the requirements foreseen in them extend to all religious organizations which do not have a document confirming their existence in the given territory for at least fifteen years (it was on the basis of such an interpretation that the decisions implementing the law were made in the specific cases of the plaintiffs). Meanwhile their constitutional and legal significance cannot be expounded without taking into account relationships to other articles of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," principally those regulating the establishment (creation) of religious organizations and the conditions and procedures of their state registration.
In accordance with the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" a religious group and a religious organization are forms of religious associations (point 2 article 6); in contrast to a religious group, a religious organization (both local and centralized), has the status of legal entity with the legal capacity, rights and obligations (articles 7 and 8) corresponding to this status. At the same time the founders of a local religious organization may be no fewer than ten citizens of the Russian federation who are associated in the religious group, which possesses confirmation of its existence on the given territory for at least fifteen years, issued by offices of local administration, or proof of its membership in the structure of a centralized religious organization of the same religious confession, issued by said organization (point 1, article 9). For state registration of a local religious organization, the founders present to the appropriate office of justice a document confirming the existence of the religious group on the given territory for at least fifteen years, issued by the office of local administration, or confirming its membership in a centralized religious organization, issued by its administrative center (point 5, article 11).
The provisions of point 1, article 9, point 5, article 11, and the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3, article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" are inextricably linked and as such they form a complex standard. This standard determines which religious organizations upon their founding, registration and, consequently, reregistration are not required to have proof of the fifteen year period and which legal consequences take effect in the absence of such confirmation, if it is necessary.
From point 1of article 9 and points 5 and 7 of article 11 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," in connection with its articles 6, 7, and 8, it follows that for the founding and registration of a local religious organization that is a member of a centralized religious organization, proof of the fifteen year period is not required.
For the founding of a local religious organization in accordance with the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" confirmation of fifteen-years existence must be presented by citizens who are associated in a religious group (point 1, article 9). This means that if a religious organization was founded prior to the time the aforesaid federal law went into effect, then such confirmation is not required inasmuch as the religious group had already ceased to exist and had been transformed into a religious organization which was registered in the capacity of legal entity and, consequently, according to articles 49 (points 1 and 3) and 51 (point 2) of the civil code of the Russian federation, was already considered to have been created. From that moment it acquired legal capacity, i.e., the possibility of having civil rights corresponding to the goals of legal action and of bearing the obligations connected with this action, and thus it enjoys to the fullest extent the rights that are provided for religious organizations by the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations."
Reregistration of religious organizations may not be conducted in contradiction with the conditions which on the strength of point 1 article 9 and point 5 article 11 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious association" are necessary and sufficient for the founding and registering of religious organizations. Hence it follows that for reregistration of religious organizations which were founded before the said federal law went into effect, as well as for local religious organizations which are members of the structure of a centralized religious organization, there is no requirement of a document confirming their existence on the given territory for at least fifteen years; the requirement of annual reregistration until the expiration of the said fifteen year period does not apply to such religious organizations; they may not be restricted in their legal capacity with which religious organizations are vested by the said federal law, including the provisions enumerated in the fourth paragraph of point 3 of its article 27, point 4, article 3, points 3 and 4, article 5, point 5, article 13, point 3, article 16, points 1 and 2, article 17, point 2, article 18 (as it pertains to educational institutions and means of mass communication), article 19, and point 2, article 20.
Another interpretation of the disputed provisions, that are inextricably and normatively linked with point 1 of article 9 and point 5 or article 11 of the federal law "On freedom of consicence and religious association," would imply their elevation into a self-sufficient standard directly in opposition and contradiction with the contents of point 1, article 9 and point 5, article 11, which would be impermissible from the point of view of judicial logic.
6. The subject of regulation of the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious association," as follows from the provisions contained in them in connection with article 1, as well as articles 15-24 of said federal law, is the legal status of religious organizations and their rights in implementing the freedom of religious confession. By their nature these are collective rights, inasmuch as they are realized by a citizen by means of creating a religious association together with other citizens. Consequently, the effect of the disputed provisions does not apply to rights, even though stipulated by the articles mentioned in the fourth paragraph of point 3, article 27, of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious association," but which implement the freedom of religious confession in its individual aspect, i.e., which can be realized by each person immediately and not through a religious organization that enjoys the right of legal entity.
Thus, of the rights which are fixed in point 4, article 3 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" the collective rights of religious organizations include the possibility of obtaining for their clergy, in accordance with legislation of the Russian federation on military obligation and military service in peace time, postponement of draft to military service and exemption from conscription by decision of the president of the Russian federation.
As regards the application in the case of citizen I.M. Shchurov, a member of the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl of another provision contained in point 4, article 3 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," namely that a citizen of the Russian federation has the right of substituting alternative civil service if his convictions or religious confession forbid performing military service, this provision actually repeats article 59 (part 3) of the constitution of the Russian federation. The federal law, when dealing with a constitutional standard, may define the conditions and procedure for substituting alternative civil service for military service, although the specification of the right is not necessary for its realization but it is immediately effective, as follows from articles 18, 28, and 59 of the constitution of the Russian federation, as an individual right, i.e. connected with freedom of religious confession in its individual, and not collective aspect, which means that it should be secured independently of whether the citizen is a member of any religious organization or not.
7. In accordance with article 74 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation," the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation has made its decision in the case in consideration of both the literal meaning of the disputed act and the meaning applied to it by official and other interpretations or emerging practice in implementation of the law.
According to data from the Ministry of Justice of the Russian federation, the overwhelming majority of religious organizations in the Russian federation are united within the boundaries of various centralized structures; beside this, as a rule, local religious organizations join centralized religious organizations before reregistration and present the appropriate confirmation to agencies of justice.
In addition, as follows from the materials of the case, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian federation, proceeding on the basis that the provisions of the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3 of article 27 are normatively linked with point 1 of article 9 and point 5 of article 11 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," within the limits of its assigned competence has instructed responsible agencies of justice which by law have the task of state registration of religious organizations to apply the indicated provisions in such a way that local religious organizations that have confirmation of fifteen-years of existence or of membership in a centralized religious organization will not undergo annual reregistration and will enjoy in full measure all rights granted to them as religious organizations by said federal law. It was in accordance with this procedure that the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification" and the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Yaroslavl, the plaintiffs in this case, were registered.
8. Before the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" went into effect, the establishment and registration of religious organizations was conducted in accordance with the law of RSFSR of 25 October 1990 "On freedom of religious profession." As legal entities religious organizations enjoyed various rights and had identical legal status, which corresponded to the provisions on legal equality contained in articles 13 (part 4), 14, 19 (parts 1 and 2) 28, and 30 (part 1) of the constitution of the Russian federation, including the equality of religious associations before the law.
According to articles 10, 17, 18, 22-25 of the law of RSFSR "On freedom of religious profession" (in the version of the federal law of 27 January 1995) all religious associations, both regional and centralized, already had the rights in the capacity of legal entities on equal bases that subsequently were established by the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," including its articles indicated in the fourth paragraph of point 3 of article 27.
Under such circumstances the legislature cannot deprive a certain portion of religious organizations that already are established and possess full legal competence of the possibility of enjoying rights that already belong to them simply on the basis that they do not have the confirmation of a fifteen-year existence. Relative to previously created religious organizations this would be incompatible with the principle of equality that is specified in articles 13 (part 4), 14 (part 2) and 19 (parts 1 and 2) of the constitution of the Russian federation and it would be an impermissible restriction of freedom of religious profession (article 28) as well as freedom of the establishment and activity of public associations (article 30).
9. Thus, the provisions of the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3, article 27, in their normative connection with the provisions of point 1 of article 9 and point 5 of article 11 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," do not require that religious organizations established before said federal law came into effect or which are members of the structure of a centralized religious association present confirmation of existence for fifteen years, and they also do not require of them annual reregistration, and they do not restrict in this period their enjoyment of corresponding rights and, consequently, as applied to such organizations they do not violate the constitution of the Russian federation.
The test of the legality and legitimacy of corresponding decisions regarding implementation of the law is not within the competence of the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation which, according to the sense of articles 118, 125, 126, and 127 of the constitution of the Russian federation, does not have the right to deal with implementation of law, including the courts of general jurisdiction. In fulfilling its responsibility, an agency for implementation of the law may not attach to the provisions of the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" any other meaning that diverges from their constitutional and legal sense declared by the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation in the present resolution.
Proceeding from what has been established and guided by the first and second parts of article 71, and articles 72, 75, and 100 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation," the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation has resolved
1. To recognize that the provisions contained in the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law of 26 September 1997 "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" do not violate the constitution of the Russian federation, insofar as they, in normative unity with the provisions of point 1 of article 9 and point 5 of article 11 of said federal law, are applied in regard to religious organizations established before said federal law came into effect, as well as local religious organizations which are members of the structure of a centralized religious organization, and this means that such organizations enjoy the rights of legal entity to the full extent, without confirmation of a minimal fifteen-year period of existence on the given territory, without annual reregistration and without the restrictions that are stipulated by the fourth paragraph of point 3 of article 27 of said federal law.
On the strength of the requirements of articles 96 and 97 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation" the constitutionality of the provisions of the third and fourth points of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," in normative unity with the provisions of point 1 of article 9 and point 5 of article 11 of said federal law as applied with regard to other religious organizations, has not been confirmed in the present case.
2. The constitutional and legal sense of the provisions of the third and fourth paragraphs of point 3 of article 27, in normative unity with the provisions of point 1 of article 9 and point 5 of article 11 of the federal law of 26 September 1997 "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," declared by the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation in the present resolution is generally obligatory and precludes any other interpretation of them in the practice of implementation of the law.
3. In accordance with the first and second parts of article 79 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation" the present resolution is final, is not subject to appeal, enters into effect immediately after its publication, applies immediately, and does not require confirmation by any other agencies and persons of responsibility.
4. In accordance with article 78 of the federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation" the present resolution is subject to immediate publication in the "Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation" and "Rossiiskaia gazeta." The resolution also must be published in the "Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation." (tr. by PDS)
from article 27, "On freedom of conscience and religious associations":Russian text3. . . . Religious organizations that do not have documents that confirm their existence in the respective territory for at least fifteen years enjoy the rights of juridical person provided they reregister annually until the completion of the said fifteen-year period.
During the said period such religious organizations do not have the rights stipulated in point 4 of article 3, points 3 and 4 of article 5, point 5 of article 13, point of article 16, points 1 and 2 of article 17, point 2 of article 18 (pertaining to educational institutions and mass media), article 19 and point 2 of article 20 of the present federal law.
(posted 6 December 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/.