Copyrighted material. For private use only.
Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople began his visit with a liturgy at the church of the Transfiguration which is the chief church of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church that is subordinate to the Constantinopolitan throne. Bartholomew will return again to this church on Sunday, 29 October, in order to serve matins there.
Between these two scheduled services several meetings planned for the time of the visit will be held: with the minister of internal affairs, Tarmo Loodus, the head of the government, Mart Laar, the speaker of parliament, Toomas Savi, and a group of Christian deputies. These meetings will be held today and Friday. The day will be climaxed by a meeting with President Lennart Meri who will award to the primate from Constantinople the medal of the "Cross of Miriam." As is known, this is the highest government award of Estonia which is conferred on foreigners.
The visit to Estonia, which is rather long, by the patriarch of Constantinople is comparable in significance to the visit of Tallin by the pope, who during his trip about the Baltic countries spent several hours here and conducted an ecumenical worship service on Ratushnaia square.
Before Patriarch Bartholomew's visit there was a glimmer of hope that his arrival here could provide an impetus for reconciling the two actually existing Orthodox churches and the state, which stands on the side of one of them. But when the official schedule of the visit was announced it turned out that it makes no mention of any meeting with representatives of the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate. Bartholomew's itinerary around the country is constructed so that he can spend time in places where parishes of his church have been organized, Tartu, Vyru, Viarska, and Pyltsamaa. As we see, the geography is extremely modest. The majority of Christians in Estonia continue to remain adherents of the church that is headed by Archbishop Kornily of Tallin and all-Estonia.
It has become known that neither he nor the Moscow patriarchate was officially informed of Patriarch Bartholomew's visit. This served as the basis for a statement issued by the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate. It states, in particular, that because the patriarch of Constantinople did not inform the Moscow patriarchate of his intention to visit the canonical territory of the Moscow patriarchate, of which Estonia is a part, the press service of Archbishop Kornily of Tallin and all-Estonia is authorized to state: "Neither the primate of our Estonian Orthodox church, nor the clergy, nor the people of our local church will participate in events of Patriarch Bartholomew's visit and they will not have fellowship with him during this visit." Thus, if there are any contacts they will be exclusively by proxy--through the Christian deputies with whom, as is known, the guest from Constantinople will meet. (tr. by PDS, posted 30 October 2000)
PATRIARCH'S VISIT
by Maksim Vladimirov
Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople began his visit with a liturgy at the church of the Transfiguration which is the chief church of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church that is subordinate to the Constantinopolitan throne. Bartholomew will return again to this church on Sunday, 29 October, in order to serve matins there.
Between these two scheduled services several meetings planned for the time of the visit will be held: with the minister of internal affairs, Tarmo Loodus, the head of the government, Mart Laar, the speaker of parliament, Toomas Savi, and a group of Christian deputies. These meetings will be held today and Friday. The day will be climaxed by a meeting with President Lennart Meri who will award to the primate from Constantinople the medal of the "Cross of Miriam." As is known, this is the highest government award of Estonia which is conferred on foreigners.
The visit to Estonia, which is rather long, by the patriarch of Constantinople is comparable in significance to the visit of Tallin by the pope, who during his trip about the Baltic countries spent several hours here and conducted an ecumenical worship service on Ratushnaia square.
Before Patriarch Bartholomew's visit there was a glimmer of hope that his arrival here could provide an impulse for reconciling the two actually existing Orthodox churches and the state, which stands on the side of one of them. But when the official schedule of the visit was announced it turned out that it makes no mention of any meeting with representatives of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow patriarchate. Bartholomew's itinerary around the country is constructed so that he can spend time in places where parishes of his church have been organized, Tartu, Vyru, Viarska, and Pyltsamaa. As we see, the geography is extremely modest. The majority of Christians in Estonia continue to remain adherents of the church that is headed by Archbishop Kornily of Tallin and all-Estonia.
It has become known that neither he nor the Moscow patriarchate was officially informed of Patriarch Bartholomew's visit. This served as the basis for a statement issued by the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow patriarchate. It states, in particular, that because the patriarch of Constantinople did not inform the Moscow patriarchate of his intention to visit the canonical territory of the Moscow patriarchate, which Estonia is, the press service of Archbishop Kornily of Tallin and all-Estonia is authorized to state: "Neither the primate of our Estonian Orthodox church, nor the clergy, nor the people of our local church will participate in events of Patriarch Bartholomew's visit and they will not have fellowship with him during this visit." Thus, if there are any contacts they will be exclusively by proxy--through the Christian deputies with whom, as is known, the guest from Constantinople will meet. (tr. by PDS, posted 30 October 2000)
NOT PEACE BUT A SWORD
by Ilia Nikiforov
Estonia, 28 October
2000
Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople did not bring peace but a sword to Estonia. President Lennart Meri decorated Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople with the "Cross of Miriam," first class, in the name of Estonia. This award is presented, inter alia, to foreigners for special services to Estonia. We do not know of any past services on the part of the ecumenical patriarch to the people of our republic. Future services have not yet revealed themselves. During the course of Patriarch Bartholomew's visit he met with the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tarmo Loodus, Prime Minister Mart Laar, and parliment speaker Toomas Savi, and President Lennart Meri himself. Thus the government of the country made the patriarch of Constantinople's visit to Estonia equal in significance to the visit of the pope.
Just as soon as the feet of His Holiness the ecumenical patriarch touched the land of Estonia, Orthodox believers froze in expectation: what will Bartholomew I bring them--reconciliation and harmony or conflict and discord? Estonian Orthodoxy has been divided--not without the help of secular authorities--into two irreconcilable camps. One is small but officially recognized and registered as the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (EAPTs), which is subordinate to the patriarchate of Constantinople. The other part of Orthodox believers is the large but officially unrecognized Estonian Orthodox church (Moscow patriarchate) headed by Archbishop Kornily of Tallin and all-Estonia. In 1996 representatives of the Moscow and Constantinople patriarchates agreed that believers should not suffer loss and parishes could freely decide whom to affiliate with. The situation that developed in Estonia in the Orthodox church was supposed to be resolved sooner or later with peace and the secular authorities were supposed to recognize the free choice of believers.
Upon his arrival in Estonia Patriarch Bartholomew I decided to dot all the i's. In an interview with Postimees he stated directly that the Russian church interprets the "Zurich Agreements" to say that they permit the existence in Estonia of two parallel Orthodox jurisdictions. But this contradicts Orthodox canon law, just as it is impermissible under the legislation of Estonia. Thus the interpretation by RPTs of the "Zurich Agreements" is incorrect. On the territory there should be only a united church jurisdiction, but some church buildings, monasteries, and parishes can belong to another local church in the form of a so-called exarchate annex. This is the canonically permissible practice, the patriarch of Constantinople emphasized. All of this means, Patriarch Bartholomew insisted, that in Estonia there cannot be two metropolitans or archbishops with identical titles. There can be only one "all-Estonia" bishop or metropolitan, and in addition to this an exarch (head) of parishes belonging to the Russian church.
There is no other way to understand and interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words than that the only possible and legal church in Estonia is EAPTs belonging to the Constantinopolitan patriarchate. Several parishes and monasteries which are spiritually nourished by the Moscow patriarchate are no more than enclaves and parts of foreign church institutions. They are allowed to exist but their rights, as foreigners, are much less. The patriarch of Constantinople does not intend to have anything to do with the Estonian Orthodox church. He stressed this by supporting the registration of Orthodox parishes in Estonia that wish to be under the Moscow patriarchate. Thereby these parishes will belong to the Russian Orthodox church. In Estonia only the Constantinopolitan EAPTs will remain able to operate independently. All general church property will belong to it on the principle of restitution. RPTs will have only those annexes for which the Moscow patriarchate manages to make an agreement or buy.
The reluctance to deal with the Moscow patriarchate in deciding the fate of Orthodoxy in Estonia is demonstrated also by the second canonization by Constantinople of Archbishop Platon who was brutally murdered by reds in 1919 in Tartu. On 14 August the local council of the Russian Orthodox church enrolled Archbishop Platon in the canon of saints. Constantinople also announced Platon's canonization, thereby demonstratively not recognizing the decision of the local council of RPTs. Patriarch Bartholomew and Minister of Internal Affairs Tarmo Loodus expressed regret that the Orthodox parishes within the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarchate had not registered in accordance with the laws of Estonia. Loodus expressed the hope that further development of relations between the Orthodox churches of the Moscow and Constantinople patriarchates will receive an impetus during the course of Patriarch Bartholomew's visit, as happened during the visit to Estonia by two representatives of Constantinople in 1996. "The patriarch's visit to Estonia, conducted upon the invitation of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, is a great honor for the church and for the government," said Minister Loodus. He added that the MVD has done everything to assure that residents of Estonia were guaranteed the constitutional freedom of confessing their own faith in accordance with their own understanding of it.
Archbishop Kornily, who heads the Estonian Orthodox church which is in the canonical ecclesiastical support of the Moscow patriarchate, commented on Patriarch Bartholomew's statement briefly but frankly: "He did not bring peace to Estonia but a sword." The Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate does not intend to recognize the authority of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, because it considers him responsible for the schism of the Orthodox community in Estonia, declared the press secretary of the primate of EPTs, Archpriest Leonty Morozkin, as he cut off. He said that at the beginning of the 1990s the patriarchate of Constantinople responded to a written appeal of the president and prime minister of Estonia for a political union. "This union led to a schism of the Orthodox community of Estonia and a violation of the rights of a majority of Orthodox believers who for centuries have remained faithful to the local church of Estonia within the jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarchate," Fr Leonty stressed. (tr. by PDS, posted 30 October 2000)
UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESAR'S
Mark Ostanin
Estonia, 30
October 2000
An exchange of awards did not bring reconciliation to the Orthodox community of Estonia.
Friday evening high awards were exchanged in Tallin by Estonian President Lennart Meri and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. As reported by the president's press secretary, Lennart Meri bestowed on the patriarch the order of the "Cross of Miriam," after he emphasized that the very name of the order, "Land of Mary," points to the 829 years that Estonia spent under the name of the Mother of God. Patriarch Bartholomew, in his turn, presented to the president of Estonia the order of the "Sacred Cross of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary." The patriarch emphasized that by this award he wished to recognize and perpetuate the president's services to the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church and the people of Estonia. According to President Meri, the decision of Patriarch Bartholomew to canonize the first Orthodox archbishop of Estonia, Platon (for a second time after the enrolment of Platon in the canon of saints by the local council of the Russian Orthodox church--author's note) became the most important step in the contemporary construction of the church in Estonia.
The ceremonial compliments that Lennart Meri and Patriarch Bartholomew exchanged did not meet with support among the majority of Orthodox believers of Estonia. Parliamentary deputy and chairman of the Russian-Baltic Party of Estonia, Sergei Ivanov, distributed over his signature a statement by the administration of the Russian-Baltic Party which publicized for the first time the great work which has been conducted by the Moscow patriarchate trying to create constructive relations with Constantinople. Before the visit by the patriarch of Constantinople to Estonia, according to the statement, both the Constantinople and Moscow patriarchates conducted substantial preparatory work with the active mediation and cooperation of MVD of the Estonian republic. The results of this work was a protocol regarding intentions (Agreement) in which the "Constantinople patriarchate and Moscow patriarchate mutually recognize the parallel existence in the Estonian republic of two Orthodox jurisdictions, that of the Constantinople patriarchate and of the Moscow patriarchate." (Point 1 of the Agreement). In the same Agreement the question of the property of parishes of MPTs-MP also was resolved. It was proposed that "at the time of his visit to the Estonian republic Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople declare the establishment of good brotherly relations between EAPTs and EPTs-MP in connection with the conclusion of an Agreement of the procedure for establishing the property rights of parishes of EPTs-MP to that part of church property which they have owned and used historically." (Point 4. Agreement).
A delegation of the patriarchate of Constantinople discussed the text
of the Agreement with the Moscow patriarchate at the time of its visit
to Moscow on 20-21 October 2000. The text of the Agreement was approved
by the parties and prepared for signing in Tallin. The agreement was supposed
to be signed by authorized representatives of the two patriarchates, Archbishop
Kornily and Metropolitan Stefanos, in the presence of a representative
of MVD of the Estonian republic. However Metropolitan Stefanos refused
to associate with Archbishop Kornily on any matters whatsoever. Taking
into account Patriarch Bartholomew's statement to the "Postimees" newspaper
about unconditional singular authority in the church hierarchy, it is impossible
to imagine that Metropolitan Stefanos broke up the signing of the Agreement
on his own without agreement with his patriarch. Thus the expectation that
Patriarch Bartholomew's visit to Estonia would bring reconciliation among
all Orthodox of Estonia and a rapid normalization of the religious activity
of Orthodox parishes on a legal basis was not justified. More than 100,000
Orthodox believers in Estonia who have maintained their faithfulness to
mother-church were profoundly insulted, intentionally or not, by
the high-ranking guest from Constantinople when he declared to reporters
that "when soviet Russia seized Estonia, the leadership of the church was
forced to take cover abroad and Orthodox believers were forcibly subjected
to the jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarchate," and that parishes of EPTs-MP
could count only on the status of annexes of the Moscow patriarchate, i.e.
they will be deprived of their own bishop and canonical territory.
Such declarations evoke profound dismay in Orthodox believers, the administration
of the Russian-Baltic Party declared, and do not promote the consolidation
and integration of Estonian society. The primate of the Constantinopolitan
church cannot help but know that faith touches the inward aspects of the
human soul; intrusion into affairs of faith can lead to completely unnecessary
tension and contradiction. Is it permissible to divide Orthodox believers
on ethnic identity? The Russian-Baltic Party of Estonia expressed concern
with the position of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and his statements
addressed to the Orthodox church of Estonia of the Moscow patriarchate,
which do not facilitate overcoming the conflicts between the two
Orthodox churches in Estonia. Instead of this RBPE has expressed the hope
that the agreement worked out by the Constantinople and Moscow patriarchates
will be implemented with the cooperation of the government of Estonia.
Four other Orthodox deputies of parliament did not keep quiet and identified
themselves in essence with the declaration of the administration of the
RBPE. In their declaration prepared for the Baltic News Service deputies
Viktor Andreev, Vladimir Velman, Valentina Vysotskaia, and Evgeny Tomberg
emphasized that their hopes that the patriarch's visit to Estonia would
bring good news about the resolution of the conflict between the two Orthodox
churches in Estonia had not been justified. According to the deputies,
their concern was evoked by the position of Metropolitan Stefanos, who
advanced every new and deliberately unacceptable conditions for the resolution
of the conflict and thereby broke up the already achieved agreement between
the two churches. (tr. by PDS, posted 30 October 2000)
PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW OF CONSTANTINOPLE VISITS ESTONIA
from Communications Service of OVTsS, Moscow
patriarchate
Press-release, November 01, 2000
Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople paid an official visit to Estonia from October 26 to November 1, 2000. He was accompanied by Archbishop John of Karelia and All Finland, hierarchs and clergy of the Finnish Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has notified of his intention to pay an official visit to Estonia, the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, neither Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia, nor Archbishop Kornily of Tallinn and All Estonia, Primate of the Estonian Orthodox Church, which autonomously stays loyal to the Mother Church - the Moscow Patriarchate.
The visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Estonia was timed to the action, which has no canonical precedent, namely, the issue by the Patriarchate of Constanbtinople of the Act on Canonization of Bishop Platon of Revel, an Estonian hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, who has been canonized earlier according to the canonical rules of the Russian Orthodox Church. In August 2000 the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church by its action resolved to glorify Bishop Platon of Revel as a new martyr. The rite of canonization was solemnly performed in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow on 20 August 2000. As is known, Bishop Platon of Revel died as a martyr on 14 January 1919 being a vicar bishop of the Riga diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. He had never been a clergyman of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Before the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Estonia, the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate made efforts in the negotiations with the plenipotentiary representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and of the government of the Estonian Republic in order that the Patriarch's visit will put an end to the four-years-long confrontation between the jurisdictions of the two Churches in Estonia. This could have found its expression in a joint declaration by the heads of the two Orthodox jurisdictions in Estonia on the achievement of complete reconciliation among all Orthodox Christians and on the soonest restoration of equal rights for all Orthodox parishes, including the right to historical church property. Yet, the Constantinople refused to return the obtained legal rights to the historical church property to the parishes of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has possessed this property (18 churches and premises of church administration) for centuries and is actually using it at present.
During his visit to Estonia Patriarch Bartholomew said the following at official meetings and in the mass media:
1) the Russian Church interprets the agreement reached in Zurich in May 1996 between the two Churches pertaining to the ecclesiastical situation in Estonia in a wrong way. It is impossible to interpret this agreement as a 'decision, which allows existence of the two parallel jurisdictions in Estonia';
2) the parishes under jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate in Estonia should subordinate to their Local Church in the form of 'excharchy' (representation) or church representations;
3) there can be only one Metropolitan or Archbishop in Estonia with the title 'of All Estonia', with an 'exarch' (representative) for the parishes subordinate to the Russian Orthodox Church;
4) 'the Moscow Patriarchate has no grounds to seek the right of succession in Estonia';
5) the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is the legal successor in Estonia and provides guidance of Orthodoxy on the whole territory of the country;
6) 'the Moscow Patriarchate should remove Archbishop Kornily from his office '.
As Patriarch Bartholomew and Metropolitan Stephanos, who heads the structure of Constantinople in Estonia, clearly ignored the proposed peacemaking ways, the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which numbers over 100.000 believers, did not take part in canonical contacts with the delegation headed by Patriarch Bartholomew, considering him responsible for the schism of the Orthodox community in Estonia, which aggravated interethnic division in the country. The Orthodox members of the parliament of the Estonian Republic testified that 'the expectations of the believers that the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Estonia will normalize religious activities of the Orthodox parishes on the legal basis have not come true'. The deputies expressed their concern for the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which bring about 'the division of Orthodox Christians along the ethnic lines.' (posted 2 November 2000)
CONSTANTINOPLE PATRIARCH ON A VISIT TO ESTONIA
VM PRESS
October 27- November 01 - The Orthodox spiritual leader Patriarch Bartholomeos of Constantinople on October 27 arrived in Estonia for a 6-day visit.
The Patriarch said in his speech at the Tallinn Airport that disembarking from the plane and touching the soil of the beloved Estonia, we are bound to thank God who gave us the opportunity to reach this distant Nordic country.
President Lennart Meri met on October 28 with Orthodox spiritual leader Patriarch Bartholomeos of Constantinople and conferred Estonia's highest award, the Terra Mariana Cross on the patriarch, pointing out that the name of the order is a reminder of the time 829 years ago, when Estonia was named after Mother of God. As President said, the visits of the patriarch to different parts of the world are always followed closely by the public and the reason for this is his personal devotion to the solution of the problems of the world.
Bartholomeos for his part conferred on President Meri the Holy Cross of the Most Blessed Virgin. As he said, this was "in order to recognise and to record for ever and indelibly" the great services that Meri in his high position has rendered to the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church and to his nation.
Meri said Bartholomeos's visit to Estonia is a token of love and consideration for the Estonian people and culture. He was pleased to state that the bishop the patriarch sent here has by today achieved much in building up the church. As President Meri pointed out, the understanding of the continuity of cultural traditions was also manifest in the canonization of the martyr bishop Platon.
"Our constitution provides that the state is separated from the church, but it has never been said that the church should be separated from the state. The church is part of the state. It grows with the state, and cares for its members likewise," Meri emphasised, adding that when state officials tend to forget about ethics, it is the church leaders who must refresh their memory.
Speaker of the parliament Toomas Savi thanked His Holiness on behalf of the members of the Riigikogu and himself and emphasised how important it is, living in the era of infotechnological development and great changes, to preserve human kindness. T.Savi said that though Estonia is predominantly lutheran, the orthodox church has always had great importance to the Estonian culture and spiritual environment. He thanked the ecumenical Patriarch for his endeavour in re-organizing the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church. Patriarch Bartholomeos said in his address that he is pleased to see how Estonia is proceeding in the direction of political, ideological and religious freedom.
Patriarch Bartholomeos of Constantinople declared in a meeting with Minister of Internal Affairs Tarmo Loodus his full support for the registration of Estonia's pro-Moscow Orthodox Church. The patriarch and Loodus expressed regret that the church under canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate has thus far not been registered here in conformity with Estonian laws. The Minister of Internal Affairs voiced the hope that future development of relations between the pro-Constantinople and the pro-Moscow churches will receive a positive impulse from the patriarch's visit, just as meetings between representatives of the two patriarchates since 1996 to resolve the situation here have been of great significance for the two Orthodox factions.
The patriarch also visits the University of Tartu and several towns
in southern Estonia. The patriarch will leave on November 1. (posted 2
November 2000)
APPEAL OF A GROUP OF ORTHODOX MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT OF ESTONIA TO
PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Your Holiness!
We, a group of Orthodox members of the parliament of Estonia, consider it our duty to bring to your attention the extreme concern which has been evoked in us and our constituents by the drawn-out conflict between the two branches of the Orthodox church in Estonia, which does enormous damage to the work of integrating society in our country.
It seems to us that the position of Metropolitan Stefanos, who has advanced ever new and deliberately unacceptable conditions for the resolution of the conflict, contradicts the basic teachings of Christianity regarding striving for peace and harmony. This will disrupt the agreements achieved in Geneva and Tallin between EAPTs [Estonian Autonomous Orthodox Church], which is under the canonical jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and EPTs [Estonian Orthodox Church], which is under the canonical jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Moscow.
As is known, on the eve of your visit to Estonia representatives of both sides worked out a compromise agreement on the basis of which the parallel existence in the Estonian republic of two Orthodox jurisdictions was recognized. And the problems of the registration of EPTs and property disputes were resolved in accordance with the legislation of the Estonian republic, whereby EPTs parishes were guaranteed the performance of worship services in churches that these parishes had owned historically and had used over the course of centuries.
We had hoped that your visit to Estonia would bring the good news about the resolution of the conflict and the triumph of peace among Orthodox believers. Unfortunately our expectations and the hopes of our constituents were not justified. Thus we have decided to remind you and the hierarchs of your patriachate, upon whom the resolution of the problem depends, in an open letter that future exacerbation of tension in the interchurch conflict can cause irreparable harm to the interests of Estonia and its people and have an effect upon the fate of our country and its integration into European structures.
Respectfully,
Viktor Andreev
Vladimir Velman
Valentina Vysotskaia
Evgeny Tomberg
Tallin, 27 October 2000
received from Communications Service of OVTsS of Moscow patriarchate
(tr. by PDS, posted 27 October 2000)
On 27 October, at the patriarchal residence of Saint Daniel's monastery, an agreement was signed regarding the basic direction of cooperation between the Russian Orthodox church and the ministry of the Russian federation on taxes and duties. The agreement was signed by His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus and Minister of Taxes and Duties Gennady Ivanonich Bukaev.
Addressing reporters before the signing of the agreement, the primate of the Russian Orthodox church said: "We have established good mutual relations with the Ministry of Taxes and Duties. And today, in signing the agreement on cooperation, we thank the ministry which is prepared to plan and conduct seminars for our church workers and bookkeepers, who need clear information coming from a primary source regarding deduction of taxes and payments which the church and all citizens of the Russian federation make. On our part, we are prepared to help the Ministry of Taxes and Duties on spiritual and moral questions."
According to the primate of the Russian Orthodox church, in the mass media there have been many diverse interpretations relative to holding taxpayers to account, in connection with which His Holiness the patriarch expressed thanks personally to Bukaev and the Ministry of Taxes and Duties for their having accommodated believers on this matter. Now there will be no need to write a statement; all taxpayers will fill out an application. "In the application forms and the social card there will not be any bar codes about which so much has been said," Patriarch Alexis II stressed.
In his turn, Bukaev expressed the hope that "Russian believers will set a good example of honest taxpayers," and he promised "to give all necessary technical help" on the part of the ministry.
His Holiness the patriarch also gave greetings to Bukaev and all employees of the ministry in connection with the tenth anniversary of the formation of the Russian tax system and wished them blessed success. As a sign of his primatial blessing he presented the Ministry of Taxes and Duties an icon of the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew, who was a publican and tax collector and was called by God to become a disciple and apostle of Christ the Savior. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 October 2000)
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH TO COOPERATE WITH TAX MINISTRY
Agence France Presse, 28 October 2000
The Russian Orthodox Church pledged to pay its taxes Friday in a cooperation agreement signed by Patriarch Alexis II and Tax Minister Gennady Bukayev, news agencies reported.
"The church sets an example by paying its taxes, just like all Russian citizens," said Alexis II after the signing, the Interfax news agency reported.
The patriarch presented Bukayev with an icon of Saint Matthew, the tax collector who became a disciple.
Bukayev said the tax ministry would assist the church, so that its worshippers "do not become confused with tax matters".
According to the agreement, the ministry would offer seminars and personal consultations to deal with questions of tax assessment for religious organizations.
(c) 2000 Agence France Presse
Review of "Economic Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church and its Shady Side," edited and with a preface by Lev Timofeev (Moscow, RGGU publ., 2000)
The small pamphlet published in a press run of 500 copies with a very boring title in an unpretentious format can be read in one sitting. The 190 pages of text that interweave several dozen plots raise questions without solutions and presents monstrous evidence, dry sociological observations, and approximate calculations. What is interesting is not so much the object of the investigation as the diverse phenomena that lie outside the attention of the writers and are unintentionally brought to light.
Formally the pamphlet is a collection of materials under the rubric of "scholarly publication," that was produced under the aegis of the Center for the Study of Illegal Economic Activity of RGGU [Russian State Humanities University] and financed with the support of the MacArthur Foundation.
The secrecy of this matter can virtually be compared with the secret developments of the time of socialism. The writers are honest and do not pretend that the information they have assembled is complete, exhaustive, and precise.
The specificity of the topic, its inherent hostility to the "Orthodox ethic," and the impossibility of citing published information, as well as the approach itself, all determined its unfortunate fragmentariness, incomplete analysis, and elevation of the emotional over the rational. But the first attempt to cast light upon such delicate issues is important at least because it was done outside of the arena of newspaper exposes which too often are simply made-to-order scandalous charges.
Mikhail Edelshtein tried to conduct an approximate survey of the church economy on the sample of the Ivanovo, Kostroma, and Yaroslavl dioceses. The approximation was dictated by the very principle of the study, based on surveys of clergy that guaranteed anonymity, publications in the press, and responses of sellers of church products. Officials of high position as well as official data were unavailable to the analysis because of the extreme confidentiality of the information and the wish to avoid attracting the attention of the taxation agencies. The general church situation in Russia is such that even this pamphlet had to take it into account.
The study was conducted on three levels: parish, monastery, and diocese. The most reliable sources of income were the alleged sponsors, patrons, and covert commercial connections which the church possesses in the regions studied.
Edelshtein draws the following conclusions: income is distributed unequally within the hierarchical structure, where the prosperity of a diocese is connected with the business acumen of the diocesan administration and not with the economic condition of the region, while RPTs enjoys most favored status. Clergy of the older type are inclined to maintain the commercial activity of the new diocesan leaders, who do not assume a correct view on the economic activity of the church and understand its place in society differently.
Nikolai Mitrokhin offers readers an overview of the economic activity of RPTs, based on 100 interviews of bishops and priests and on monitoring of the press over the past eight years. This gives a detailed view of the system of "feeding," "candle economy," sources of income of the Moscow patriarchate, and the activity of the "Sofrino" company and its head, Evgeny Parkhaev.
The sensational "tobacco affair" is again raised quite tendentiously, despite the fact that Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, who has openly discussed the matter in a way unlike any other hierarch of RPTs, has advocated the equality of the church as an agent of economic activity, perhaps alone in the structure of RPTs. All attempts to gather incriminating data on the chairman of OVTsS and to associate his activity with that of shady businessmen have failed and the prominent hierarch, it seems, is virtually alone as one who represents a healthy basis in the economic sphere of RPTs.
Special attention is devoted to bookkeeping and to the position of the priest as the "owner" of the church. The investigator suggests that the future forebodes an intensification of control over church income, regular and irregular, as well as a struggle for the right to control the income.
Separate accounts are given for the enterprises of "Sofrino," the "International Economic Cooperation" holding company, "Nika" and "Holy Spring."
Of special interest is the brief chapter devoted to the biography and activity of Giulnaz Sotnikova and the "Vertex" company she heads (written by Mitrokhin). To date this is the most complete account of the person who has been near the patriarch for several years and occupies a completely distinctive position on the political map of RPTs.
One weakness of the book is that the writers do not examine the activity of such a prominent figure in circles near the patriarch as the chairman of the administration of Mezhprombank, Sergei Pugachev, alongside that of Sotnikova, who last year became the subject of numerous exposes in "Novye izvestiia" and several other media outlets (which were not very convincing as regards economic matters proper). According to numerous sources he is one of the key figures who are supporting the public relations campaign of the Presentation monastery and financing the nationalistic Orthodox television projects (like "Russkii dom") and who are trying to create a political movement that hides under the authority of RPTs and aspires to play a leading role in the life of the Moscow patriarchate.
The writers of the book have followed in the tracks of newspaper articles of recent years (which is natural since independent investigation in the sphere of church finance is not only difficult but even life-threatening). And these articles were mainly slanted against Metropolitan Kirill particularly.
The ones (within and near the structure of the Moscow patriarchate) who organized the informational war against the chairman of OVTsS and tried to consolidate forces within the church that were prepared to struggle under the banner of patriotism and opposition to ecumenism against such an obvious politician (both church and secular) as the metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad remained in the shadows beyond the pages of the newspapers. And thus they are practically absent from Mitrokhin and Edelshtein's book.
Finally, the pamphlet includes eight anonymous accounts from provincial priests, each of which in its own way provides concise and brutal testimony not so much about the economics of the church as about the state of mind, understanding of what is going on, and the helplessness of the situation in which clergy, flock, and people outside the church all now find themselves.
This includes the story about the priest who threatened to "bury alive" a policeman who extorted a fine, as well as laments about demands by diocesan workers "to donate for the bishop's dacha," and laconic discussion about the complexity of relations with the state: "he toasts the chairman with the priest." And the story about the "monks" buried near the church for whose graves annual allotments are made. And secrets of the "candle" machinations for which poor parishioners save their kopecks. One story talks about the priests who moonlight and another about those who contract for rituals.
Economic activity is a serious matter in Russia. It has serious implications within RPTs. This book leads to a harsh conclusion that is of little concern to the writers, inasmuch as their attention was focused elsewhere: no matter what the business and no matter how honest and well accounted for, it never will be a legitimate part of the church world.
This is the way the mentality is structured, not only of church people, but also to an even greater extent of those who are outside of the church, while within the borders of the Russian federation. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 October 2000)
RUSSIAN CHURCH ACCUSED OF ILLEGAL RACKETS
by Giles Whittell
Times, 20 September 2000
THE Russian Orthodox Church is mired in illegal or dubious business schemes ranging from money-laundering to selling candles at extortionate mark-ups, according to a report that was condemned by the Church yesterday as the work of atheists.
The fast-expanding communion had financed its growth through exploitation of parishioners, systematic tax evasion and international trading in oil, diamonds, cigarettes and alcohol, says a Moscow institute set up to study Russia's shadow economy.
The Church, which says its money-making activities are vital to maintain its independence from the state, had entered the bottled mineral water business with what was now one of the country's best-known brand names. It had charged increasing amounts for holy ceremonies and burial plots, and priced offertory candles at up to 40 times their wholesale value, the study said.
A church spokesman yesterday attacked the authors of the report - one of whom, Mikhail Edelstein, is the son of an Orthodox priest - as "the heirs of military atheism" of the Soviet era." There are forces in this country that disapprove of the Church's new independence and its role in society," Viktor Malukhin, of the Moscow Patriarchate, said. "It's a great shame that Soviet prejudices live on in some academic circles."
Mr Malukhin denied that the Church was involved in money-laundering but did not address the report's more detailed claims. These include bribe-taking by senior clerics in return for sought-after jobs; the failure of larger churches to declare profits of up to 150,000 pounds a year from the sale of icons, candles and grave sites; and criminals' use of the Church's tax-free status on sales of gold ornaments.
One myth destroyed by the Moscow study is that of tight control from the top. Geraldine Fagan, of Britain's Keston Institute, which monitors religious freedom in the former Soviet Union, said: "The impression is one of complete and utter chaos."
The Church has never been forced to answer similar past claims or to publish open accounts, even though Russian law requires them. President Putin is unlikely to press for action, not least because he and Patriarch Aleksi II share a KGB past. The Patriarch's codename as a Soviet-era informer was Agent Drozdov. (posted 27 October 2000)
RUSSIA: ORTHODOX CHURCH IN ECONOMIC CHAOS, FINDS MOSCOW STUDY
by Geraldine Fagan,
Keston News Service, 24 October
2000
'Economic chaos reigns supreme' in the Russian Orthodox Church, according to the priest-in-charge of a small church in a regional city of European Russia. His anonymous comments feature in 'The Economic Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church and Its Shady Side', greeted over the past few months as the first serious study into the finances of the Moscow Patriarchate. The study was produced by the Illegal Economic Activity Research Centre attached to the Russian State Humanitarian University in Moscow.
Reviews and western press reports of the study have so far concentrated upon the sections it devotes to the high-profile Church scandals of the 1990s, such as the tax-free import of cigarettes. However, the study contains scant new information on this, drawing together previously published allegations made by the tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets, the Internet and investigative reporter YEVGENI KOMAROV in Novyye Izvestiya.
There are two good reasons for this. Firstly, the Russian Orthodox Church is clearly not following a policy of glasnost (openness) regarding the upper levels of its finances. When co-author of the study NIKOLAI MITROKHIN tried to make enquiries on 10 September 1999 at the Moscow Patriarchate's Commission for Economic and Humanitarian Aid --formed, Patriarch ALEKSI II announced at the February 1997 synod, in order to make the finances of the Church 'transparent' -- he received the following rebuffal: 'We are not interested in the presentation of information about the activities of this commission. The commission is not engaged in the distribution of humanitarian aid, since such aid is not received, and what it does do and what tasks stand before it we cannot tell you, because as a rule we do not give information to journalists.' Secondly, as NIKOLAI KONSTANTINOV points out in a review of the study in religious affairs newspaper supplement NG-Religii on 11 October 2000, it is 'natural' that there should be no new revelations concerning the high-level economic dealings of the Moscow Patriarchate, since 'independent research into the area of economic activity is not only difficult, but life-threatening'.
Overlooked but nevertheless enlightening, however, are the study's findings concerning financial activity at diocesan and parochial levels, which fully support the conclusion of the aforementioned anonymous priest-in-charge. The Church's formal system for collecting funds from below and redistributing them from above does not function. Each link in the chain of patriarchate- diocese-parish/monastery is reluctant to relinquish funding to the one below, which in turn resorts to quite devious methods to avoid sharing any portion of whatever funds it does manage to obtain with the link above.
Thus, writes co-author MIKHAIL EDELSHTEIN, the internal sources for diocesan finances are parish and monastery dues, income from the sale of candles and other church items and the commercial activity of the diocese. Conspicuously absent is any sum received from the patriarchate. Parishes in turn, according to Edelshtein, 'receive material assistance from the diocese comparatively rarely,' relying on parishioners for their income, which does not usually exceed 800 pounds sterling (1150 US dollars) per annum. Since this has to pay for candles, bread and wine for the liturgy, the salary of the priest and everyone employed in the church, as well as any repair work, parishes routinely resort to the 'black box' (chornaya kassa) system of the Soviet period, according to which the majority of their income is not declared. Undeclared donations and fees from undeclared services, says Edelshtein, often account for up to 90 per cent of a parish's income.
The percentage of declared income which a parish passes on to its diocese can be significantly lower than that demanded of it. Thus in Ivanovo region, writes Edelshtein, parishes are meant to pass on 12 per cent of their income to the diocese, but 30 per cent of parishes do not pay anything at all, while even the Transfiguration Cathedral in Ivanovo city -- which has come in for special praise from Archbishop AMVROSI of Ivanovo and Kinyeshma for its dutiful payment -- actually paid only 7.5 per cent of its declared income in 1998.
By the time they appear at the level of the budget of the patriarchate, parish dues thus form a negligible proportion. Mitrokhin cites the extraordinary statistic that the dues of the 7,000 parishes in 76 dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church received by the Moscow Patriarchate made up a mere 2.5 per cent of its income in 1994 -- whereas that of a single hotel in central Moscow (within Danilovsky Monastery) accounted for 22.5 per cent.
At the Synod of Bishops in 1994, the patriarch reminded the bishops of the 'necessity of unconditionally assigning the appropriate dues to the patriarchate for general church needs'. However, like parishes, it seems that dioceses are withholding their dues: according to Edelshtein, Ivanovo diocese is meant to contribute 20 per cent of its income to the patriarchate but, with Kostroma diocese, has not paid anything for several years, while Yaroslavl diocese passes on only ten per cent each year.
In the absence of a functioning system for allocating funds, writes Edelshtein, parishes have to resort to competition and various unorthodox methods in order to acquire it. In Ivanovo diocese, he reports, there have been instances in which priests have forbidden parishioners to go to a service with candles bought outside the bounds of the church, and brawls between representatives of different churches and monasteries fighting to secure the most lucrative spots for collecting donations. According to the anonymous priest-in-charge of one village church, when a consignment of foodstuffs for all the parishes in the diocese was sent by US humanitarian organisations: 'Problems began as soon as it reached the diocese. Metropolitan SERGI [of Solnechnogorsk] came to sort them out: and it turned out that there were whole tons missing.'
Irregular forms of income cited by the study include a large vodka still discovered by police in a church in Ivanovo diocese in February 1999, and the practice by 'leather-clad thugs' of making use of the church's exemption from gold tax by putting a church stamp on illegally imported Turkish gold, for which the church or monastery concerned, according to the anonymous priest- in-charge of a medium-sized church in a regional centre, 'gets a substantial cut'.
Haphazard distribution , according to one lay employee of a diocese, leads on to further corruption, since those best able to exploit opportunities for obtaining funds or relations with the local authorities consolidate their own positions: 'The people on whom this [distribution] depends assign everything in their own favour. There is a sort of "church mafia" and these people work their way upwards specifically so as to have power to allocate financial resources.' Thus, writes Edelshtein, the close friendship between mayor of Ivanovo V. TROYEGLAZOV and Archimandrite NIKON (FOMIN) of Nikolo- Shartomsky Monastery explains why the head of the city's administrative fund allocated the monastery, which is far outside the boundaries of the city, 3,000 roubles ('to make a film') and 12,000 roubles ('for the needs of the monastery') on 11 August and 22 September 1999. Four of the study's eight anonymous church representative interviewees report such practices as having to pay bribes to diocesan offices to avoid being transferred to a poorer parish, to be sent to a rich parish or just in general: 'In some dioceses, if a priest wants to put a particular question to the bishop, his secretary agrees to appoint a time but then asks how much the priest's parish is donating to the construction of the diocesan dacha -- if you donate, your question will be positively resolved.'
In June the Moscow Patriarchate refused to comment on the report's findings to the British paper The Daily Telegraph. In September VIKTOR MALUKHIN of the patriarchate's communications service told another British paper The Times that it was the work of 'the heirs of militant atheism'. In an interview with Keston on 19 October, however, Father VSEVOLOD CHAPLIN was less damning. He described the study as 'frequently exaggerated' but acknowledged that there was no reason to hide the fact that there were numerous problems such as parishes not submitting dues, and explained that there was not enough income at parish, monastery and diocesan level.
In the study, one anonymous lay diocesan employee maintains that 'there are no checks on how money received from the state or private donors is spent.' Father Chaplin, however, argued that the church was concerned to run its economic affairs according to 'Christian moral principles', and closely followed this through at all levels. If this was indeed the case, how did he respond to the point made by several of the anonymous interviewees: 'I am ashamed to say that I, a priest, cannot obtain full information about the economic activity of the Orthodox Church anywhere'? According to Father Chaplin, the finances of the church are a closed area because no one in church circles has a complete picture of them: 'Complete information does not exist, so there is no full picture to give.'
Copyright (c) 2000 Keston Institute. All rights reserved. (posted
27 October 2000)
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom wrote to President Clinton October 26 urging that he raise religious-freedom issues with Russia's President Vladimir Putin at their upcoming meeting. President Clinton is scheduled to meet with the Russian president November 15 or 16 on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Brunei. The Commission is concerned about a December 31, 2000 deadline by which religious groups in Russia must register or be "liquidated." To date nearly half the groups have been unable to register: The Commission asked President Clinton to urge President Putin to intervene to speed up the registration process and postpone the registration deadline. The text of the letter follows:
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing on behalf of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to request that you take up an important religious-freedom issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin at your planned November meeting in Brunei. Given the progress made in the last eight years in many aspect of U.S.-Russian relations, it would be deeply unfortunate if January brought news of a systematic deterioration in religious freedom in Russia.
In the last days of the Soviet Union, the government enacted the most enlightened law on religion in Russia's history. It provided broad legal protections for the right to exercise religious freedom and for the equality of religious communities. The law restored rights, not only to the Russian Orthodox Church, but to Old Believers, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Seventh-day Adventists, Muslims, Buddhists, and a host of other faith groups who had suffered severe repression since at least 1929. But Russia took a serious step backwards with the passage of the 1997 Religion Law. The 1997 law creates discrimination among religions and violates Russia's international commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It restricts the rights, powers, and privileges of smaller, or newer, or foreign religious communities, while giving special status to Russia's "traditional" religions, including Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. It also creates an onerous and intrusive registration process and other instruments the federal or local officials can use to interfere with religious organizations' activities.
Russian Constitutional Court decisions and rulings by the federal authorities have eased the burden for some religious groups. But a greater danger lurks: Immediately upon taking office this spring, President Putin quietly signed a significant and double-edged amendment to the 1997 law. On the positive side, it extended to December 31, 2000, the deadline by which religious groups must register with local and/or federal officials. On the negative side, however, it required that unregistered groups be "liquidated" after that date.
If there were in place a due process which religious groups could use and understand to seek registration, it would help. But quite the reverse is true: Local officials in some regions have delayed or denied registration to, and sought liquidation of, unpopular religious groups, even when they have been recognized and registered in other regions or at the federal level. At times, this occurs at the instigation of the local Russian Orthodox bishop or priest.
The threat of liquidation upon expiration of the December 31 deadline is substantial: At the end of September, according to the Russian Justice Ministry, only some 9,000 of the 17,000 religious groups in Russia had obtained registration. That means almost half have been unable to register. Given the slow pace of the registration process so far, it is hard to believe most of the remaining group will be able to register by December 31. If religious freedom is to be preserved, Mr. Putin must intervene to 1) speed up the process; and 2) postpone the deadline. Mr. President, we understand that you will meet with the Russian president November 15 or 16 on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Brunei. On behalf of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, I ask that you use the occasion to stress to Putin how seriously the U.S. takes the issue of religious freedom and how important it is, both for Russia's future and for U.S.-Russian relations, that he postpone the December 31 deadline.
The Commission thanks you for your attention to religious-freedom issues, and wishes you success at the APEC summit.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams
Chairman
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to give independent recommendations to the executive branch and the Congress. (posted 27 October 2000)
Of all the proposals one might make to a Roman Catholic bishop, a proposal of marriage is probably the least common and most audacious.
But in Russia, that is precisely what local authorities have suggested to two Catholic prelates trying to obtain permission to live and work in the former atheist superpower.
"They explained to me that if a priest marries a Russian girl, there's no problem," Bishop Jerzy Mazur said by telephone from Irkutsk, seat of his diocese, which covers nearly 4,000 square miles of eastern Siberia. "I find there's a lot of misunderstanding about the Catholic Church." That's putting it mildly. Nearly nine years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is still struggling to come to terms with religion, especially imports like Protestantism and Catholicism.
Although Russia's Constitution guarantees freedom of faith, churches and other religious groups still have to register with the authorities. And under Russian law, a religious vocation is not considered a good enough reason to grant a bishop permanent residence or citizenship.
That leaves Polish-born Mazur and a second prelate, Bishop Clemens Pickel, a German citizen, trapped in an eddy of Russian law.
"Russian law says [the bishop] needs to be a permanent resident to be registered as the head of a religious organization, but [local officials] say the only way to become a permanent resident is to marry a Russian," explained Deacon Marcus Nowotny, an aide to Pickel.
He added that many Russians do not understand that while marriage is an option for Orthodox clergy, it isn't for their Catholic counterparts.
In 1997, after reports that dangerous cults were gaining thousands of adherents, the Russian parliament passed a new law on religion. Since most Russians are unfamiliar with non-Orthodox faiths and can't tell Methodists from Moonies, the law was designed to protect them by regulating religious organizations, especially foreign ones. By the end of this year, all religious groups in Russia must register with authorities or find themselves without many legal rights.
Of the Catholic Church's four dioceses, only two have been registered--Moscow and Novosibirsk. Both are headed by bishops born in the territory of the former Soviet Union--Belarus and Kazakhstan, respectively--and they qualify for Russian citizenship.
Mazur and Pickel, because they were born outside the former Soviet Union, don't qualify for citizenship or permanent residence. And so unless parliament or President Vladimir V. Putin intervenes, they may be unable to register their dioceses.
Still, as with so many other laws in Russia, the religion law is loosely written, and local authorities have a lot of room to bend the rules if they choose.
"The Catholic Church would be in real trouble if the law were strictly enforced," said Lawrence Uzzell, director of the Oxford-based Keston Institute, which monitors freedom of religion in the former Soviet Union.
"Thank God it's not." Before the 1917 Russian Revolution, there were more than 300 Catholic parishes in Russia. There are still about 3 million Russians of Roman Catholic ancestry, many of them descendants of Poles, Germans or Lithuanians who lived in the territory of the Russian empire for centuries. During World War II, Stalin exiled thousands of them to remote regions of Russia for fear they would side with the Nazis.
At the time of the Soviet collapse, Russia was left with only two small parishes--Moscow and St. Petersburg--which served mainly diplomats and other foreign residents. Since then, more than 100 local parishes have been reorganized throughout Russia.
That rapid growth has caused the Russian Orthodox Church to complain more than once that Catholics are "proselytizing." "We're not proselytizing; we're just trying to gather the people we already have," said Mazur, whose diocese is the largest in the world in terms of territory. "Many of them were sent here by force. Their grandfathers were Catholics. They have the right to hear the word of God and decide for themselves." In the end, says Uzzell, the real problem is that in the early 1990s, predictions of a massive post-Soviet religious revival in Russia were overblown.
"No one is doing very well [at attracting church members]," he said, noting that only 1% of Moscow residents attended Easter services this year.
"It seems that in Russia, 70 years of Communist repression did manage to extirpate religious consciousness from most people's minds." (posted 23 October 2000)
Note from Felix Corley to Johnson's Russia List, 22 October
2000: "I would like to correct an error made by Maura Reynolds in
her Los Angeles Times article of October 21, 2000 'Religions Could
Use Divine Intervention to Overcome Legal Curbs. . . .' I have in
front of me a 1987 typewritten list of Catholic parishes throughout
the USSR (except Latvia and Lithuania), produced by the Archdiocese
of Riga. It lists 12 parishes then functioning in Russia: Moscow,
Leningrad, Prokhladny, Novosibirsk, Prokopyevsk, Kemerovo, Chelyabinsk,
Orsha, Orenburg, Omsk, Tomsk and Saratov. . . ."
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/.