Patriarch Alexis II has taken offense at colleagues from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. This was evident from yesterdays remarks by the head of RPTs at the opening of the conference "The church's teaching about mankind" in the Saint Daniel's monastery. Alexis II was annoyed that the foreign church politely refused to be united with the Moscow patriarchate.
The issue is the letter which was sent to Moscow by the ROCOR bishops' council that wound up recently in new York. The bishops of the foreign church, from whom steps in the direction of reconciliation have long been awaited in Russia, wrote that they welcome in principle the idea of unification of the two Orthodox churches that had been a united whole before the revolution. But as before they insist that the Moscow patriarchate repent for cooperation with the soviet regime.
Commenting on the New York council's letter Alexis II declared that its contents surely reflect the current schism in ROCOR where there are opponents of any contacts with the mother church and there is a large group of bishops who advocate beginning a dialogue and unification. Thus the Moscow patriarchate does not intend to abandon the idea of unification. Most likely, at the next bishops' council of ROCOR this question will again be raised at Moscow's urging. At the same time Alexis II again clearly let his foreign colleagues know that they could delay reconciliation too long. "Another decade will pass and the foreign Russian church will lose its Russianness," he said. In support of the latter argument for rapprochement His Holiness cited the problem of global terrorism. In his opinion, if one departs into isolation, then we will not be able to put up opposition to the terrorists. (tr. by PDS, posted 7 November 2001)
ALEXY II SPEAKS FOR UNIFICATION OF ORTHODOX CHURCH
Interfax, 5 November 2001
Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Alexy II is concerned about the cautious answer of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the appeal for unification of the Moscow Patriarchate. The patriarch was speaking in reference to the message of the Church's Archbishop Assembly in New York, which had been sent to Moscow. The top-ranking clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad made it understood that the unification of the two Churches, which constituted one church before the Revolution of 1917, required the Moscow Patriarchate's repentance of its cooperation with the Soviet authorities and an end to (a dialog with other religions).
Alexy II told the press on Monday that he had expected "a milder answer." A negative role has been played by "the split in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, where there are opponents of any contacts with the Mother Church and a large group of other leaders who favor the beginning of a dialog and unification," he said.
Yet the Patriarch hopes that " common sense will win and the opinion of the majority, who think that the unification must be started, will triumph. There are no reasons to remain outside the Mother Church now."
He warned them that "one more decade will pass, and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will lose its Russian nature." "Foreigners, residents of the countries where parishes are located, frequently become bishops and clergymen of that Church," he remarked.
The accusations brought by clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad against the Moscow Patriarchate are artificial, the Patriarch said. "That is just a pretext they are trying to inflate for preventing the unification," he noted. (Copyright 2001 Interfax News Agency, posted 7 November 2001)
Russia
Religion News Current News Items
At the beginning of September an article titled "Compromising information in exchange for moped spare parts" was published in Novye izvestiia, which dealt with a conflict within the Russian Orthodox Autonomous church (RPATs). We recall that a criminal case was opened on this matter against its leader, Metropolitan Valentin, on the basis of article 151 of the criminal code of the Russian federation (inducing minors to commit antisocial actions). The basis for the accusations was not the statements of the "victims" but a cassette with a videotape made by a former priest who harbored malice against the first hierarch. In it several youths admitted that "Metropolitan Valentin treated them very well." There also were several more serious statements which representatives of the chuch hastened to refute at a specially called press conference. At the time the parents of the youths also spoke, explaining the essence of the confessions as the result of the videotape maker's having deceived them by promising to pay off the children with spare parts for a moped. The youths themselves renounced their testimony and sent a letter of repentance to RPATs.
However the scandal continued to unravel as if according to plan. Ministers of the church viewed this as an attempt on the part of the leadership of Vladimir province to put pressure on the too independent Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal and Vladimir and to create schism in the relations of the hierarch with other branches of Orthodoxy, which are complicated even without this. It is known that the hierarchy of RPATs had been in an illegal (catacomb) situation for a long time and at the beginning of the 90s transferred to the jurisdiction of the emigre Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. But after several years it broke with ROCOR and created the autonomous structure of RPATs, with Valentin becoming its first hierarch.
The difficulty began after the priest Andrei Osetrov, who made the scandalous videotape, was unfrocked in the spring of this year. After that an article appeared in the Vladimir newspaper "Prizyv" titled "Holy outcasts," which began the campaign of discrediting RPATs, calling the elderly hierarch a "thief" and "criminal." Metropolitan Valentin filed suit against the paper in court. The Lenin district court of the city of Vladimir forbade all articles developing this topic.
However, as representatives of the church wrote in a letter to the editor, materials besmirching the honor and dignity of Metropolitan Valentin appeared again in the news media. According to the letter this story recently got a surprising continuation. The office of the bailiff imposed a fine on the "Prizyv" newspaper "for nonfulfillment of the decision of the Lenin district court."
Meanwhile the life of RPATs ministers has not become easier. A month
ago, they wrote to the newspaper, unknown persons set fire to the home
of Valentin's associate Archbishop Feodor. On the same night the scaffold
of a chapel being built in Suzdal caught fire. And in the city fliers calling
for stirring up religious strife and intolerance appeared on the walls
of buildings from time to time. (tr. by PDS, posted 7 November
2001)
Russia
Religion News Current News Items
Rights defenders in Perm have announced an unprecedented victory over the Ministry of Defense. A court of Kirov district of Perm acknowledged for the first time in Russian practice that a person who on account of religious convictions cannot bear arms has the right to alternative civilian service. It is necessary to note that in the past three years attorneys of the Perm division of "memorial" and the Center for the Support of Democratic Initiatives have managed to win more than thirty cases of "objectors." Despite the absence of a law on alternative service (the State Duma plans to review several drafts in the course of the Fall session), citizens' right to it has been strengthened. But only in the course of the last judicial session of Judge Vladimir Diukin, who heard the case, agreed to accept the argument of the religiosity of the conscript.
Mikhail Fadeev, who is a member of the "New Testament" church of Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) managed to convince the court that his faith not only does not permit him to bear arms but that he consider wearing a military uniform to be a sin. Thus the traditional counterargument of military committees--"find a place in the service where you will not even see a machine gun"--does not fit the case of the Pentecostal pacifist. True, the young man is not simply in luck because of his religious belief. In fact, in Perm, as well as in several other Russian cities, an experiment is being conducted in working out a model for alternative civil service. Thus Mr. Fadeev will be given the chance to work in the Perm "Memorial" volunteer social service instead of the period of service in the army.
However it cannot be ruled out that representatives of the city military committee will try to argue this decision in a court of higher instance. Military personnel are conducting an intense campaign against the experiments on alternative service in all regions. Specifically, in Nizhny Novgorod they still have not managed to put together the first municipal group of persons performing alternative service despite support for the experiment from the presidential administration. The deputy chief of the administration of Nizhny Novgorod for social question, Alexander Razumovsky, recently even accused military committees and the draft commission of "unconcealed sabotage." (tr. by PDS, posted 7 November 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
MOSCOW—The trial against Jehovah’s Witnesses currently in process in the Golovinsky Court has again developed into a dispute regarding religious beliefs. Tatyana Kondratyeva accused Jehovah’s Witnesses of "distorting the meaning of the Bible." Defense lawyer Artur Leontyev challenged that statement by reference to the Bible. However, Judge Vera Dubinskaya warned that the Bible was not to be used in court and directed that no comparison be made between the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Orthodox writings.
Kondratyeva repeatedly stated that her main evidence in support of the charges is not based on specific actions, but on "negative statements" contained in the religious literature distributed by Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout Russia. For example, she referred to a Keston News Service report quoted in the April 22, 2001 issue of Awake! that linked the Moscow Patriarchate to the KGB. Kondratyeva called for a total ban on the distribution of this literature in Moscow.
During several court sessions over the past week the prosecutor claimed that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings ‘erode the culture and traditions of Russia.’ She added, "These teachings influence Jehovah’s Witnesses and their children not to celebrate Orthodox religious holidays nor worship icons." Galina Krylova pointed out: "The law does not require compliance with such activities. Furthermore, there are many religions in Russia that do not celebrate Orthodox holidays."
John Burns, defense lawyer, observed: "The prosecutor is turning the clock back to the Soviet period. The charges are the same, only the label has changed. What was once defined as anti-Soviet is now termed anti-traditional."
The case resumes on Thursday, November 8th.
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Reverend archpastors and members of the Holy Synod of the Moscow patriarchate!
We thank you for your friendly letter to our council with a call for overcoming division and we rely on the sincerity of your expressed desires.
On our part, we testify that the unity of the Russian Orthodox church has been desired by the hierarchy of ROCOR from its very foundation. This desire did not simply accompany the life of the church abroad but it pervaded the prayer life of the Russian diaspora.
In response to your call for unification, we propose beginning an exploration of the principles for achieving this goal. We want you to understand the essence of our approach to the problem of church division. In this matter we consider that there should be no place for compromises since the issue is the eternal salvation or eternal perdition of all members of the church.
The division between you and us is called "political" by many shallow thinkers. However in the revolutionary experiences in Russia that were responsible for the beginning of our division we do not see anything political in the proper meaning of the word. The effective forces of those bloody events were the lie, deception, apostasy, and theomachism. You will agree that this gives us the right to evaluate the "sovietization" of Russia as a moral and profoundly religious catastrophe. Metropolitan Sergius' declaration of 1927 extended this catastrophe to the internal life of the church and laid the foundation for the phenomenon which we call "sergianism." "Sergianism" appeared especially in the cooperation of church hierarchs with KGB. Maintaining the principle of condemnation of the sin and not the sinner, we understand that we do not have the right to condemn those hierarchs, especially since we did not have to live in the grip of that horrible totalitarian regime in which they had to. We only pray that God will grant to those hierarchs the courage to reveal and condemn the sin of such cooperation; without that it is very difficult to speak about our mutual understanding.
The lack of freedom of the Russian church led to its joining the World Council of Churches and its active participation in ecumenism. That ecumenism is alien to the ecclesiastical consciousness of Russian believers is clearly shown by the assessment given to it in 1948 at the Moscow council that was adopted on the basis of the memorable report by Archbishop Serafim Sobolev. Life has shown that the majority of Russian church people and others do not embrace ecumenism.
Recently we saw your archpastoral response to the desire of the majority of your Russian flock in the glorification of the holy new martyrs of Russia and especially of the tsarist family. Counting on your archpastoral wisdom, we hope for the possibility of overcoming as well other impediments that continue to exist between us--the attitude toward ecumenism and "sergianism."
While we hold firmly to the consistent course of the church abroad, which it would be fatal for all of Russian Orthodoxy to abandon, we do not doubt that even we have sometimes made mistakes and that there may be sins within our church life. We will be grateful if you will frankly point these shortcomings out to us for correction.
Always relying on God's grace that heals our infirmities and fills up what is lacking we consider it useful to conduct constructive meetings between our representatives which would help in disclosing the essence of our division and determining mutually recognized hindrances that separate us and ways for their subsequent overcoming. In so doing we see no use in an unprincipled compromise "fraternity."
We link the movement to our unification inseparably with the movement to the triumph of truth. In the text you quoted from the high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ, he prayed to God the Father: "Sanctify them by your truth; . . . for them I have sanctified myself so that they may be sanctified by the truth" (Jn 17. 17,19). May our unification also be sanctified by truth and may we then be united and our flock recognize in us witnesses to the truth and love of God. "May all in unison and in pure love glorify your holy and majestic name, longsuffering and merciful Lord, forever and ever, Amen" (from the prayer for the salvation of Russia).
Members of bishops' council of ROCOR ( tr. by PDS, posted 4 November 2001; tr. note: this version of the document does not bear a date or identification of the bishops who signed it.)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Yesterday in Moscow in the House of Journalists representatives of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous church informed reporters that nobody kidnapped the former head of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), Metropolitan Vitaly, from the ROCOR synod building in New York (as reported in K-D yesterday). He left New York of his own will.
The Russian Orthodox Autonomous church (RPATs) was founded in 1920 by Patriarch Tikhon's order #362. During the time of the soviet regime it was illegal. In 1990 ROCOR restored the RPATs hierarchy and in 1995 RPATs withdrew from ROCOR, accusing it of rapprochement with the Moscow patriarchate. In all, the autonomous church has fifty priests and nine bishops. The head of RPATs is Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal and Vladimir.
The primate of the autonomous church was not at the press conference; the dean of the Moscow district of RPATs, Archpriest Mikhail Ardov, described for reporters his visit to USA. He called this visit triumphal, since for the first time since 1995 there was a meeting in New York of the former head of ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly, and Metropolitan Valentin. In Fr Mikhail's opinion, this was a kind of symbolic reconciliation of the autonomous church with the foreign church, "or more accurately with that part of the church that supports the overthrown Metropolitan Vitaly."
"Our church is outside politics," Archpriest Mikhail Ardov said. "But at the same time we are consistent anticommunists. We feel ourselves to be Orthodox in this frightful world." Fr Mikhail said that it was his church that "had to raise the banner of anticommunism which the bishops of ROCOR have abandoned."
Archbishop Feodor of Borisov and Saninsk continued the subject of schism within the ranks of the foreign church. He took note of the declaration of the bishops' synod of RPATs where, inter alia, it was said: "Today we have become witnesses of the rapid sinking of the ecclesiastical ship under the blows of those who are seeking an immediate unprincipled unification with the Moscow patriarchate that has apostatized from Orthodoxy and thereby have themselves apostatized from Orthodoxy. The new assembly of foreign hierarchs in October of this year itself displayed the horrors of antichurch iniquity. A violent revolution was conducted within ROCOR."
Representatives of the autonomous church condemned unanimously the ROCOR report that they had kidnapped the elderly Metropolitan Vitaly. Fr Mikhail and Archbishop Feodor declared with one voice that the ninety-two-year-old Vitaly disagreed with the ROCOR synod's decision regarding his reelection and in general with the policy of the new leadership of ROCOR leadership directed at merger with RPTs and that he had left New York himself in just a cassock for the Mansonville monastery in Canada. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 November 2001)
METROPOLITAN KIDNAPPED
by Pavel Korobov
Kommersant-Daily, 31 October 2001
Today in Moscow in the House of Journalists there was a press conference organized by the so-called Russian Orthodox Autonomous church (RPATs). The head of RPATs, Metropolitan Valentin Rusantsov of Suzdal and Vladimir, told anyone willing to listen about the scandal that occurred at the council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). During this council the former primate of ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly, supposedly was kidnapped and afterward declared that he was removed from the post by force, that he does not recognize the decisions of the council, and he will not retire.
In reality the essence of what happened, as KD has been able to learn, is that the so-called Russian Orthodox Autonomous church is trying to induce a schism between supporters and opponents of a united Russian church, which has become almost inevitable after the ROCOR council.
As KD has learned from the secretary of the St. Petersburg dean of ROCOR, Fr Nikolai Savchenko, back on 25 October Metropolitan Vitaly attended the session of the bishops' council of ROCOR in New York. On that day he congratulated Archbishop Laurus for his election as the new first hierarch of ROCOR and wished him good health and expressed his support. But opponents of the council Peter Budzilovich (head of the Congress of Russian Americans) and Archpriest Vladimir Shishkov called the police, claiming that Metropolitan Vitaly was being detained by force in the synod's building. When police arrived, Metropolitan Vitaly declared that nobody was detaining him by force and that he was at the council of his own will. The Archpriest Vladimir Shishkov and the former personal secretary of the metropolitan, Liudmila Rosnianskaia, suggested to the metropolitan that he leave the council nevertheless and go to Canada. He agreed to this and the police testified that the metropolitan wanted to leave. The metropolitan immediately got into a car and rode off, but not to Canada. Instead he went to a meeting with the head of RPATs, Metropolitan Valentin, who was staying at the home of Vladimir Shishkov in New York. After this meeting the former first hierarch was taken to to the Holy Transfiguration skete in Mansonville in Canada. There on 27 October the "extraordinary declaration of Metropolitan Vitaly" was issued.
From Metropolitan Vitaly's declaration: "I consider it my archpastoral duty to declare that I categorically condemn the subsequent actions of the current participants in the 'robbers' council' which I refused to attend by reason of the lack of repentance of those bishops who have tried to take a new course toward merger with the false church, the Moscow patriarchate, and eucharistic fellowship with ecumenists: 1) the illegal usurpation of church power by non-Orthodox-minded bishops; 2) unfounded and sinful accusation of me as in 'support of schismatics' (I will permit nobody to call faithful and devoted pastors of our holy Orthodox church abroad 'schismatics' and 'rebels'); 3) detention of me under house arrest with installation of a guard and spy with the knowledge and 'blessing' of bishops who are hostile-minded against me; 4) forceful and covert expulsion from the synodal building of my personal secretary that was kept secret from me, effectively depriving me of care which I need especially since my accident; 5) unseemly greedy compulsion of me to sign an inventory of property assigned to me (as well as the impermissibly condescending and demanding tone). Wishing to prevent the destructive consequences of the uncanonical actions of the unrepentant 'council,' directed toward any forms of dialogue or merger with ecumenical or so-called 'world' Orthodoxy and seeing the desire on the part of the majority of bishops not to reconcile and pacify the unprecedented confusion among our clergy and flocks, and also taking account of requests from several priests and many children of ROCOR, I declare with all responsibility that, in accordance with par. 34 of the statutes of ROCOR, I rescind my signature regarding my voluntary retirement and the transfer of my authority to Archbishop Laurus. My name should be commemorated as before in the divine services in all ROCOR churches. In the event of unforeseen circumstances, I bequeath to Bishop Varnava power to serve temporarily as a caretaker first hierarch until the election of anew first hierarch of ROCOR. . . ."
In the opinion of Nikolai Savchenko, this declaration by the metropolitan has not been composed in the style of Metropolitan Vitaly. Fr Nikolai thinks that everything that has happened is an attempt by Metropolitan Valentin and his supporters to effect schism within ROCOR by the hands of the elderly Metropolitan Vitaly. This is also the opinion of Bishop Mikhail, the ruling bishop of the ROCOR Canadian diocese. Fr Nikolai suggested also that Metropolitan Valentin wants to call public attention by all these actions away from the criminal case being pursued against him for corruption of minors.
Members of the council reacted rather quickly to the disappearance of
their former first hierarch and turned to American authorities and on 28
October Archpriest Vladimir Shishkov received notice from the Supreme Court
of the state of New York which contained the accusation of the kidnapping
of Metropolitan Vitaly. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 November 2001)
COMMUNIQUE
from the Chancery
of the Synod of Bishops
Oct 16/29 2001 - Holy Martyr Longinus The Centurion
As a result of many years of observation and events preceding the Council of Bishops, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia have come to the conclusion that the personal secretary of Metropolitan Vitaly, abusing her position, is exercising an influence on the elderly Metropolitan which is both harmful to him and dangerous for the whole Church. Over the course of her eleven years of employment by the Metropolitan, Ludmilla Rosniansky had gradually made him psychologically dependent upon her care. She has concealed from all the name of his physician and the nature of the illnesses for which he was prescribing powerful drugs, which are used, in particular, to treat dementia. Seeing that the residence of a woman in a bishop's home, unless she is his mother, sister or aunt, is impermissible and violates the sacred canons, the bishops have tried many times to remove Ludmilla Rosniansky from the Metropolitan's quarters, but he has always defended her. On the second day of the current session of the Council of Bishops it was decided to discharge and remove Ludmilla Rosniansky from the Synod Building, which was carried out in a legal manner on the evening of that very day.
In the morning of the third day of the Council's session, the Metropolitan came to the hall in which the session was being held and greeted the newly elected Metropolitan Laurus. He also said that he was transmitting to him all the fullness of the First Hierarch's authority and expressed the warmest of wishes; he likewise expressed his confidence that all the members of the Council of Bishops are faithful and his desire that they continue to be so in the future. Metropolitan Laurus thanked Metropolitan Vitaly for his reassuring words and his past service, asking him to afford him assistance and support in his administration. Metropolitan Vitaly assured him that he would be happy to be of service. After this, he said that he was not in the least bitter, since he truly needed to retire. The Metropolitan then left for his quarters to rest. The duties of the Metropolitan's cell-attendant were taken over by the Priest Alexander Iwaszewicz, who had been his attendant in the past, and by Subdeacon Vladimir Barros.
Then, Ludmilla Rosniansky appeared on the sidewalk in front of the Synod Building, accompanied by Archpriest Vladimir Shishkoff, Hieromonk Paisy, Peter Budzilovich, and Marina and Alexander Benzemann. They demanded that Metropolitan Vitaly be "handed over" to them. During the Council's lunch-break Ludmilla Rosniansky summoned two policemen, alleging that Metropolitan Vitaly was helpless and being held against his will in the Synod Building, and that it was possible that he was in an unconscious state. The police wanted to see the Metropolitan. They spoke with him and found that he was in good shape and that the elderly man was not being placed under any restraint or compulsion. They also reported that his secretary was outside the building and wanted to see him. Confused by the visit of the police, the Metropolitan wanted to see Ludmilla Rosniansky. Attempts by the bishops to persuade the Metropolitan not to meet with this person proved in vain. Metropolitan Vitaly would not listen either to Metropolitan Laurus, Bishop Mitrofan, or the other bishops and clergy. Going out to the street, the Metropolitan said that he would return to his quarters if only for a time, but that he would leave afterwards, since he had transmitted his authority in full to the new Metropolitan and was now a free man. On the street the Metropolitan was met by a group of people: Ludmilla Rosniansky, Archpriest Vladimir Shishkoff, Hieromonk Paisy, the attorney Andrei Tiajelov and another woman., They convinced the Metropolitan to leave Synod immediately, allowing him no time to collect his things, though he was clad only in a cassock. The policemen and the lawyers who observed the Metropolitan's departure were of the opinion that the former secretary Ludmilla Rosniansky took advantage of the nervous mood of the Metropolitan and insisted on his departure, to Metropolitan Vitaly's detriment.
On this basis, without interference on the part of the Church, a judge issued an order that Ludmilla Rosniansky be apprehended and compelled to make it possible for Metropolitan Vitaly to return to his quarters. The next day, however, Rosniansky and the Metropolitan telephoned the Synod from Mansonville, Canada, demanding that his personal documents and certain articles, which were at the Synod Building, be delivered to them.
As they received various pieces of information and communications, the members of the Council of Bishops were alarmed to learn that the persons who brought about Metropolitan Vitaly's departure from the Synod Building before the enthronement of the new Metropolitan and the conclusion of the Council of Bishops are using this in the spreading of various provocative rumors and to draw the Metropolitan, without his realizing it, into certain schismatic actions. (After this communiqu_ was written, new information was received which confirms the bishops' worst fears. In consequence of this the Council of Bishops has been forced to revoke the commemoration of the name of Metropolitan Vitaly at the divine services.)
For these reasons, the Council of Bishops has considered it necessary
to inform the flock of these sad and scandalous events.
NEW HEAD OF ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD HOPED TO BRING UNITY.
by Aleksei Berezhkov
ITAR-TASS, 2 November 2001
The Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church abroad have received a real chance for unification after many years of separation.
A favorable situation has been created after the Assembly of clergymen of higher orders of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which elected head of the Church the Archbishop of Troitsky and Sirakuzsky, Laavr, known in a secular world as Vasily Mikhailovich Shkurla. He enjoys the reputation of a supporter of Orthodox unification. Until recently, Metropolitan Laavr had been a senior priest of the St. Trinity cathedral in Jordanville near New York, which is the heart of the Russian Orthodox Church broad.
Metropolitan Laavr has sent a message to the Moscow Patriarchy in reply to an earlier address made by the Holy Synod which was devoted to problems of unification. The Holy Synod has urged the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to drop confrontation and seek unification. Metropolitan Laavr's reply to the Holy Synod was not immediately known yet. "Metropolitan Laavr's message will be made pubic when the time comes," the Synod of the Orthodox Church Abroad declared.
Nonetheless, hopes have been cherished in church circles that Metropolitan Laavr's election head of the Russian Orthodox Church has been a step towards unification. "We are hoping that the election of the new patriarch will promote rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church abroad," Bishop of Zaraisk, Merkury, who supervises Orthodox parishes in the United States, told Itar-Tass on Thursday. (Copyright 2001 ITAR-TASS News Agency, posted 2 November 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
[tr. note: the following is the conclusion of a very long (5500 words) newspaper article dealing with nontraditional sects in Russia, including Scientology, Aum Shinrikyo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Children of God, Krishna Consciousness. This translation represents 1,000 words of the original.]
An unanticipated blow to the antisectarian movement was delivered by USA, from where around 90 percent of the totalitarian cults have come (or are based) that now exist in the world. Back in January 1997 Washington officially condemned measures taken against Scientology in Germany. Several days later the governmental Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (connected with American intelligence agencies) published an account of human rights where Germany was subjected to severe attack. Attacks fell on Europe one after the other while the actions of commissions created by USA included representatives of totalitarian cults themselves. There were many curious cases. For example, when the French National Assembly conducted a colloquium on methods of psychological manipulation of consciousness, the American embassy, although it had not been invited, sent to it two employees along with a highly placed French Scientologist. Considering all the data, the famous French journalist Bruno Fushero (author of the popular book "Sectarian Mafia") in his article published in June 2001 in the Monde Diplomatique journal draws the conclusion that the American government is closely tied to the sectarian lobby structures and strives with them to force other countries to accept American values through the process of globalization. "The strategy of global domination was begun in the 80's," Fushero writes, "under Reagan. Now this struggle has reached the critical point: we are talking about attempts at globalization of juridical systems and an attempt to complete finally the globalization of the world market." Many Russian experts agree with the conclusions of the French journalist. Rostislav Prokopishin, scientific associate of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Traditional religions that by reason of historic circumstances are simply absent from USA really are powerful concentrated factors preventing the process of globalization imposed by USA. It is no secret that various cults are one of the instruments of USA's defense of its geopolitical interests. In the 80s the most active cults were selected in USA that could become weapons for the destruction of USSR. What we now observe, not only in Russia but also in Europe, could be the result of a previously devised strategy.
Strange coincidence: both in Russia and in Europe, the situation began to heat up in 1996. Just two years after the publication by the department of religious education of RPTs of Alexander Dvorkin's pamphlet "Ten questions to a stranger, or Guidance for those who do not want to be proselytized" (1994) the public Committee for the Protection of Freedom of Conscience, whose chairman is Gleb Yakunin, sued Alexander Dvorkin for slander against Scientologists, Moonites, Krishnaites, Mormons, "Bogorodichny Center," Church of Christ, "Semya" Christian mission, "Jehovah's Witnesses," and others (the pamphlet was the subject of the suit). Dvorkin provided concrete facts of the worldwide practice, although Yakunin's committee insisted, in essence, that since the Russian reputation of these organizations had still not been established Dvorkin did not have the right to slander their good name by publishing facts about their western experience. The trial lasted several months and in the end the committee's suit was denied.
On 19 September 1997 the State Duma adopted the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" and passions heated up with new force: Vasily Sarychev, a religion scholar: the law was a kind of compromise and immediately was doomed in practice. Representatives of new religious formations were disturbed that the preamble noted a special role for Orthodoxy and expressed respect for other traditional religions. Besides this, they criticized the restrictions placed on the rights of religious organizations that have been active in Russia for less than 15 years. Their intentions, of course, were legitimate since, for example, even 15 years ago half of the religious societies of the country were not registered and were not officially accounted for. Thus it was unclear how to conduct the accounting. However, in 1999 the Constitutional Court solved this problem by stating that the law does not have retroactive force, that is, those who had been registered before 1997 do not fall under these restrictions.
On the whole I will say that a recognition of the special role of traditional religions exists in the majority of secular states of Europe. As regards the 15-year term, this practice exists in Europe, too. At the same time, representatives of traditional religions are upset that the law does not proscribe certain sects or destructive cults and that there were no mechanisms established for protecting the population from the activity of these cults. The law was passed so that it could subsequently be amended, and this process is going on.
The interests of the new religious associations in our country have been openly defended by the Moscow Helsinki group and similar rights' defense organizations, whose reports often are quoted with pleasure by commissions of USA, and particular on of the lobbies of this side, the Institute of Religion and Law. These same associations defend the interests of traditional religious associations.
Sarychev has the following in view. In the summer of this year "Nezavisimaia gazeta" suddenly published two alternative versions of a doctrine of state policy in the sphere of relations with religious associations in Russia. Usually the appearance of such doctrines signifies approaching changes in legislation, although, as we have managed to learn, no such specific direction for the creation of such doctrines had been issued by the presidential administration.
One doctrine, prepared by the Institute of State-Confessional Relations and the Chief Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Justice for Moscow, was drawn up taking into account opinions of representatives of traditional religions. The other, prepared by the Department of Religion Studies of the Russian Academy of State Services of the Russian presidential administration, was drawn up on the principle of the equality of traditional and nontraditional confessions, and even proposed a way to adapt to new religious movements. The lineup of forces for supporting one or another of these doctrines was natural and it has not changed; the struggle simply has become open, in the press. However it seems that the process has advanced to a new level. At the end of September the supreme mufti of Russia, Talgat Tajuddin, at a meeting with Putin personally delivered the Justice draft accompanied by a letter in which he asked for support for this draft.
But it cannot be ruled out that specific pressure has been exerted from another side, the prosectarian. After all just a month earlier there was published the government's resolution "On a federal program for formation of a system of tolerant awareness and prevention of extremism in Russian society," which includes as one of its points "participation in international actions and programs for creating tolerance under the aegis of UNESCO and other international organizations." We recall that it was UNESCO (on which USA's influence is very great) declared 1991 to be the year of Elena Blavatskaia. And on 29 October in the "Kosmos" hotel" there was a conference "Toleration in contemporary society: spirituality as a way to mutual accord," which was organized by the Moscow Helsinki Group, the office of the plenipotentiary for human rights of the Russian federation, the Institute of Religion and Law, and the church of Scientology of the city of Moscow. Well--all these faces are familiar. (tr. by PDS., posted 1 November 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
In the Golovin intermunicipal court of the capital the judicial hearing of the suit of the procuracy of the Northern Administrative District for the liquidation of the Moscow congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses has been resumed. The hearing is being held before a new judicial panel chaired by Judge Dubinskaia. The Jehovah's Witnesses are being represented, as before, by the attorneys Galina Krylova, Artur Leontiev, and John Burns, Blagovest-info reports.
The case for the liquidation of the Moscow Jehovah's Witnesses congregation on the basis of point 2 of article 14 of the law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" was initiated in 1998 by the procuracy of the northern district on the initiative of the public Committee for the Protection of Youth from Totalitarian Sects.
Jehovah's Witnesses are accused of inciting religious conflict, conducting activities intended to break up families, encouraging suicide, violating the rights and freedoms of citizens, and attracting minor citizens to participation in the congregation's activity. In the course of judicial investigation, which has gone on more than two years, 45 witnesses have been examined, and a complex psycho-linguistic and religion studies expert analysis of the literature and documents of Jehovah's Witnesses has been conducted.
On 23 February of this year the court rejected the petition by the procurator's office of the northern district for liquidation of the legal entity and prohibition of the activity of the Jehovah's Witnesses, requiring the plaintiff to pay the costs for the complex psycho-linguistic and religion studies expert analysis.
However, on 30 May the Moscow city court issued a ruling to return the case to the Golovin court for a new review with a new judges' panel. The prosecutor's office summoned for participation in the new trial the director of the Informational-Consultative Center of the Holy Martyr Ireneaus of Lyons, Alexander Dvorkin, as an expert witness.
During the hearings on 30 October, attorneys for the Witnesses filed a petition for postponing the trial since at the present time protests regarding the ruling of the Moscow city court of 30 May have been sent to the Supreme Court of Russia and the European Court for Human Rights. In the attorneys' opinion, the present review in Golovin court "may turn out to be meaningless and unintentionally abrogate the limited powers of the Russian procuracy and court."
Attorney John Burns, in particular, declared that "from the point of view of international law, which, according to the constitution, is a integral part of the Russian legal system, it is impermissible to consider identical accusations first in criminal and then in civil procedures."
This is just what has happened, he says, in the Golovin court, since such accusations of the prosecutor as the inciting of interreligious conflict are, in essence, of a criminal nature. "All these accusations have already been refuted during the preliminary investigations that have been conducted four times by investigators of the prosecutor's office between 1996 and 1998," the attorney stressed. "Reviewing the disproven accusations a second time in the civil case is impermissible."
All eight petitions submitted during the hearings by Jehovah's Witnesses'attorneys were denied. (tr. by PDS, posted 1 November 2001)
COURT HEARS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
by Elena Vansovich
Kommersant-Daily, 31 October 2001
Yesterday the Golovin intermunicipal court took up a renewed consideration of the civil case on the liquidation and prohibition of the activity of the Moscow society of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" religious organization.
The civil case for the liquidation and prohibition of the activity of the Moscow society of "Jehovah's Witnesses" was initiated in 1998 by the prosecutor of the Northern Administrative District of the capital on the basis of an appeal from the public organization "Committee for the protection of youth from totalitarian sects." At hearings in February of this year the Golovin court of Moscow permitted the activity of the Moscow society of Jehovists. However on 30 May 2001 the Moscow city court granted the appeal of the prosecutor's office of the Northern Administrative District of the capital and, noting the prior decision of the district court, sent the case to the Golovin court for a new review by a different judge.
In the opinion of a representative of the administrative center of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious organization, Yaroslav Sivulsky, the new review of the case on prohibition of the Moscow "Jehovah's Witnesses" society is nothing other than "a continuation of a soap opera. The assistant prosecutor, Mrs. Kondratieva, declared in the session that a representative of the Orthodox church would be summoned the next time for giving testimony. This means that the judicial investigation will move over into a doctrinal dispute about how we do not recognize the Holy Trinity, do not reverence the cross, and do not believe in immortal souls." According to Yaroslav Sivulsky, the session was drawn out nearly five hours in the course of which "the judge and two elderly persons, whispering to each other, leafed through the Bible and tried to exegete sacred scripture."
All petitions by the defendants, the Jehovah's Witnesses, were denied, including a petition to terminate the judicial process until a response by the Supreme Court on an appeal submitted by the Jehovists a month ago. In the opinion of Mr. Sivulsky, Judge Dubinskaia is sure that if she manages to prohibit the Moscow congregation of "Jehovah's Witnesses," judicial investigations for the liquidation of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" religious organizations will begin throughout the country. (tr. by PDS, posted 1 November 2001)
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/.