Copyrighted material. For private use only.
Last month's commando raid on the headquarters of Media-Most, Russia's leading independent media empire, was seen as a terrible omen for the fate of press freedom under newly inaugurated President Vladimir Putin.
Yet the raid had striking parallels with a similar event on the same day in Siberia which was practically ignored by the press but has deeply alarmed campaigners for religious freedom in post-Soviet Russia.
On 11 May, gun-toting tax police wearing ski masks streamed into the Jesuit-run Inigo Centre in Novosibirsk, seizing documents, videos and computer equipment. The Jesuits, who use the centre's television studio to make religious programmes, were kept in a room for four hours while police searched the premises.
So far, none of the confiscated material has been returned, and no explanation given for the raid.
Tax police often carry out high-profile attacks on Russian companies suspected of tax-dodging or ties to the criminal underworld. But raids on foreign religious organisations are rare. Under Russian law, tax police do not even have the right to enter their premises.
Observers say that the Novosibirsk incident is proof that, nearly 1,000 years after the Great Schism which first split the Christian world into its Eastern and Western branches, Russia and the Catholic Church remain at daggers drawn.
Hopes that the rift might be healed rose last week when President Putin held an audience with Pope John Paul as part of an official trip to Italy. The visit raised speculation that the Pope might finally visit Russia, 11 years after the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev invited him.
But commentators say that hatred of the Holy See is so intense among powerful conservatives in the Russian Orthodox Church that John Paul II will remain persona non grata in Russia.
The row between the world's two biggest churches centres on Russian accusations that the Catholic Church is expansionist, poaching believers by proselytising on traditional Orthodox territory.
"We see their missionary activity here as an unfriendly act," says Maxim Kozlov, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy and an expert on Orthodox-Catholic relations. "Russia is not just some tabula rasa where rival religions can compete for believers. Orthodoxy is the religion of the vast majority, the religion which is most closely bound up with our history, our mentality, our traditions, and that should be respected."
RUSSIAN PATRIARCH HITS OUT AT CATHOLIC CONVERSTIONS
Reuters, 9 June
The head of Russia's Orthodox Church made a fresh attack on Friday on Roman Catholic conversions in Russia, signalling prolonged negotiations before Pope John Paul would be able to visit Russia.
Patriarch Alexiy II, whose church has been at loggerheads with the Vatican since the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christianity in 1054, said Catholic conversion efforts were one of the bones of contention remaining between the two churches.
"Proselytism, which turns people who have been baptised in Orthodoxy, or who are by their roots Orthodox, to Catholicism -- this also cannot take place between sister churches," Alexiy told ORT public television in a short interview.
"I think this makes our relations difficult today," said Alexiy, interviewed ahead of the 10th anniversary on Saturday of his enthronement as patriarch.
His comments seemed to pour cold water on the idea that the pope would be able soon to realise a long-held dream of visiting Russia.
Such hopes also received a dent when President Vladimir Putin failed to renew an invitation to the pope, made by his predecessors, during last week's visit to Rome.
Alexiy also mentioned the fact that Orthodox churches had been desecrated in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of the main churches in Ukraine is the Uniate Church, which has Eastern rites but pledges allegiance to Rome.
Alexiy said this would also not be possible if the Catholic Church viewed the Orthodox Church as a sister body.
Copyright 1999 Reuters.All rights reserved.
(posted 12 June 2000)
Local authorities in western Russia are trying to dissolve two Pentecostal churches accused of violating the country's controversial law on religion, the Keston News Service reports.
The Kostroma regional department of justice has charged Kostroma Christian Center and Grace Church of Evangelical Christians with using hypnosis during their services, which is specifically prohibited by the 1997 religion law. The churches' pastors reject the allegations, claiming that a video used as evidence against them actually shows the effects of the "anointing of the Holy Spirit."
Although local officials across Russia have been accused of illegally blocking the reregistration of minority religious groups, Russian religion law specialist Lauren Homer believes that this case is not typical. "I don't think it stems as much from abuse (by officials) as a lack of understanding as to what these people are up to," she told Newsroom, referring to the church's charismatic practices. "(The Apostle) Paul said about praying in tongues that if you do it in front of strangers they will think you are nuts; and they do."
Homer, president of Law and Liberty Trust in St. Louis, Missouri, said she recently met in Russia with some of the country's regional administrators. "They were saying it was difficult because they don't understand these manifestations of faith," she said. "They don't know how to discern what is good and what is bad."
Last year, prosecutors in the far eastern port city of Magadan accused the pastor of the Word of Life Pentecostal church of hypnotizing members to extort donations. A court rejected the accusation, which prosecutors said was based on the religion law. Human rights groups have criticized the law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" as a violation Russia's constitution, which establishes freedom of religion.
According to a translation of the law supplied by Homer, grounds for liquidating a religious organization by court order include "the infliction of damage" on "the morality or health of citizens, including the use in connection with their religious activities of narcotic or psychoactive substances, hypnosis, the performing of depraved or other disorderly actions."
Keston says the Kostroma administration's judgment report against the pastors does not declare that they caused harm to the health of citizens. This must be proved, according to article 14 of the law on religion, in order to obtain a court order to liquidate a religious organization, Keston said.
The Kostroma justice department already has refused reregistration of the two congregations under the new law, which requires that all religious organizations be reregistered by the end of the year. Officials now are preparing legal suits to dissolve both churches. Grace Church pastor Andrei Mudry, whose church had been registered in 1994 under the old law, told Keston on June 4 that the churches are considering a counter claim.
Kostroma Christian Center, a congregation of about 300, originally was registered in 1992. Kostroma is a town about 200 miles northeast of Moscow.
Kostroma's department of justice authorized a committee of experts of the regional administration to make a judgment in the case. The committee, appointed at the end of 1999, is comprised of two government officials, two university lecturers on religion, a psychiatrist, a psychotherapist, and a lawyer specializing in religious law.
Grace Church's Mudry and Kostroma Christian Center (KCC) pastor Andrei Danilov said the committee invited them to give evidence only after it had reached its conclusion. The pastors further claim that the committee had no jurisdiction over them because groups belonging to centralized organizations -- those with a headquarters and regional branches -- should be investigated by the federal rather than the regional ministry of justice. KCC belongs to the Association of Evangelical Christians (Pentecostals) while Grace Church is a member of the Union of Evangelical Christians (Pentecostals).
The two pastors say the churches began experiencing problems from authorities when they initiated the reregistration process last summer, claiming that officials "used various technical pretexts" to block the process, Keston said. Bigger problems came later, however, when Kostroma state television broadcast a news item about religious organizations that were "the subject of particular attention from the guardians of law and order."
The television report insinuated the Pentecostals were in the same category as satanists and accused them of employing "psycholinguistic techniques to induce hypnosis" during services. The author of the report, Fyodor Lapshin, admitted to Keston on June 5 that the report had included factual inaccuracies.
Homer believes that with the likely help of the Moscow-based Slavic Center for Law and Justice, which defended the Magadan congregation, the two churches eventually will prevail in this case, possibly in a higher court. She notes that the churches are members of the two leading Pentecostal unions. "If this were allowed to stand it would be a real disaster for Pentecostals in Russia," Homer said.
(posted 12 June 2000)
We
continue our discussion of the book interview with Vladimir Putin
by Alexander Morozov
Sobornost,
7 June 2000
From the First Person. Conversations with Vladimir Putin (M., 2000)
Putin's book answers the question "Who is Mister Putin?" but not in the western sense of what is Putin's political line like, but in the Russian sense of what kind of man is this Putin. Therefore in the book what is important is not specific statements but that message that can be detected in the type of the genre employed, the position of a storyteller. The genre aspect is more like a "wide ranging interview without a necktie." The writers of this media project stress that Putin speaks of the situation in Russia and the past and future not as a nomenklatura politician but as a private person. The "privateness" is stressed here. Putin is presented as one of many thousands of Russian officers of the elite services. He emphasizes in his answers that his service was "like everybody else's" and that his point of view on things is simply a manifestation of private "healthy thinking."
This is a very curious and paradoxical position. Putin shows by his book that he is ready to talk "humanistically." In Russian politics this is the first personality of such a rank who adopts the rhetoric of Vaclav Havel. In other words, he is literally a humanist who is speaking from the position of an open mind and conscience. The main attitude of his speaking is I will simply answer any question honestly without recourse to the manner of speaking of the nomenklatura and diplomacy. The genre matches the author's position. As far as content goes, Putin does not report anything about himself that is unexpected or that we did not know or couldn't guess. They were drinking beer in Germany and a house caught fire in the village. The Talmud did not evoke any interest in childhood, and his baptismal cross was preserved by his mother's efforts. (I note parenthetically that Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, in calling for Putin's election on the TV program "Kanon," somewhat expanded the topic of the house fire and baptismal cross. Archimandrite Tikhon described how at the time of the fire the house burned along with all its contents, but Putin's pectoral cross was kept from harm. Then he made the direct suggestion that this was a miracle which even Putin himself took to be a religious experience. However, in the book it is not like that. This is a kind of different level of "privateness.")
In the intention of the authors of the book, it was not supposed to develop into either rhetoric or an ordinary generational autobiography. Putin read only one book, "Shield and Sword." He did not like the Beetles or Nazaret. He avoids mentioning any famous persons who would stress too much his national, religious, or ideological identity. He has only one identity: a servant of the state. He also placed a strong accent on this in his inaugural speech: "I promise to act only in the interests of the state. . . ." In this "only" one hears: in the past first persons have not always acted in the interests of the state. The message of the Putin image is this: one must act honestly and precisely.
You do not read anything else out of Putin's book. You should not assign any greater meaning to some subjects declared in his book and political gestures. NTV commented with approval on the status of the patriarch at the inauguration. The scenario did not provide for His Holiness to speak among other first persons of the government and this says that Putin understands: we have a "multiconfessional" state. However after the inauguration the patriarch conducted a prayer service in Annunciation cathedral for a smaller circle. This emphasizes that Putin is a Christian. This implies an interpretation: as a Christian he wanted to show that the blessing did not have a merely ceremonial character for him. As had been the case, for example, with Yeltsin who actively embraced the presence of the church in events that legitimized his regime.
Today much is said about the ties of Putin's family with the Presentation monastery. And it has turned out that the role of Archimandrite Tikhon in the development of state-church relations has been growing. It is expected that he will restrict Metropolitan Kirill's position of leadership in this matters. Today many expect that under Putin the philosophy of Russian conservativism will be evoked and that means Orthodox ideals in policy and state-building. But neither Putin's book nor his conduct at the inauguration give any specific bases for such hopes. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 11 June 2000)
MOSCOW, June 9 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin praised the Orthodox Church on Friday in a message congratulating its head, Patriarch Alexiy II, on the 10th anniversary of his enthronement.
"The Russian Orthodox Church plays an enormous role in the spiritual unification of the Russian land after many years of life without faith, moral degradation and atheism,'' said Putin.
"The church is recovering its traditional mission as a key force in promoting social stability and moral unity around general moral priorities of justice, patriotism, good works, constructive labour and family values,'' he said.
"Although it fell to you to lead the church in a difficult and confusing period, the past decade has become a unique time for the real regeneration of the moral foundations of society.''
The church suffered persecution and harassment for decades under the atheistic Soviet regime. But since the demise of Soviet communism in 1991 the church has seen a big revival in its fortunes. Many churches and seminaries have reopened and clergy are often present at major public occasions.
Putin himself, a former KGB spy, has been baptised and wears a crucifix around his neck given to him by his mother. He dutifully attends important church celebrations like Easter.
Alexiy, 71, attended Putin's inauguration as president on May 7, though Russia is defined by its post-Soviet constitution as a secular state where all confessions are equal.
ALEXIS II: PUTIN'S VERTICAL OF POWER TO PROMOTE STRONGER STATEHOOD
MOSCOW, June 9 (Itar-Tass) - The desire of President Vladimir Putin to create a vertical of power will help to strengthen statehood in Russia, said here on Friday Alexy II, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, speaking in an interview with reporters.
He compared initiatives by the head of state with processes which took place in the church life.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the patriarch noted, each sovereign state made attempts to create its own independent Church. "But we took a firm stand: the Church cannot divide into 15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches only due to the fact that the state where it performed its mission, disintegrated," the patriarch emphasised.
Alexy II noted that there were schisms in church life, and there were
attempts to divide believers, but, he stressed, "the Church has preserved
its unity thanks to centralisation of church authority".
(posted 9 June 2000)
The transfer of priests from one parish to another without evident reasons for it is a hereditary disease of the Russian church. Often such unmotivated transfers of clergy bring about the breakup of the parish; the priest leaves and the parishioners follow him. It is doubly painful if the church was restored by their own hands and if ten years were spent on the creation of the community and restoration of the church. Today such a situation has developed in the church of Saint Theodore the Studite at the Nikita gates of Moscow.
--Vadim, you have been warden for ten years in the Moscow church. What are your impressions from this work? What is your main experience?
--When we opened this parish in 1991 we invited Fr Pavel Vishnevsky to be rector. We asked the patriarch about this and he gave his blessing. Thus our parish was created first and then a priest was invited. Now, ten years later, I want to say that we were not mistaken in our selection. Fr Pavel proved an exceptional priest. He has a great gift of comfort and support for those who are alone and are suffering. For him the individual is important and Fr Pavel taught us this. Probably this is the most valuable thing about our parish.
--For five or six years you lived comparatively peacefully and grew. How did it happen that suddenly a new rector was named for you? What was this related to? Were you as warden informed about this by the dean or chancellery of the patriarchate?
--No. A new rector, Hegumen Ermogen Golin, simply came to us with the decree. There was no consultation nor even any explanation of the change of rector. We were not surprised, since we knew that this often happens in Moscow churches, but it was unsettling. In the Orthodox church the people are not for the priest and the priest is not for the people, but people and priest together are for God. Fr Pavel really was "a servant to all," and some even considered him a godly fool. The dean appeared in our church a year after the appointment of the new rector, when the parish meeting adopted a new parish charter. Incidentally, nobody had been acquainted with this charter in advance. It is interesting that one person (incidentally a spiritual child of Fr Ermogen) abstained from voting. The dean in attendance called attention to this and got upset, noting that anyone who did not consent could not take part in the parish meeting.
The decision of the dean to reelect the parish council at this meeting was a surprise because nobody had been informed of this in advance. Soon tension rose, since Fr Ermogen proposed the new membership of the council and it included people from outside who were not our parishioners. The meeting did not support the rector and the parish council that was reelected was the previous members. However the rector did not sign off on this decision and produced a dissenting opinion in which he declared that the parish meeting "opposed" the rector. Nevertheless the patriarch blessed the decision of the meeting and confirmed the membership of the parish council.
--Incidentally, how do you assess the new parish charter? How is it different from the old one?
--We have studied the parish charter in rather great detail because we have its text. There is more difficulty in the case of the charter for administration of the Russian church and the diocesan charter. All of our attempts to get these documents from the patriarchate have ended in failure. This is absurd, since in our parish charter it says that the parish council is also governed by these charters. And as warden I must have them, but it turns out that these are secret documents.
If one talks about the contents of the new parish charter, then it takes into account the opinion of the church people significantly less. This charter gives the rector much more power at the cost of reducing the community principle. This cannot be called anything other than an ecclesiastical distortion.
--How have relations between the parishioners and the new rector turned out? Has the rector been able to sense and understand the traditions of the parish as they have developed?
--At first we had the possibility of cooperation and mutual activity. But finances are one thing and the liturgical and spiritual aspect is another. We accepted him although it was not easy. However soon Fr Ermogen decided to divide the whole parish into "us" and "them." Then we realized that the appointment of the new rector had not been accidental.
Regular communion was a tradition of our parish, as is the case for many other Moscow churches. We are convinced that church renewal is primarily eucharistic renewal. A genuine community is a eucharistic community. It seemed that Fr Ermogen not only did not share our views. He began actively opposing the traditions that had developed. This was expressed in his attitude toward communion. Whereas we tried to make confession and commune weekly, he considered it sufficient to take communion four times a year and to "restrain one's self" the rest of the time.
The rector also tried to dismiss employees of the church with no explanation of the cause. It must be said that these people had worked in the church many years. We did not have paid workers generally; everyone received either a symbolic salary or none at all. I could not agree with the decision of the rector that violated the law. For dismissal there must be legal bases and I have not succeeded in defending all these people.
Then Fr Ermogen "decommissioned" the choir that had consisted of parishioners who had performed this ministry for many years. He brought in a choir from outside. We could not do anything about it because the rector controls the choir. Now our singers simply are silent in the church. The same situation developed with acolytes. They all worked for free and the rector brought in new ones who required money. While they serve in the altar, they do not receive communion.
The rector has a strange attitude toward children. Our parish is a young one and there are always many children in church. We all try to create an atmosphere that will be good for children in the church so that they can learn the church service and church life. The rector declared that there should not be children in church and in his sermons he said that parents should come to church separately and sit with a child. Often he simply drove children out of the church without regard to time of year. The main thing is that there should not be noise or movement in the service. Today we are forced to go to several churches so that our children will not become afraid of church. Fr Ermogen will not give communion to children like to adults if they are older than four. He refuses to give communion to pregnant women. Sometimes he can simply say: "I do not want to give communion."
What can we say about the fact that for a long time now we have not heard a vital sermon on a gospel topic? At best he reads sermons from the nineteenth century; at worst he reads from the pulpit articles from the parachurch press about the "danger of Kochetkovism."
Thus we have lost a portion of our parishioners and even many sponsors have abandoned us. Some people have sponsors who are most interested in gilding the dome. For our sponsors the most important thing was to support the community which was trying to help the lonely and suffering. When they observed the disorder in our parish they began to say: "First get things straightened out among yourselves and then we will help you again."
--And so, after Pascha Fr Pavel was transferred to a new parish in the Miussk cemetery. What is happening now in your parish?
--For us it was a real surprise. The situation has changed sharply, since many parishioners have followed Fr Pavel. Until recently he supported all of us; he heard our confession, gave us communion, and comforted us with advice. At the first service without Fr Pavel there occurred the refusal of communion to those who approached the holy chalice, without any explanation. This was repeated at each service; sometimes the chalice simply was not brought out. The rector declared: "In the fear of God and with faith, draw near," but he did not even bring out the chalice from the altar. It is very difficult to worship at such a service.
--What do you intend to do now?
--Our parish community will not quit this church. We built it over ten years' time and much of our life is connected with it, but it turns out that the new rector does not need such parishioners. We also know of other such cases in Moscow. We are trying to maintain our parish, for we believe that the Lord himself drew us together. What the Lord has joined together, man must not put asunder.
You know, here is what amazes me. We completely agree with what the patriarch said at the diocesan meetings and in his declarations and we have tried to put these words into action. More than that, the patriarch at these same diocesan meetings thanked Fr Pavel for the work of charity and philanthropy and he made him an example for other parishes. Now today we are at the brink of destruction. How can this be understood? Does the chancellery of the patriarch really have such power that it acts in defiance of the patriarch himself? Perhaps these events should be understood as an attack by the church bureaucracy that stifles church life. Is this really the outcome of the life of the Russian Orthodox church in the twentieth century? (tr. by PDS)
(posted 9 June 2000)
The chief rabbi of Russia, Adolf Shaevich, has gotten into an extremely difficult situation. Last week he sent a letter to Vladimir Putin in which he claimed that the president’s administration is hoping to send him into retirement and even has put corresponding pressure on him. At virtually the same time this document was turned over to the Washington Post.
But on Monday Adolf Solomonovich suddenly called a press conference in New York and disavowed his accusations. It seems that nobody had put pressure on Shaevich and the letter "was a mistake." In the opinion of the chief rabbi, all of this was a "misunderstanding," "fantasy," and "attempts to draw Jewish organizations into some kind of political games."
Jewish organizations, and especially the Russian Jewish Congress (REK), of which Shaevich is a leader, were drawn into political games long ago. It has been an open secret that this organization exists in the main on the money of its president, Vladimir Gusinsky, and it supports all initiatives of the head of Media-MOST. The chief rabbi of Russia depends almost entirely on Vladimir Alexandrovich.
NG already has written about the campaign that Gusinsky has conducted to gain the post of president of the World Jewish Congress (VEK), a very influential international organization. His aspirations are not supported by a majority of the Jewish congregations of Russia, who think that the actions of the head of Media-MOST compromise Russian Jews and facilitate the growth of antisemitic attitudes.
But for Gusinsky what is important is the achievement of the ultimate result, and thus the transfer of the scene to the American stage, that is, Shaevich’s statement in the Washington Post, is nothing more than one of the steps in the campaign for the post of VEK president. And in this campaign he is prepared to sacrifice the chief rabbi of Russia.
The violation of freedom of speech and antisemitism are clear warning signs for the western public. Almost every school child knows about the struggle of MOST for objective information and about the methods of that struggle. But "freedom of speech" in the given situation affects only the interests of Gusinsky and his structure, and thus the unfolding campaign does not have broad resonance. Thus also the undoing of the "Jewish question" has begun.
Since in the version from Media-MOST offered to naive Americans a fierce censorship is raging in Russia, Shaevich’s letter was not published in any of the MOST controlled media. It did not become known for the world even from other Russian sources, including NG and NG-religii, where nothing would have prevented its publication.
Adolf Solomonivich’s problems (which, it seems, did not exist) were first heroically disclosed in the English-language Moscow Times on 1 June by the independent (as her card states) Evgeniia Albats, who also is a member of the presidium of the Russian Jewish Congress.
The second to learn about the struggle of the Russian government against the rabbis were the Americans.
Now all of this mess of false accusation, mistakes, and misunderstandings has reached uncomprehending Russians. Yesterday in RIA Novosti there was a press conference by leaders of the Federation of Jewish Organizations of Russia. Its president, Mikhail Gluz, stressed that Jewish problems should be resolved by Jews themselves and he called for the convocation of a congress of Russian Jews for discussing the situation that has developed. (tr. by PDS)
CHIEF RABBI: KREMLIN IS PRESSURING ME TO RESIGN
by David Hoffman The Washington Post/ Moscow Times
6 June 2000
The chief rabbi of Russia has complained to President Vladimir Putin that the Kremlin is trying to force him out of office and is interfering in the affairs of the country's Jewish community, according to a letter he sent to Putin.
The attempt to pressure Adolf Shayevich, since 1989 the spiritual leader of the Soviet and then Russian Jewish community, was described by other Jewish leaders as highly unusual. They said it appeared to represent another twist in a Kremlin campaign against media magnate Vladimir Gusinsky, who is president of the Russian Jewish Congress, an umbrella group of 60 Jewish organizations.
Gusinsky heads the independent media conglomerate Media-MOST, which has been openly critical of Putin and was the target of a recent raid by armed, masked men.
Separately, Gusinsky said Thursday that anti-Semitism remains a problem in the country, but not as a state policy, as it was in Soviet times.
"For the purposes of political struggle, certain political forces, which belong to state structures, sometimes use nationalism and anti-Semitism," Gusinsky told reporters. "And the state does not make any attempt to stop it. This happens. I do not see any real state policy in the field of anti-Semitism."
Shayevich was traveling Friday and could not be reached for comment. A copy of the letter he sent Wednesday to Putin was made available to The Washington Post. The Kremlin declined comment.
Pinchas Goldschmidt, chief rabbi of Moscow, said the Kremlin is attempting to install its own set of Jewish leaders by pushing out Shayevich in favor of a different group. He said the Kremlin was attempting to control religion, just as Putin is trying to control the regional governors.
Last year, a new Jewish group, the Federation of Jewish Communities, was founded; it is headed by Rabbi Berl Lazar of the ultra-Orthodox Habad movement, which has been active in Russia. The federation drew declarations of support from government officials at its first meeting in November. Some in the Jewish community see it as an effort to draw support away from the group Gusinsky leads.
The World Jewish Congress, which represents Jewish communities in 80 countries, said in a statement Friday that it would not tolerate efforts "from outside the Jewish community to manipulate or undermine the Jewish communal structure in Russia," Reuters reported from New York.
The statement added that "any hint that Russian governmental authorities were reverting to former Soviet practices of interference in the internal affairs of the Jewish religious community would be unambiguously denounced."
Sandy Berger, the U.S. national security adviser, met Sunday with three rabbis - Lazar, Goldschmidt and Reform Rabbi Ben-Yakovov - and assured them U.S. President Bill Clinton had called for religious tolerance in his summit talks with Putin, The Associated Press reported.
It was not clear whether or not Shayevich was invited to the meeting in Berger's hotel headquarters, which lasted 45 minutes.
Shayevich wrote to Putin on Wednesday that he feared the new group, with Kremlin approval, would try to elect a new chief rabbi of Russia, and that he'd been told by a Kremlin official, whom he didn't name, to step aside.
"Needless to say," he added, "I have no intention" of quitting, and moreover, "I consider as unacceptable the interference by the state into the internal affairs of religious communities."
Soviet authorities attempted to control many religions, including the Russian Orthodox Church, by manipulating and infiltrating the leadership.
Goldschmidt said the Putin government was attempting to muffle independent voices. "The Jewish Community in Russia has become very much like any Jewish community in the world, openly supporting Israel, openly supporting Jewish interests around the world and openly criticizing the government when they do something wrong," he said. "The new government doesn't like that."
For example, he said, Shayevich has protested arms deals with Iran. Shayevich is also president of the Jewish Agency of Russia, which oversees emigration to Israel. He has, however, a reputation as a low-key leader.
"This latest event creates much doubt within the Jewish community as to the commitment of the new government to the freedom of belief in today's Russia," Goldschmidt said.
PUBLIC STATEMENT OF CHIEF RABBI LAZAR
MOSCOW, June 5 /PRNewswire/ The following statement was issued today in Moscow, Russia, by the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia.
"The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia is working to revitalize Jewish religion and culture in Russia. The Federation delivers community and social services, re-opens synagogues and Hebrew schools, and supports community centers.
"The mission of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia involves active cooperation with all Russian Jewish leaders and organizations, with leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and other faiths, and with federal and local government leaders. We are grateful to President Putin, [to] Mayor Luzhkov and to governors and mayors nationwide for their ongoing support of our goal to create a vibrant Jewish culture and society.
"In a recent letter to President Putin, Rabbi Adolf Shayevich charged the Russian government with interfering in the internal affairs of the Jewish community. This subject is certainly a matter of serious concern which we are confident will be addressed responsibly and directly by the Russian Government with the Jewish Community of Russia. The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia joins other Jewish organizations in Russia and worldwide in support of the rights of the Russian Jewish community to handle its own internal affairs. We are ready to contribute and to participate in a dialogue with the Russian government to address this critical issue.
"Rabbi Shayevich's letter has resulted in considerable media coverage here in Russia and abroad. Rabbi Shayevich's letter says that the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, and myself, are favored over Rabbi Shayevich by the Russian government. I will not speculate on why Rabbi Shayevich has made these claims.
"However, I state categorically that the Federation of Jewish Communities in Russia is neither financially nor politically obligated to any person, organization or interest in Russia or abroad. In November 1999, I was elected Chief Rabbi of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia by its members, which represent 84 cities throughout Russia and a majority of the Russian Jewish Diaspora. Moreover, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia has no plans to organize an election for Chief Rabbi of Russia.
"The new reality in Russia has opened doors to an unprecedented religious revival. We believe it is vital for the Jewish community to continue strengthening its ongoing dialogue with all elements of Russian society as we work to build a positive future for Judaism in Russia. In light of the issues raised by Rabbi Shayevich and widely reported in the news media, the importance of dialogue on freedom of religion issues between the Jewish community in Russia and the Russian government has never been greater."
SOURCE Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia
PRESIDENTIAL AIDE URGES TOLERANCE
Associated Press, 4 June 2000
Sandy Berger, the U.S. national security adviser, assured rabbis Sunday that President Clinton appealed for religious tolerance during summit talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Berger also told a group of three rabbis that a vibrant Jewish community is an important aspect of democracy taking hold in Russia.
The 45-minute meeting in Berger's hotel headquarters was held with Pinchas Goldschmidt, the chief rabbi of Moscow; Berl Lazar, a Lubavicher rabbi; and Reform Rabbi Chaim Ben-Yakovov.
Several synaoguges have been attacked and a Jewish leader was stabbed last month in a rash of anti-semitism.
(posted 8 June 2000)
Rival Jewish Groups Trade Barbs
RIVAL JEWISH GROUPS TRADE BARBS
by Nick Wadhams
Associated Press, 11 June, 2000
An angry dispute has broken out between two rival Jewish groups, with one alleging that the Kremlin is meddling in the community's politics - a rollback to the Soviet era, when the Communist leadership kept religious groups on a short leash.
The rift between followers of Russia's chief rabbi, Adolf Shayevich, and a group led by the ultra-Orthodox Chabad Lubavich movement became public last month after Shayevich wrote President Vladimir Putin a letter about it.
In the letter, Shayevich claimed the Kremlin had snubbed him by initially not inviting him to Putin's inauguration or the anniversary celebration of the end of World War II. He said representatives of the Lubavich movement - a group he said represents less than 5 percent of Russian Jews - had been invited from the start.
Shayevich was referring to the Federation of Jewish Communities, a group formed in November under the leadership of the Lubavich movement. The Lubavichers, led in Russia by Rabbi Berl Lazar, have actively sought to bring the nation's traditionally unobservant Jews into the religious fold by founding synagogues, schools and community centers and distributing food and religious articles.
The 62-year-old Shayevich also wrote that "official sources'' had told him that the Federation of Jewish Communities was trying to replace him with its own rabbi and push him to resign - and that the federation's plan had the Kremlin's blessing.
Both Kremlin officials and leaders of the federation have denied Shayevich's claim.
"We don't have such plans,'' Lazar said this week. "Where he got that information, I don't know.''
But Shayevich's accusations have raised fears that Putin's administration was choosing favorites in the religious community, a return to the Soviet era, when unofficial anti-Semitism was rampant.
Federation and Kremlin leaders also suggest that the Jewish community is caught in the middle of a political conflict between Russian Jewish tycoon Vladimir Gusinsky, head of the Russian Jewish Congress - the secular partner of Shayevich's Congress of Jewish Religious Communities and Organizations - and the Kremlin.
Gusinsky's holding company, Media-MOST, was raided by government tax police last month. He called the raid an attempt to threaten his various media holdings, which have been critical of Putin.
Shayevich supporters say that the campaign against Gusinsky had extended to the Jewish organization he heads.
"There are circles around the president putting pressure on the Jewish community in Russia,'' said Pavel Feldblum, executive vice president of the Moscow Jewish Community.
Shayevich has been chief rabbi of Russia since the early 1980s, during the Soviet era, when one unified organization represented Russian Jewry. Now the Jewish community has fractured into several branches, and Lazar's movement has emerged as a strong rival for members, funding and influence.
Lazar said he saw no evidence that the government was trying to gain greater control over the country's Jewish community. But he and other Federation leaders said they enjoyed very good relations with the government.
Lazar praised Putin's government, saying that anti-Semitism in Russia was on the decline. In recent years, synagogues have been bombed, Jewish cemeteries vandalized and a Jewish leader stabbed, but he said Jews today felt much freer in Russia.
Shayevich, who was traveling abroad, could not be reached for comment.
Mikhail Gluz, the president of the Federation, said Shayevich's letter could lead to a split in the Jewish community in Russia. He called for a meeting of top rabbis to settle the issue.
"We have to gather all rabbis and talk and look at each other and ask who is who, who's doing what, and ask if there is meddling by the government and if there is, that's unacceptable,'' Gluz said.
(posted 12 June 2000)
The increasing visibility of the Roman Catholic church in Russia is posing a challenge to the traditionally Orthodox country amid signs of an improving relationship between Moscow and the Vatican.
A May 28 parade through Russia's capital city by hundreds of Catholics with banners and crucifixes -- part of the church's millenarian celebration -- elicited mixed reviews from Muscovites. "For some it was a direct challenge to the Orthodox, since prior to that only Russian Orthodox were allowed religious processions in Moscow," said Alexander Soldatov, religion correspondent for the daily English-language Moscow News. "For others it's a sign of improving Russia's religious liberties policy."
A new Russian law on religion has raised tensions because it appears to favor the Orthodox Church over other Christian confessions. The Vatican, the United States, and human rights groups have branded the law discriminatory. The Orthodox Church, however, undergoing a revival after decades of persecution, resents what it sees as efforts to poach members from congregations in Russia and other ex-Soviet republics. Ukraine has been an especially sore spot, with its more than 5 million eastern-rite Catholics.
Proselytizing, perhaps more than any other issue, has stood in the way of a papal visit to Russia. During his 21-year pontificate, John Paul II has made 92 journeys outside Italy to 123 countries, but never to Russia. Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II has said there is no point in his meeting the pope until issues such as proselytizing have been resolved. A planned meeting in Austria in 1997 collapsed after the Orthodox leader backed out. Since then, John Paul has traveled to two traditionally Orthodox countries, Romania and Georgia. They were the first papal visits to Orthodox nations since the "Great Schism" into Eastern and Western Christianity in 1054.
Yet recently Alexy has toned down considerably his anti-Catholic rhetoric and made significant overtures to the Vatican. On May 18 he sent a message to John Paul congratulating the pope on his 80th birthday, and calling for better ties between their rival churches in the third Christian millennium. "Your long service as head of the Roman Catholic Church has brought you well-deserved recognition among the Christians of many countries," Alexy wrote to the pope. "I express the hope that the problems existing between our churches can be successfully overcome through joint efforts and that the new millennium will become a time for healing the rifts and divisions between the churches of the East and the West."
Russian political analysts suggest that Alexy's change of heart toward the pope was ordered from the Kremlin. Newly-elected President Vladimir Putin has a pragmatic attitude towards religion and sees the pope as a remedy for healing Russia's deteriorating relations with the West, the analysts say. Since the reforms of Tsar Peter the Great in the 17th century, the Russian Orthodox Church largely has been dependent on the central government and traditionally has placed its blessing any of the governing ruler's initiatives.
Putin also sent his congratulations to the Polish-born pontiff. Yakov Krotov, a renowned Russian church historian, commented to Newsroom that it is "symbolic and ironic that Putin, a former KGB spy, congratulates the Pope, whose moral stance contributed to the fall of Moscow’s atheistic Soviet empire a decade ago."
Putin was baptized as a baby into the Orthodox Church, wears a crucifix given to him by his mother, and dutifully attends important church celebrations like Easter. On Monday Putin will travel to Rome where a meeting with the pope is expected on Tuesday. Sources close to the Moscow Patriarchy report that Putin will bring the pope an invitation from Patriarch Alexy.
PUTIN POSSIBLY TO INVITE POPE TO VISIT RUSSIA
WASHINGTON, June 5 (Itar-Tass) - The Washington Post newspaper, which published an interview with Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, reported on Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is due to arrive in Italy on Monday, will visit the Vatican and will possibly extend an invitation to Pope John Paul II to visit Russia.
Putin is to be received in audience by the Pontiff in the library of the Papal Palace on Monday. It is noteworthy that Patriarch Alexiy II of Moscow and All Russia, who was in Petrozavodsk on Sunday, stated that he did not rule out his meeting with the Head of the Roman Catholic Church in the foreseeable future.
RUSSIAN PATRIARCH ALEXIS II CONSIDERS MEETING POPE
MOSCOW, June 4 (AFP) - The head of Russia's Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexis II, did not rule out Sunday a meeting with Pope John Paul II, during a press conference reported by the Interfax news agency.
"Such a meeting should not take place just before the television cameras, it must be prepared and give concrete results," he said.
He implied that if a meeting did take place a declaration would be signed to "raise the questions which impede the development of relations" between Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholicism.
The patriarch's statement marks a significant shift in the position of Russia's Orthodox Church. It came on the eve of a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Pope John Paul in Rome.
MEETING WITH POPE POSSIBLE IN "FORESEEABLE FUTURE"
MOSCOW, June 5 (Itar-Tass) - Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia did not rule out a meeting with Pope John Paul II "in the foreseeable future".
He believes it should "bring a concrete positive result and improve relations between the Churches rather than be just a meeting before cameras".
Alexy II told Itar-Tass on Monday that proselytising -- that is conversion of people living in traditional Orthodox areas, including in Western Ukraine into another faith -- is the main obstacles to the development of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican.
The patriarch expressed the hope that the Vatican will respect the canonical rights of the Moscow Patriarchate which has been operating in these areas for hundreds of years.
"This problem is first of all the question of principles of Christian morale and ethics of mutual respect", he said.
In 1997, the leaders of the two Churches were expected to sign a declaration
condemning the practice of prozelitising. However, the meeting was
cancelled after the Vatican had refused to include this provision into
the document.
(posted 5 June 2000)
About the book interview with Vladimir Putin
by Anton Stevnitsky
Sobornost, 28 May 2000
"From the First Person. Conversations with Vladimir Putin" (M.: Vagrius, 2000)
The book interview with V.V. Putin was published recently before the elections. Actually it turned out to be the only published program of the second president of Russia, his only message to the voters. Today, when its hero has become the actual head of state, it is useful to dip into this book and try to understand its message for us.
In the person of Vladimir Putin a new political generation has come to power--the apprentices of the instigators of perestroika. One wants to hope that they have learned something from their mistakes. The different political mentality of these people suggests a new political practice.
Which of their ideas and approaches can the church leadership adopt? One of the programmatic theses of Vladimir Putin, which can be found in the book From the First Person is the thesis about the need to improve the effectiveness of state authority. For the church it also is a vital necessity specifically to raise the effectiveness of its central administration. The paralysis of the patriarchal headquarters and the synodal structure, which is one of the most dangerous consequences of the soviet captivity, is becoming more and more obvious. The consequences of this paralysis is the absence of a well conceived strategy for the development of the church and chaos in personnel policy and ideology.
This leads to the situation where separate priests, especially in the provinces, have felt support for themselves from the regional government and local business and they have set themselves in opposition to the bishop organizationally ("you don't tell us what to do") and ideologically ("all heresies come from the bishops"). Such "separatism" is much more dangerous for the church than the highhandedness of governors is for the state, since it cripples not only the canonical structure but also church consciousness. Its consequences in pastoral and liturgical practice result in those tendencies which in December 1998 the most holy patriarch called "young elderism." It is possible to struggle against such church disorders by one means only: strengthening the authority of the bishop and improving the effectiveness of his authority. The princes of the church, like governors, will lift up their heads only when they feel that the bishop is weak. So that a strong bishop is the condition for genuine spiritual community [sobornost].
Here is what the church can adopt from the new leadership of the country. But can it help the leadership in state construction? It turns out that it can. We read in the following words of Vladimir Putin: "I like Erhard. He is a very pragmatic person. He built a new postwar Germany. Incidentally, for him this new conception of the restoration of the country began with a definition of the new moral values of society. For Germany this was especially important after the collapse of nazi ideology." And twenty pages earlier the hero of the book declares that "moral values" are what the country needs most of all.
It is rather paradoxical that pragmatism, which without doubt is a positive category for the new president, forces him to consider seriously what seems to be such illusory things as moral values. But this paradox is entirely in the spirit of Christian antinomian thinking. And thus values, of which the Russian church was and remains the bearer despite everyting, today can be called for by the Russian political establishment. The first steps in this direction have already been taken: active planning for the creation of the All-civilian Christian Union" is already underway. In this situation, if the church wants to remain a full partner in relations with the government, maximum efforts are required of it so that the values of Orthodoxy are understood and embraced by our fellow citizens. And here it cannot do without the experience of Christian life in the conditions of the modernized state and secularization which was worked out by three generations of confessors and new martyrs. Only on the basis of that can the new evangelization of the country be effective.
What the church cannot adopt from the present ruling elite is the cynicism that is so characteristic of it (politicians call it pragmatism). Praise God, it is not present in the reflections of the new leader in a fatal dose. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 2 June 2000)
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/.