RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS|
|
|
"Facts and Opinions"
Lev Roitman, Announcer
For a start, let's fantasize, instead of facts and opinions. So there live somewhere in Russia sixth-grader friends Vova Ivanov and Vova Rabinovich. And here in the school at a lesson on "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" based on Alla Valentinovna's textbook our Vovas learn the following: "The Jews brought Jesus to the governor Pontius Pilate, demanding the execution of Christ. . . . The reason was that these people were thinking about earthly matters, about their own independence, power over other peoples and about earthly prosperity and therefore the idea of eternal life through salvation from sins, passions, and evil was incomprehensible to them. . . . As is known, greed and egoism transform any idea into evil, they blind people, and deprive their life of spiritual meaning, and their activity is filled with lies, hatred, greed, and crimes. According to the demand of the Jews Pilate was forced to sentence Jesus to death on the cross." After this quote we ask ourselves: what will twelve-year-old Vova Ivanov probably think about his twelve-year-old friend Vova Rabinovich, who now is already a former friend? This is a question that I address to participants in our broadcast, all of whom are in Moscow: Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, Evgeny Ikhlov, an analyst of the All-Russian "For Human Rights" movement, and doctor of philosophy and culturologist Igor Yakovenko.
Evgeny Vitalievich Ikhlov, your rights defense movement is seeking the opening of a criminal case for the act of distribution of Borodina's textbook. In which phase, and what stage is the case today?
Evgeny Ikhlov: The judicial stage is like this. On 30 December of last year the Meshchansk district court of Moscow ruled the refusal of the prosecutor to open a criminal case was illegal. In January the prosecutor's office repeated its refusal; in March the Meshchansk court agreed with it, and at the end of May the Moscow city court ruled that the decision of the Meshchansk court was illegal and returned the case for a new review before a different judge. That is, our judicial correctness has been confirmed twice.
Lev Roitman: Thank you. Question for Father Chaplin. I shall introduce you in somewhat more detail. Vsevolod Chaplin is the vice chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate. The quotation that I read; how do you assess it?
Vsevolod Chaplin: Of course, if one tears the quotation out of context, it can create the impression that we are talking about a horribly antisemitic textbook. Actually, the textbook itself is very good; it teaches good material. It acquaints people with the bases of the culture of our people's Orthodox church and Orthodox faith. And this quotation can sound horrible only if it is torn from its context. If I were in the place of the author, I would change the quotation. Of course, we should not take the view that the Orthodox church accuses every Jew of being guilty of what people once did who belonged specifically to this ethnic group and cried out that the Lord Jesus Christ should be crucified. But this does not mean that Orthodoxy accuses Jews as a nation, as a people who belong to a specific nationality. And this, of course, the author of the textbook should either explain or correct. But at the same time let's not talk about this quotation only; we are talking about a much more serious debate. In the school there is Vasya Ivanov, and Vasya Rubinshtein, and there is Teimuraz Aliev, and there are yet other kinds of people, and there are people of the same nationality who hold to different convictions. There are children who believe that humans descended from monkeys and there are children who believe that humans were created by God. They have different convictions and the school should adjust to each of them. If an Orthodox child thinks that only his faith is true, the Jewish child will consider that for his people only his faith is true and the Muslim child will consider that only his faith is true, and the school should give to each of them the right to an education in the spirit of those convictions that his family shares, and this right is recognized by international legislation. We should not impose a single ideology on everybody in school, as this is done by the present-day agnostic schools which say that all of this is either myth or that all religions to various degrees aspire to the truth, but not one of them has the truth, and so on. In the schools the space should be guaranteed where the children of different world views can feel comfortable, including believers, which includes those who think that only their religion is true. So far in the schools of our country a universal ideology of skepticism toward religion, denial of miracles, denial of the biblical picture of the creation of the world, denial of what for believing families is much more important, much more serious than earthly life or than notions of worldly profit is imposed.
Roitman: Thank you Father Vsevolod. Now, if you will permit me, let's fantasize again. What you say is very liberal; you are a person who is wise through education and experience in life and the church. Now let's all imagine that you are not Father Vsevolod today but twelve-year-old Vsevolod who has read through Borodina's text and you face the following question that I also shall quote from this textbook: "Why did the Jews crucify Christ? What prevented them from understanding the spiritual meaning of Jesus' teaching about the heavenly kingdom?" Can you give me a specific answer as a twelve-year-old pupil?
Chaplin: It is that these people, like those of any other nationality . . .
Roitman: Excuse me, there is nothing here about another nationality. I simply read this quotation, and you read this quotation as a twelve-year-old pupil. Answer me, please, on the basis of what you have read, not knowing anything about any other peoples; there is, incidentally, no mention that Pontius Pilate was Roman, there is only material about Jews. The question is put directly: why did the Jews crucify Christ? What prevented them from understanding the spiritual meaning of Jesus' teaching about the heavenly kingdom? Answer according to Borodina's textbook.
Chaplin: The quest for prosperity actually pertains to any other nation. But again the problem is that the Jews are not a nationality but a religious profession, and one should not mix up disputes of a worldview and religious nature with national affiliation.
Roitman. Thank you, Father Chaplin. Let's hope that twelve-year-old Vova Ivanov possesses such a profound knowledge of theology. Only why then would he need Borodina's textbook? Igor Grigorievich Yakovenko, I will introduce you in more detail: doctor of philosophical sciences, the head scientific worker of the Institute of Sociology, the Russian Academy of Sciences, culturologist and historian of culture. I know that you are opposed to letting this textbook fall into the hands of twelve-year-old Vova Ivanov and Vova Rabinovich. Explain your position.
Igor Yakovenko: I want to begin with the following. Various textbooks of Orthodox culture are possible. I will quote the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook by Koshmina, where there is the question: why do believers recognize the Mother of God as their protector? We note, "believers recognize." The very posing of the question is quite acceptable because it says that there are believers who affiliate themselves with the Christian church and they recognize the Mother of God in a certain way. And here there are Jews or Muslims or Krishnaites who ascribe to different points of view on this question. When we were talking about Jesus Christ in Borodina's text that we are considering, the question was formulated and the material presented in a way that was different in principle. That is the main thing. In addition, besides this quotation with which you began our broadcast, in this book there are many other discussions that create an atmosphere or lay a mine that really is not very Christian. This little book says that every Russian means Orthodox. We can find quotes in it in which it is said that the Russian people, in distinction from several other peoples, are a highly religious people who seek spiritual values. Such a context creates a certain atmosphere which pervades the whole text. It is for this reason that it strikes me as dangerous for Russia and not in accordance with the normative values of a liberal society, secularization, and all those ideas which have been achieved through suffering, including in our society, too.
Roitman. Thank you, Igor Grigorievich. Evgeny Ikhlov, what do you want to achieve specifically by demanding the opening of a criminal case over the distribution of this textbook? Incidentally, I will noet in passing that quite recently the Coordinating Council on Cooperation, this council consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Education of the Russian federation and the Moscow patriarchate, has already recommended a second, supplemented, expanded, and corrected edition of this textbook for use as an educational resource in secondary schools, beginning with the sixth grade. And so, what do you want to achieve specifically?
Ikhlov: I should explain two very important judicial particulars. First, without the opening of a criminal case it will be impossible to conduct an expert analysis of the textbook. Our main task is that an expert analysis should be conducted. Now the prosecutor has declined in every way, replacing the expert analysis with nonacademic consultations of lawyers, although the law and regulations of the prosecutor general's office demand that an expert analysis be conducted by specialists--historians and religious studies specialists. That's the first thing we are trying to get. Second, we are trying to get the administrative punishment of those officials who have violated the law "On education," the law "On freedom of conscience," the law "On the status of state workers," and have actually begun to introduce a xenophobic, vulgar version of the Law of God in the secondary schools. At the same time the public has often been deceived that this very Coordinating Council is able to make a recommendation. So it has made a recommendation. Incidentally, Father Vsevolod is a member of this council. And I would be interested in knowing whether he voted for these recommendations, for the "Recommended" stamp which is placed on the cover of the textbook? Further, I want to call attention to the fact that the Ministry of Education, the minister declared that there will be a unified "Religions of the World" course and then they took it back and said that there would be only the traditional religions of Russia, cutting out the Catholics and protestants, Hindus and Buddhists. So far society has been calm, and this course of Borodina has been dragged out for us. At the same time along with the decision to recommend it, it was said that this is "in light of positive experience." That enormous outcry that is going on with regard to the clericalization of society, with regard to this textbook, which contains many xenophobic places and a great deal of primitive teaching and use of arguments taken from the "yellow" press--all this is considered a "positive result." We want for the prosecutor, in precise accordance with the law, to give an order to cease the violation of the constitution by officials.
Roitman: Thank you, Evgeny Mikhailovich. We have talked about an enomrous outcry. Really for those who follow the Russian press attentively, this is a rather old story already. But it should be noted that for the public at large, the essence of this dispute and the scale of disagreements are practically unknown. Let's listen to the voice of Muscovites; this survey was conducted on the eve of our broadcast by our coworker Mariana Torocheshnikova. She simply went out on the street and posed the corresponding questions: what do you know about this textbook? Should the fundamentals of Orthodox culture be taught? "I have not yet read it." "I do not know anything, but this subject should not be imposed on school children and it should be done as an elective. Because we have a free state based on the fact that all religions are permitted." "No, I do not know anything. I am not in favor of imposing religion." "Absolutely nothing." "I am afraid that I know nothing, unfortunately." "I may have heard something, but nothing lodged in my memory. Fundamentals of, what did you say, Orthodox culture? I have not heard anything. Perhaps there should be somehow a differentiated approach like teaching fundamentals of Islam in Tatarstan. Why not? Perhaps in Tuva the fundamentals of Buddhism. I think that this should be a required subject, but it should be considered that there are really many confessions in Russia; that should be thought about." "I am afraid that I know nothing." "Nothing. It's the first I have heard of it." "Fundamentals of Christian culture, Orthodox? No. If it is to be taught, then it should be the fundamentals of all cultures, of all religious fundamentals." "Nothing, I do not know whether there are people who really at the present time could teach in the schools, the more so in a required fashion. Are there many people who understand what Orthodox culture is?"
Father Vsevolod, the last observation of this anonymous woman: how many teachers understand what Orthodox culture is; what would you say on this?
Chaplin: I think that there already are thousands of such teachers. In recent time theological educational institutions have graduated hundreds and hundreds of teachers who now understand. In seventeen institutions of higher education there are departments of theology, and they are training hundreds and thousands of people who understand. There are enough teachers. But what's very interesting is that people who responded to the questions on the street know very little about this. Actually, in the main, it is a narrow group of so-called rights defenders, several persons, who have raised a tempest in a teapot. Why this has happened, I will nevertheless say. It is no accident that a great quantity of pedagogues, workers in the educational system, who deal with extremely diverse matters, support the idea because they understand that there is a vacuum of morality in society, a vacuum of the meaning of life, and, yes, really, there is a vacuum of faith and a vacuum of ideas. And when a certain group tried to lead the nation at the beginning of the 1990s, and they did not succeed, they opposed having knowledge about faith and knowledge about religious culture in the schools, and this says simply that this group of people that stirred up the tempest in the teapot simply do not want to acknowledge their own ideological defeat. Mr. Yakovenko says that this teaching violates the values of secularism, the values of humanism, and whatever else. Why should these values be imposed in the schools and why are these values obligatory and universal? They are not my values; I do not want for Orthodox children to study in the schools the values of humanism and the values of secularism. There are believing children who require, and their parents require, that education in the schools not violate in any way the worldview of these children, who consider that, yes, there is a single true religion and the other religions are false.
Roitman: Thank you, Father Chaplin. I suggest that you are completely right in defending the rights of parents to give the corresponding education to their children. But should specifically the fundamentals of Orthodox culture be taught as a required subject even in Moscow classes, where there are quite a few children of Azerbaijanis and Tatars living in Moscow? Perhaps they want to study in the same class with Vova Ivanov the fundamentals of Muslim culture? I do not know how you think about this, but I will give the problem to Igor Grigorievich Yakovenko to discuss.
Yakovenko: Those parents and those children who want to study the fundamentals of Orthodoxy in that version that we are discussing today, they are not only Orthodox believers but also citizens of the Russian federation. Our country exists and is stable up until now; for now there is a consistent policy of teaching a tolerant attitude to another faith and to other peoples and values. And it is the violation of this trend that has evoked the concerns of rights defenders. I do not think that one should read the hearts and reconstruct the thoughts of the rights defense movement and its supposed motives. The motive of my participation in this conversation is connected with the fact that I would hope that the Russian state and the Russian federation will be maintained in the future. And this is possible only in the event that the schools will teach children respect for both their own faith and the faith of their neighbors. Then, let's note, there are also Old Believers who are absolutely traditional for Russia, existing as a no less Orthodox church and part of the Orthodox world. So can they create their own required school textbook? I imagine that a religious studies textbook that contained all the basic religions of Russia would be more correct from the point of view of state interests. Perhaps it would be possible to go along such a path in order to make a textbook for the separate confessions. But under all circumstances it should be distinguished: this is our faith, we believe, we think this way. There exist other confessions as well, and people who belong to them think differently.
Roitman: Thank you, Igor Grigorievich. Father Vsevolod, perhaps it would make sense to create similar disciplines, I am speaking in the plural, disciplines, not only the fundamentals of Orthodox culture but also fundamentals of Muslim culture, Buddhist, Hindu, and so forth as electives; whoever wants it will study, but not make them required subjects in general education state schools?
Chaplin: Naturally. After all, from the very beginning our church has said that the study of religion should be voluntary and should be varied. From the very beginning, many years back and all of this time we have said that children should not be forced to study religion. It is necessary to give children a choice, a choice that is connected with the choice of their parents. Now this is being done successfully in Serbia, Romania, a majority of the other countries of eastern and central Europe, where five or six confessions are offered as a choice or the secular, religionless worldview. Up until now in our country the secular religionless worldview has been imposed and up until now it has been required to teach in the schools that humans descended from monkeys, that there are no miracles, that the Bible is a myth, and so forth. This should not be. Nevertheless the worldview of such a skeptical attitude toward all religions is also a worldview. And when the idea arises of writing a textbook about all religions right away placing them on an equal footing, this violates the worldview of children who think that it is their faith that is true. But at the same time, of course, they should be taught the spirit of respect for other faiths and for people of other descents, and so forth. The schools still should not impose an ideology, including the ideology that Messrs. Ikhlov and Yakovenko profess, and give the possibility of a person's choice, the choice of the child and his family.
Roitman: Evgeny Ikhlov, perhaps some kind of compromise is actually possible that such problems not be decided by judicial process?
Ikhlov: That state education in Russia is supposed to be humanistic and secular is established by the law "On education." We are not at all dealing with the rights of believers, we are not dealing with the rights of parents; we are simply saying that officials do not have the right to violate the law "On education." If people do not like the general state schools, there are alternatives and possibilities for people; there always are Sunday schools and the like. In addition, I want to stress the very important matter of principle. Humanity, Igor Grigorievich said, paid with the blood of tens of millions of people for the principle of a neutral attitude toward religions in the state system and in the educational system. Those periods when it was different are marked by colossal suffering. To preserve the fragile multiethnic and multireligious peace in Russia is possible only in the event that there is a common, united, carefully agreed to course of becoming acquainted with the world religions, from a neutral position, that is done from a critical position. The schools should not teach miracles, if they are state general education schools. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The Russian Associated Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith is again forced to raise its voice in defense of Christianity against the attacks by L.A. Ponomarev and E.V. Ikhlov. Regular "noisy declarations" have been orgainzed by L.A. Ponomarev: the appeal of the "For Human Rights" movement, "Russian society is obliged to unite its efforts for protection of the secular character of state education" on 4 June 2003 and the "Appeal of the 'Common Action' initiative group" of 26 June 2003 to the minister of education of RF with regard to the "Fundamentsls of Orthodox Culture" textbook prove that religious intolerance toward Christianity is strong within Russian society. E.V. Ikhlov is continuing his attacks on Christianity, too (see "Debate over the Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture textbook, Announcer Lev Roitman, Radio Liberty, 7 June 2003) We regret that L.A. Ponomarev is drawing more new people into the orbit of his xenophobic activity.
The Russian Associated Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith is forced again to focus the attention of society on how L.A. Ponomarev and E.V. Ikhlov are subjecting to attacks not so much Borodina's textbook as Christianity itself. Ponomarev and Ikhlov affirm completely without basis the supposed antisemitic character of the questions posed on page 114 of Borodina's textbook: "Why did the Jews crucify Christ? What prevented them from understanding the spiritual meaning of Jesus' teaching about the heavenly kingdom?" But there is absolutely nothing in these questions that could offend modern-day confessing Judaism. From this historical fact, that almost 2,000 years ago some Jews actually crucified Christ and did not accept his teaching, and from the explanation of this fact, it does not follow that such an explanation is incitement of hostility toward modern Jews.
L.A. Ponomarev and those whom he has been able to attract into the orbit of his war with Borodina's "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook evidently are not able to understand that essentially their attacks are addressed not against the Russian Orthodox church but against all of Christianity in general and against the most fundamental Christian doctrine. They do not understand that in carrying out somebody's order for the informational hounding of the Russian Orthodox church (and this is obvious) they are offending the religious sentiments also of believing protestants and Catholics and they are treating all of Christianity with contempt. Russian protestants also believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified by some Jews, but we also know, believe, and teach that at the same time other Jews followed him, many to the end, going to death for the sake of their faith. And we do not intend to rewrite sacred scripture to the liking of militant, hysterical persons. Whether L.A. Ponomarev likes this or not is completely unimportant, but this is one of the statements of holy scripture. At the same time, Russian protestants have a respectful attitude toward believing Jews as well as toward Jews who profess other religions. L.A. Ponomarev does not understand the simple fact that it is possible to remain within the bosom of one's own religion while respecting believers of other religions, and he shows that himself. The baselessness of the claims of Ponomarev and Ikhlov against Borodina's textbook and the aggressiveness of their attacks on Christianity permit one to call Ponomarev and Ikhlov themselves xenophobic for arousing hostility. Today some do not like something in Christian history, tomorrow others will demand rewriting the Bible in accordance with the demands of Rerikh's "tolerance in the spirit of the culture of the world" and the burning of all copies of the "intolerant" Bible. Every religion has value in its own autonomy. In the twenties and thirties of the past century, Emelian Yaroslavsky excised in this way from sacred scripture what was not to his liking. What these attempts to correct the faith and believers in accordance with Marxism-Leninism led to we all recall.
The Russian Associated Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith also declares its categorical disagreement with statements distributed by individual politicians that introducing the possibility of pupils' gaining on a voluntary basis knowledge about their native Russian culture (naturally within the framework of existing legislation) supposedly will lead to the destruction of the secular character of education in the state schools and to their clericalization. The interpretation of the requirement of the secularity of education as its antireligiousness is a revival of the notion of the time of militant, vulgar atheism and aggressive godlessness. Imposing a single general education anti-Christian ideology on all pupils, a la Ponomarev, is actually a direct violation of the secularity of education and a most blatant violation of article 13 of the constitution of the Russian federation and a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens and is itself a clericalization, against which Mr. Ponomarev is supposedly fighting.
We, Russian protestants, appeal to Messrs. Ponomarev and Ikhlov, and others who have decided to support with their authority the xenophobic statements of Ponomarev based exclusively on his personal intolerance and religious hatred for Christianity, that they abandon this bad business and occupy themselves with those problems which still, unfortunately, exist in our country in abundance.
President of the Russian Associated Union of Christians of Evangelical
Faith,
Bishop Riakhovsky, S.V.
(tr. by PDS, posted 2 July 2003)
Related articles: "Rights
defenders exorcise demons"
"Can
The Attempt To Transform "Fundamentals Of Orthodoxy" Into An "Exclusively
Cultural"
Phenomenon
Be Successful?"
Russia Religion News Current News Items
In an interview given to the weekly "Kaluga perekrestok" Vladimir Pozner, in particular, expressed his opinion with regard to what Russia has suffered from. In his opinion, in Russia there have been two historically developed misfortunes. "Russia's problems have not been its fools or its roads, but more serious things." First, for a long time the people were deprived of freedom and the possibility of making an independent choice. Second, there is the harmful role of the Russian Orthodox church. "Orthodoxy was a brake on the development of the country. Just compare Orthodox Russia, Greece, and Bulgaria in terms of prosperity and the development of democracy with the protestant countries of Scandanavia, Great Britain, or Germany, and even with Catholic France or Italy. It is sad, but Russia lags behind all other Christian non-Orthodox countries of Europe," he said.
A representative of the administration of the Astrakhan regional "For the moral regeneration of the fatherland" public organization, Alexander Dmitrov, sent to the prosecutor of Astrakhan province a request to conduct an investigation regarding Vladimir Pozner's statements. In Dmitrov's opinnion, these statements contain evidence of "commission of the crime covered by article 282 of the Criminal Code of RF, incitement of religious hostility."
To the prosecutor of Astrakhan province:
I ask you to conduct a prosecutorial investigation on the basis of the statements of the famous television journalist Vladimir Pozner to the weekly "Kaluga Crossroad," that was posted on the "Russkoe nebo" internet site on 24 June 2003 in which I see evidence of the commission of a crime covered by article 282 of the Criminal Code of RF, incitement of religious hostility.
Posner has spread through the mass news media unreliable information pertaining to the significance of the Russian Orthodox church in the history of our state, saying literally the following: "The second misfortune is the harmful role of the Russian Orthodox church. Orthodoxy was a brake on the development of the country."
Our state has an Orthodox foundation, laid by the holy Prince Vladimir, equal of the apostles. Only Orthodoxy is able to unite and bind together the Russian people who dwell on such an enormous territory. Orthodoxy gave to the world a great culture in the person of Orthodox scholars, writers, poets, engineers, and industrialists. The level of economic authority of Orthodox Russia has not been surpassed either by the mighty USSR or by current-day democratic Russia, and therefore the statement by the famous journalist, Russian television academic, laureate of the "Order of Friendship of Peoples" and "Order of Honor" has struck a blow to my life's values in which I have raised my children, which causes me moral pain.
In addition, the Russian Orthodox church is not simply a religious institution; it is millions of believers that constitute the plenitude of the church, and therefore the statement by the authoritative journalist makes him a "saboteur" of the state of all of our fellow citizens who were baptized in the Russian Orthodox church and actually engenders religious hostility and discord.
from Alexander Ivanovich Dmitrov, chairman of the administration of the Astrakhan "For the moral regeneration of the fatherland" district public organization.
(tr. by PDS, posted 1 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The problems of the legal status of foreign priests and monastics, which makes ministry in Russia difficult, was one of the main topics of the regular, twelfth plenary session of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Russia (KKER) on 26 June in Moscow, "Blagovest-info" reports, citing the KKER Information Center.
Participants in the session included the representative of the Holy See in the Russian federation, Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Metropolitan of the archdiocese of the Mother of God in Moscow, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, the ordinary of the diocese of St. Clement in Saratov, Bishop Clemens Pickel, the ordinary of the Transfiguration diocese in Novosibirsk, Bishop Joseph Werth, the ordinary of the diocese of St. Joseph in Irkutsk, Bishop Kirill Klimovich, and the general secretary of KKER, Fr Igor Kovalevsky.
Archbishop Antonio Mennini delivered a speech of greetings to those assembled. He noted especially questions of training Russian priests and the inter-Christian dialogue. The bishops gave great attention to state-church relations, interreligious dialogue, and the activity of the advanced ecclesiastical seminary of "Mary, Queen of the Apostles" in St. Petersburg.
Session participants confirmed the plans for the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the tenth anniversary of the "Mary, Queen of the Apostles" seminary and of the pre-seminary in Novosibirsk and the federal Catholic "Karitas" charity organization. Session participants became acquainted with the results of the work in preparing and publishing liturgical texts.
The new ordinary of the diocese of St. Joseph, Bishop Kirill Klimovich, was unanimously elected director of the Catechism Commission and of the Commission for Inter-Christian and Interreligious Dialogue of KKER.
The next plenary session of the conference is planned for 21-22 November
of this year in Saratov. (tr. by PDS, posted 1 July 2003)
CATHOLICS OF MOSCOW PRAY FOR THE RETURN OF CHURCH OF PETER AND PAUL
TO THE PARISH
Agnuz
Catholic Information Service, 30 June 2003
Around 600 Muscovite Catholics gathered last Sunday in the afternoon for a solemn worship service in order to pray for the return of the capital church of Peter and Paul to the Catholic parish. The service was led by the head of the representation of the Vatican in Moscow, Archbishop Antonio Mennini.
For more than forty years now the building of the former church of Peter and Paul on Miliutin Lane has been occupied by the "Giprouglemash" Institute [State Construction and Experimental Institute of Coal Mining Machinery] "Interfax" was told at the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Russia.
Believers have been unsuccessful in frequent attempts to obtain the return of the church and therefore for more than ten years on the day of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, which the Catholic church celebrates on 29 June, Catholics have assembled on the steps of the building and prayed for the return of the church that was confiscated by bolsheviks in 1938.
This time, because of rain, the service had to be moved into the church of St. Liudovik, located nearby, although later a procession of believers went from there to the Peter and Paul church.
Addressing those gathered, Archbishop Mennini expressed the hope that sooner or later prayers would resound within this building. "Today," he said, "we sense in a special way the presence of St. Pete, turning our thoughts to Pope John Paul II, who has performed his ministry with such courage and perceives it as a gift for all Christians." The representative of the Vatican also mentioned that during today's service prayers were lifted for all witnesses of the faith who suffered for it in Russia--for Catholics, for Orthodox, and for protestants. (tr. by PDS, posted 1 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items