The Russian Orthodox Church offered prayers this weekend for the victims of the terrorist attacks in the United States, following Orthodox tradition of commemorating the dead on the 40th day.
With the musty smell of incense hanging heavily in the air, believers lit candles Saturday for those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks and Metropolitan Sergy, chancellor of the Russian Orthodox Church, recited a prayer titled "For All Those in the American Land Killed Unexpectedly and Senselessly" at the towering Christ the Savior Cathedral.
A similar service was held Sunday at St. Catherine's Church on Bolshaya Ordynka, the representative body of the Orthodox Church in America, where services are held partly in English. All Orthodox churches in the United States also held memorial services over the weekend.
The Orthodox Church believes that on the 40th day after death the soul of the dead finally leaves the Earth and ascends to heaven or descends to hell, hence is the need for special prayers on this day.
Destroyed in the New York attacks was the small St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at the foot of the World Trade Center - one of the first Greek churches in New York built in part with donations from Tsar Nicholas II.
Metropolitan Sergy in his sermon Saturday conveyed the condolences of Patriarch Alexy II to the relatives of the victims and said he was performing the service on behalf of the patriarch, who was in Moscow. Some 30 Russians are believed to be among the victims.
"Our prayer today was for all those who died," Sergy said. "I think that, in part, due to our prayer their deaths will not be in vain but they will help multiplication of good and the retreat of evil."
The clergy and choir sang in Church Slavonic verses of the Panikhida - the Orthodox requiem service. "With the saints rest thy servants, o Christ our God, where there is neither pain, nor grief, nor sigh, but life everlasting," they sang. About 200 believers, many of them women wearing black shawls over their heads as required in church, attended the memorial service, which took place shortly after the regular Saturday morning worship service.
The Sept. 11 attacks led to an outpouring of sympathy in Russia, and Orthodox memorial services were held for the victims within days of the catastrophes. That was a contrast to the widely held anti-Western sentiments in the Russian Orthodox Church that were only enhanced during the U.S.-led bombing of Yugoslavia in March and April 1999. Many priests and laymen protested the U.S. strikes at the time. (copyright Moscow Times, posted 22 October 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The annual consecrated council of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer church (RPSTs) has completed its work in Moscow, "Blagovest-info" reports. The sessions of the council, which were held in the Dormition church in Rogozhsky cemetery under the chairmanship of the head of RPSTs, Metropolitan Alimpy of Moscow and all-Rus, were attended by six bishops, around 60 priests and deacons, and around 50 laity. The chief of staff of the president of the Russian federation, Alexander Voloshin, sent greetings to the council which were read by the executive secretary of the Council on Relations with Religious Associations of the Russian presidential administration, Alexander Kudriavtsev.
At the center of attention of the council was the problem of human freedom and the identification number (INN) for citizens. Participants reviewed the question of the permissibility of INN from the point of view of church doctrine. A representative of the Moscow metropolia of RPSTs, Archpriest Leonin Gusev, called for a categorical prohibition on parishioners of RPSTs to accept a taxpayer's identification number. As a result of prolonged discussion the consecrated council adopted a determination in which it is recognized that INN "is an important step in the process of universal apostasy (departure from Christian faith) although this number does not have a direct connection to the seal of antichrist. The hierarchy of RPSTs suggests that parishioners of the Old Believer church decide the question of the permissibility of accepting INN independently."
Among the questions discussed at the council were acceptance of new parishioners into the Old Believer church who join RPSTs primarily from new ritualism and the condition of the financial life of the church. On the initiative of the financial and legal services of the RPSTs metropolia, the council supported an appeal to the State Duma of Russia requesting that religious organizations and their manufacturing enterprises not be deprived of a number of tax benefits.
Council participants also reviewed suggestions about the canonization of new saints, in particular new martyrs who suffered in the twentieth century who belonged to Old Belief. It was suggested to conduct the process of canonization of new martyrs gradually and in each specific case to accompany it with careful study of materials. It was suggested that heroes of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries not be forgotten. The council made a decision about the local veneration of Bishop Iosif of Irkutsk, Amur, and the Far East, who died on 1 January 1927 in Harbin, China, and of Bishop Rafail of Kiev and Vinnitsa, who perished in the 1930s. From now on divine services will be conducted on the commemoration days of these saints in the Far Eastern and Kievan dioceses of RPSTs and the memorial days will be noted in the official church calendar. (tr. by PDS, posted 22 October 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Two meetings of representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and leaders of religious organizations of Russia were held at the Slavic Legal Center. The PACE delegation, which is in Russia from 16 to 19 October, comprises Mr. Kevin McNamara (Great Britain), rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Mrs. Edeltraud Gatterer (Austria) rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, and Mr. Pedro Roseta (Portugal), rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science, and Education.
The PACE representatives were interested in questions connected with the implementation of the law on freedom of conscience at the federal and regional levels. According to Mr. McNamara, this law "evokes certain concerns relative to how well it guarantees freedom of conscience and citizens' right of association."
In addition, religious leaders were asked to express their opinions about the need for a federal coordinating body on religious affairs, about the permissibility of teaching religion in the schools, and what role in the development of relations of religious associations and the state is being played by the dominant confession. They were asked whether they had free access to the mass media and whether they were permitted to visit hospitals, prisons, and other institutions.
In the morning the PACE representatives met with the leadership of the Salvation Army and Jehovah's Witnesses religious organizations. These organizations are experiencing the most serious problems in Moscow; the trial of the Jehovah's Witnesses society has been drawn out more than two years now, and a decision on the liquidation of the Salvation Army was recently rendered by the court. With regard to the Salvation Army, the decision recognizing it as a "militaristic organization" remains in effect and that could threaten its congregations in other Russian cities. The Jehovah's Witnesses characterized the campaign being conducted against them as a "trial over faith," noting that in 99 percent of the cases they cannot respond in the press to the slander and accusations against them.
The European parliamentarians expressed increased interest in the Chief Directorate of the Ministry of Justice for the city of Moscow, whose decisions with regard to the Salvation Army and Jehovah's Witnesses bear a clearly discriminatory and illegal character.
The evening meeting included representatives of the Catholic church, Old Believers, True Orthodox church, and churches of Adventists and Evangelical Christians-Baptists, and various associations of Evangelical Christians-Pentecostals. Each of them had the possibility to describe the situation and difficulties that their confessions are experiencing.
Participants in this meeting were unanimous in the opinion that their problems come not only from the imperfect law on freedom of conscience but the centuries-old Russian system and mentality that does not accept the idea of freedom of conscience. Religious leaders cited numerous examples of intolerance with regard to members of their confessions. Participants noted that representatives of state authority often are guided not by the law but by the wishes of the Russian Orthodox church.
This is the reason, in the opinion of many participants that was expressed by the Catholic priest Igor Kovalevsky, a governmental body on religious affairs could be useful only in the case that it would be completely secular, without the participation of representatives of religious organizations. Only then, in his words, would it be possible to guarantee impartiality and equal relations of the state with all religions. The majority spoke against teaching religion in the schools, which would contradict the principle of secular education. Also raised was the acute problem of the physical suppression and expulsion of Old Believers who lived in Chechnia by Chechen authorities. (tr. by PDS, posted 19 October 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Archpriest Adam Kuchmii has become the spiritual director of the separate cossack district of the St. Andrew the First-called Zaporozhe Host. He received the blessing for his work among cossacks from Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan of Kiev, Blagovest-info reports.
Adam Kuchmii recalled that over the centuries the state has oppressed the canonical Orthodox church. While describing the situation of the complex relations of the state and religion, Fr Kuchmii recalled words of Joseph Stalin. According to his information, before his death Staling stated that "only the Orthodox faith will be able to save Rus from destruction." Speaking of the role of the Orthodox church in the work of consolidating society, Fr Kuchmii expressed the opinion that many Ukrainian politicians are using the church for their own interests.
The hetman of this cossack district, Standard Bearer General Oleg Kalashnikov introduced the spiritual director at a press conference. Oleg Kalashnikov is sure that "the president of Ukraine should be hetman of Ukrainian cossacks. "We see the necessary strengthening of the spirituality of the nation in the development of canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine, because from historic times it was Ukrainian cossackdom that was the bearer of the faith," Kalashnikov emphasized. (tr. by PDS, posted 19 October 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, apostolic administrator in European Russia, told the magazine Inside the Vatican that he is certain John Paul II will travel to Russia next year.
The archbishop, whose see is in Moscow, said: "Even the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Alexy II, does not exclude a meeting with the Pope, though the patriarch sets some conditions which must be met beforehand."
A trip to Russia seems more likely, following John Paul II's pastoral visits to Ukraine last June and to Kazakhstan and Armenia last month, according to the English-language magazine.
Russian polls reveal that nearly 60% of all Russians favor a papal visit, up 10% since before the Pope's trip to Kazakhstan.
Archbishop Kondrusiewicz added: "I believe Alexy II's opposition to the visit is softening more and more. One year ago, we did not believe the Pope could even go to Ukraine or Kazakhstan. What has just happened is already a sort of miracle in our times." (posted 19 October 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will review Wednesday a deputy's request from the leader of the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Dmitry Rogozin, regarding the status of Orthodox believers in Estonia that was sent to the Committee of Ministers during the course of the last session of PAC E. This was reported to RIA Novosti on Tuesday at the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate.
The department noted that Dmitry Rogozin intends to call attention to the fact that the "new law 'On churches and parishes,' that was recently approved by the Estonian parliament, contains articles which contradict generally accepted standards in the area of freedom of religious confession that are established in international agreements and PACE resolutions."
In his inquiry Dmitry Rogozin asks the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to respond to the question regarding which measures this committee intends to take in order to require of Estonia a correction in the matter of registration of the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate so as to guarantee the rights of believers. Rogozin insists on the inclusion of amendments in the Estonian law "On churches and parishes" so that it not have a discriminatory character with regard to various churches.
The head of the Russian delegation considers the adoption of specific measures for guaranteeing the religious rights of all national minorities living in Estonia to be necessary.
As RIA Novosti has learned, on Wednesday at the session of the Committee of Ministers the first exchange of opinions on this question will be held. Then the secretariat of the organization will be instructed to prepare the text of an official response of the Committee of Ministers of the parliamentary assembly. After appropriate discussion the text will be confirmed at some subsequent scheduled session of the committee. The response that is drawn up will be the official position of the chief executive body of the Council of Europe on the inquiry of the Russian parliamentary delegation. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 October 2001)
Russia
Religion News Current News Items
Religious life does not take a vacation, even when active politics is off. Sometimes such a hiatus is used for making serious decisions. That's the way it was in the process of discussion and adoption of the notorious law "On freedom of conscience." A similar process has evolved around the adoption of the doctrine of state-church relations.
Until quite recently the adoption of such a doctrine seemed to me unnecessary or at least debatable. Today I consider it an important and necessary step in the development of democracy. This was brought about by the situation that the discussion in society has not died away and the opinions of the interested parties often are polar opposites. The very development of state-church relations evokes serious concern. In the absence of clear guidelines in this area, the administration at all levels is being guided by what is seen on television screens and newspaper pages.
As a church, Evangelical Christians-Baptists base their lives on the principles of the gospel. Thus we are evangelicals. We proceed from the words of our Savior Jesus Christ "render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." This division does not diminish Caesar, but there is a clear understanding of what is human and divine, earthly and heavenly, temporal and eternal. Such an understanding is necessary for the church in its attempts to influence the political and administrative life of the state. Without question, such an understanding also is necessary for the state.
We Evangelical Christians-Baptists have to formulate our attitude toward the state and its policies and the processes underway in the state. As citizens and religious leaders we have the right and responsibility to assess the position of the state with regard to religious organizations in the country, the more so in that today there is something to assess.
Two drafts of the doctrine of the bases of confessional policy have already been published. These are suggestions for the president and his administration. The president needs such proposals and apparently he will accept some of them. The first draft was produced by the department of religious studies of the Russian Academy of State Service of the presidential administration of the Russian federation.
The second was developed jointly by the Institute of State-Confessional Relations and Law and the Chief Directorate of Justice for the city of Moscow. Both drafts have been developed on one and the same subject, proceeding from the same legislative base and constitution, but they propose mutually exclusive paths to the development of relations between religious organizations and the state. This situation makes it even more necessary to be involved in the discussion.
The work of the Academy of State Service evokes respect for the profound development of the material and the broad reach of the subject. The goals of the doctrine are very well formulated. Deciphering the basic terms and concepts helps to evaluate correctly the various provisions of the doctrine. I note in passing that such deciphering is lacking in the legislative process and administrative implementation in relations between the state and religious organizations.
The historical experience of confessional policies of the Russian state is described impartially. I would not even criticize the part where contemporary processes of religious life of Russia are described. Perhaps it is bulky but after all Russia is big.
It seems to me that the department of religious studies is more objective in evaluating these processes. At least its position is properly tentative and corresponds to the constitutional provision of the secular character of the Russian state. In this regard its attitude toward religious organizations and their representatives is worthy of emulation.
Now several remarks about the institute's draft.
We are used to the absence of decoding of concepts. But against the background of decoding given by the department, this seems to be a substantive gap. The terminology leads to many complexities in the institute's draft itself. In a single suggestion there exist various terms that pertain to one and the same object. For example, "the principle of equality of religious associations before the law does not preclude preferential cooperation with traditional religious organizations."
I think that the absence of an assessment of historical experience of relations between the state and religious organizations impoverishes the work and to a great extent weakens the authors' case for their suggestions. But I do not rule out that this is a conscious step. In the past state support for the traditional confession led to a tragic outcome and today, in general, by advocating the "traditional" scheme the writers of the draft have to close their eyes to many historical events. But this is a sly position. Proposing that the state support traditional confessions, the writers argue that it is this that will guarantee success in the development of the state. Even in the October disaster somebody also prospered. But the state suffered failure. And the church an even greater failure.
The section "State of relations between state and religious associations of Russian federation" consists of general phrases that do not disclose the real dislocation of state institutions and religious organizations. Instead of a serious analysis of the state of affairs in this matter, there is a bunch of banal cliches. They would not be used even in the newspapers of village agitators. Where is the diversity of confessions presented that is represented by Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy in contemporary Russia or protestantism as an especially diverse branch of Christianity? Where are the interests of these and other confessions? What are the reasons for restrictions? Does the state have means and ways for mitigating strife? In which areas today are relations between the state and religious organizations working out successfully and where are they disturbing society?
To these and other questions there are no answers either in this section or in the whole doctrine.
The principles of the policy of the state in the area of state-church relations, in my view, are the foundation for all subsequent concrete proposals and actions.
What are they? Both drafts contain seven principles each. The department sets the principle of the secular character of the state in first place. The institute sets the principle of the separation of religious associations from the state and then parenthetically indicates that it has in mind the secular character of the state.
The second principle in the department's doctrine is the equality of individual human rights and freedoms of citizens regardless of one's attitude toward religion. For the institute it is the principle of the freedom of religious confession.
The department's third principle is the legal equality of religious associations. As regards the institute, it is the "principle of the equality of religious associations before the law, providing in religious legislation unified legal bases and guarantees of the freedom of religious confession and religious activity for all religious associations, without precluding preferential cooperation with traditional religious organizations and without violating thereby their legal status."
The writers of the draft in this case do not include the principle of equality but, in disputing the principle that is stated in the constitution they try to prove that equality does not mean that all are equal. The institute is practically suggesting that the state act as an expert in sorting out religious convictions.
It is possible that the writers of the work did not notice that the state has abandoned its principle of secularity and already has taken upon itself the responsibility for religious standards. In patronizing one it inevitably will ignore and even prohibit others.
The fourth principle of the department is respect for cultural and national traditions. The institute makes as its seventh principle the principle of taking account of the national and cultural peculiarities of nationalities of the Russian federation in relations of the state with religious associations. Perhaps this is identical, but not always. Stalin took account of national and cultural peculiarities and deported whole nationalities and, as history shows, in taking them into account he not only failed to respect them but despised them.
The fifth principle of the department is that restrictions in the sphere of freedom of conscience and religious confession are permitted only by the requirements of the necessity of protection of the foundations of the constitution order, morality, health, and human and legal rights of citizens, and guaranteeing the defense of the country and security of the state. The institute does not deal with such a principle. Their fifth principle is stated thus: "The principle of state oversight of observance of Russian legislation and human rights by religious associations."
I take the word "oversight" to be a kind of interference. After all, the institute proposes the principle of inequality and now oversight will become prohibition for some and governmental support for others. But that the department proposes this as a principle of state policy I am not able to understand nor accept.
The concept of the words "freedom of conscience," given in the second section of the doctrine, does not provide for any restrictions. All of the enumerated dangers for the state do not arise from freedom of conscience. It is a moral category that should remain inviolable. Activity and the exercise of rights should have limits, and this is what law does.
The sixth principle in the department's doctrine is "Openness in the implementation of policy in the sphere of freedom of conscience and religious confession at all levels of state authority and administration." In the institute's presentation it is the "principle of cooperation of the state with religious associations."
As a principle of state policy, I welcome openness and I pray that it would be transferred from the draft into life. At the same time, this principle is still not being implemented in the policy of the state in any single sphere. There is no openness in our society.
The seventh principle in the department's doctrine is "scientific basis for the choice of priorities in the state's policy in this sphere."
Since we already have reviewed the seventh principle in the institute's draft, there remains its fourth principle of the noninterference of the state in the internal activity of religious association. This practically is a repetition of the principle of the separation of religious associations from the state. It weakens such a serious section of the doctrine.
Let's review several items from the fifth section, which deals with the basic areas of relations between the state and religious associations. This is a large and important work. The department identified five such areas. All are important. To be sure, in the first point the issue is general civic and legal relations, but I note in this section the most serious problem of restitution. Embarrassed silence leads to uncontrolled corruption. Society should have an open discussion of this question and the resolution must be clear and acceptable.
The department does not give full answers to the questions of restitution, but it rightly calls attention to blind alleys. A great deal of space is devoted to relations of the state with religious associations in the area of charitable activity. The department manages to avoid the temptation of sorting out religious associations on the level of their proximity to the "emperor." It must be said that such a position spills over into all sections of the draft, but here it turns out to be difficult to hold the position. As regards the section on relations between the army and religious associations, this sounds like this: "In the circumstances of a secular state, a society that is secularized to a substantial extent, and the confessional diversity of its religious element, the restoration of the institution of the chaplaincy, construction of religious facilities on military bases, consecration of military banners and hardware, etc. become problematical, especially if it affords primacy to one religious organization."
I consider the consecration of relations in the area of education and culture and especially news media to be very important. The department's position is tentative although it cannot pretend to be legal. But it is important that the problem is identified, and discussion in society could lead to a proper position for the state. This is more so the case since in practice the press is preaching a single confession and thereby is affecting citizens' frame of mind. There is so much aggressiveness on the pages of publications. In some the violation of the article of the law forbidding incitement of antireligious discord and hatred is visible to the naked eye.
The constitutional principle of the secular character of the state should be confirmed in the doctrine. In its fourth section, "basic tasks of state policy in the sphere of relations with religious associations," the institute opens up these questions. But, in the first place, weakly, and in the second, very tendentiously.
In the first paragraph, along with rather correct tasks there suddenly arises an alarm about the creation of effective legal and organized mechanisms for prohibition and prevention. Indeed, they are necessary, but where are the criteria here? After all we have declared the secular character of the Russian state. We have rejected trust in any ideology and we want to make humanity the measure of all things. I want to stress especially that in the area of belief a person is beholden to nobody but God.
I am not calling for complete, unrestricted freedom; the state must protect the nation and individual. But I have more respect for the principle of the priority of the rights and freedom of the individual. Prohibition and prevention violate the principle of freedom of confession and freedom of access to information. The soviet experience of prohibition and prevention showed how useless is such an approach to the nationalities of Russia.
There is yet another unacceptable provision in this section: "Legal strengthening of criteria for determining traditional religious organizations in the Russian federation and the legal status of such organization." What kind of equality before the law can be spoken of after allotting special status? I understand the desire for such status when it comes from religious organizations. The law should apply equally to all. However crude the words of the president may sound when he recognizes only "the dictatorship of the law," they are correct in essence. I naively propose that state servants should guarantee this dictatorship by all means, beginning with respect for the constitution.
The state cannot permit such a policy where its subjects are sorted out in accordance with religious convictions. This is an immoral violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. In such a case the state would have to overrule the provision of the equality of all before the law.
It only seems that the provision about traditional confessions is in itself reasonable and harmless. But take a look at the following provision: "Cooperation of the state with traditional religious organizations in carrying out educational activity, including the creation of educational institutions and training of teaching staffs for them." What is this really? It is the sign of a clerical state which is an established fact! How can it be that a secular government trains staff for religious organizations?
The established principle forces the writers all the time to justify themselves and explain, forestalling criticism as if to say we did not want to say that. This is permissible for discussion, but it is very weak when it is for a draft of a proposed strategy for the development of the Russian state.
A bit about mechanisms. The department unambiguously gives one to understand that it considers the resurrection of the Council on Religious Affairs necessary. It is terrible even to think about such a return to the past. The conclusions of the writers are quite serious and reality is such that in society it is considered normal to despise the weak, harass aliens, forget the poor, and mock dissidents. When this is done by an average soviet party worker, it is understandable. When it is done by religious leaders and administrative bureaucrats blessed by them, then it becomes strange and terrible. But where is the way out for a poor peasant or, in our case, a Christian? I simply suggest that such a council will consist, not of atheist communists, who have announced the struggle with religion to be their strategy, but of our Orthodox brethren. Will there be room for us on the "canonical" territory of our homeland?
Personally I am an advocate of the development of state-church relations in a way that LAW and not the bureaucrat rules. Unfortunately, our state is still living by the famous principle: "the landlord will come someday and settle our dispute." I consider that it would be better if the draft showed that the state pursues a course declared by the president and adopted by the public. After all we are building a law-based state.
This is where we need the aforementioned openness. If we are building, it means that we still do not have it; if we are building it means we are following a defined draft and we are not going to give in to deceptions to please the powers that be.
And so it is obvious that both drafts have provisions that require improvement, in my opinion. Both works have merits that it is important to preserve. I am not an expert; I have expressed my point of view. It seems to me that the draft proposed by the department corresponds to what is called a state doctrine. I wish success in this endeavor to all participants in the creative process, with the ability to listen to one another and remember that the state is created for protection of the weak, aid to the poor, and triumph of justice for all.
About the writer: Yury Sipko is vice chairman of the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists. (tr. by PDS, posted 15 October 2001)
Related Items:
Document
outlines Russian religion policy
English
translation of framework for state policy on religion
No religious policy
document after all? (at Keston News Service)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
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/.