RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS|
|
|
On 15 July a judicial session of the Meshchansk district court of Moscow was held on the complaint of the "For Human Rights" All-Russian Public Movement, whose executive director is the famous rights defender Lev Ponomarev, against the order of the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow, S.N. Lazutkin of 15 January 2003 "for illegal refusal to open a criminal case," a "Portal-credo.ru" correspondent reports.
The subject of the complaint was the refusal of the prosecutor to open a criminal case "regarding the act of violation of the constitutional requirement to observe the secular character of the state and state education, as well as the act of inciting interethnic and interreligious hostility." The rights defenders consider the act which "violates" and "incites" to be the publication of the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" written by Alla Borodina. The textbook was produced under the direction of S.B. Romanov, first prorector of the Moscow Institute of Continuing Education for Education Workers of the Moscow Committee of Education.
Representatives of the plaintiff's side, the "For Human Rights" public movement, were identified in the judicial session as Evgeny Ikhlov, Kozhanova, Volkova, and doctor of philosophical sciences Igor Rakovenko. The interests of the defendant were represented by Assistant Prosecutor Gorbunova of the Ostankino prosecutor's office and a representative of the Moscow city prosecutor's office, Rybalko.
At the beginning of the session, presiding judge V.F. Nikitin called for order in the courtroom, since despite the small capacity of the room--no more than 30 persons--supporters of the prosecutor (more precisely, the "Orthodox public" that defends the textbook) were behaving "too actively." Loud comments and shouts from the room led to the judge's being forced to remove from the courtroom one of the more zealous supporters of the textbook.
After order was restored the presiding judge examined the opinion of the sides regarding audio and video recording during the trial. Representatives of the plaintiff gave consent, the representative of the Ostankino prosecutor also did not object, and the representative of the Moscow city prosecutor objected only to video taping. The latter opinion coincided with the opinion of the presiding judge, who forbade the recording (Russian judges in general heartily dislike being photographed).
Evgeny Ikhlov, who served during the session as the "chief of the representatives," presented a petition for the removal of the representative of the city prosecutor, Rybalko. Members of his team naturally supported the petition. The reason for the petition for removal was the position of Rybalko in preceding sessions, where he supported the order of the Ostankino prosecutor and did not rise to the defense of the law and constitution that, in the opinion of the "For Human Rights" movement, had been violated. Representatives of the defense, naturally, spoke against the petition for removal that had been filed. The judge left for a conference room for making a determination on this petition.
During the compulsory break Evgeny Ikhlov again described for the "Portal-credo.ru" correspondent what the rights defenders were so dissatisfied about. He quoted an excerpt from the textbook (p. 112? to which p. 130 corresponds in the second edition) where it says that the reason for the desire of the Jews to crucify Christ was that "This people thought about earth, about their own independence, and power over other peoples . . . Thus the idea of eternal life was incomprehensible to it."
After approximately twenty minutes the secretary of the court invited participants and the public into the courtroom. The judge announced his decision: to reject the petition of the plaintiff regarding removal of the representative of the city prosecutor Rybalko. It was evident that the rejection little distressed the representatives of the plaintiff since the petition was badly explained and the arguments were of a wishful nature.
The plaintiff produced its second petition, regarding the addition of five documents to the materials of the case. Unfortunately, the texts of the additional documents were not made public; a representative of the defendant was handed copies for purposes of acquaintance and thus it is difficult to say something about the contents of these documents. Of the documents declared for addition, there were presented a letter from the minister of education of RF, Vladimir Fillipov, a petition from some brotherhood, some article from a newspaper, a copy of an answer from the ministry of education, and a copy of methodological recommendations from the prosecutor general about combating extremism. Representatives of the defense, after acquaintance with the documents presented for their review, spoke against adding them to the materials of the case as not pertaining to the case under review. The court ruled on the spot to add all documents except the instructions of the prosecutor general, since it was presented in the form of a copy that could not be verified.
In his turn, the representative of the city prosecutor presented a petition for adding to the case more than ten documents, including a reply by Kuznetsov and Troitsky to a review by N.V. Shaburov, director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State Humanities University, of Borodina's textbook; an appeal of the Union of Writers; a review of the textbook by the St. Tikhon's Theological Institute; a letter of a representative of the Russian Associated Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith, and a number of reviews and statements. Representatives of the plaintiff studied these documents more than twenty minutes and in the end declared that all the documents presented by the prosecutor for addition to the case had been posted on sites in the Internet, but despite this the representatives of the plaintiff did not object to adding the documents presented by Rybalko to the materials of the case, with the exception of the letter of the Christians of Evangelical Faith, since the letter was dated 30 June 2003, while the date of registration at the prosecutor's office was 25 June 2003. To the court's question what such a strange confusion of dates signified, Mr. Rybalko answered that it really was some mistake, but he could not explain how it happened.
Other such "artifacts" came from the prosecutor's office in a solid stream. The judge, taking the documents presented by Mr. Rybalko for addition and after the representatives of the plaintiff became acquainted with them, began to announce them and render decisions. Almost all documents presented by the representative of the city prosecutor were declared by the judge to be in improper format since they were presented in xerox copies without verification and without presentation at the same time of originals for inspection. The actions of the worker in the prosecutor's office who made such a crude procedural mistake could seem strange only at first glance. In all likelihood it reflected the habit of the prosecutor's workers to feel at home in a trial, as representatives of the state, in whose name the court also acts. This self-assurance let Mr. Rybalko down. But after such a drawn out start the court was not able to proceed to interrogation of the sides.
A representative of the plaintiff presented yet another petition. The essence of the petition was a request to the court to determine whether the crucifixion of Christ by the Hebrews [evrei] as presented in the textbook was fact or myth. After all only in dependence upon this is it possible to understand whether there is an act of incitement of interrelgious strife or not. Judge Nikitin responded with a question addressed to E. Ikhlov: "Do you work for the press that is present in the courtroom?" Without going into detail, he asked the opinion of representatives of the defense on the petition that had been submitted. Mr. Rybalko answer authoritatively that Christ was crucified not by Hebrews but by "Jews" [iudei] and thus the petition should be declined, which the court did.
Then the trial finally reached the stage of judicial inquiry. Within the framework of the judicial inquiry the sides cited facts and conclusions they had earlier presented without introducing anything that was in principle new. Each side, citing in its own way expert conclusion, interpreted quotations from the textbook.
In the speech by I. Yakovenko, doctor of philosophical sciences and representative of the plaintiff, it was said that in the textbook, "on the basis of data of the faith," definite conclusions about the Jewish people are made and it is made the responsibility of a Russian person to be only an Orthodox believer, which does not correspond to historical realities since already at the beginning of the twentieth century there were more than five million Russians of non-Orthodox confessions. Very brief, but much more correct from the procedural point of view, was the speech by the representative of the defense, who said that the opening of a criminal case will give the opportunity to conduct a full and objective expert analysis on the case which will put an end to the drawn-out debate. We recall that the expert analysis is supposed to be done only by a person conducting an investigation and by a judge and an expert bears criminal liability for the expert analysis, in distinction from various scientific authorities who give expert conclusions, that have been presented in abundance by both sides who mutually reproach one another for the nonprocedural nature of such conclusions.
After a break the court issued an order: "To recognize the refusal to open a criminal case by the Ostankino prosecutor's office to be without foundation and to require the elimination of the violations that have been committed." The essence of the violations that the court found comes down to procedural nuances. Thus, the court indicated that the order of the prosecutor's office of 15 January 2003, to which the plaintiffs were objecting, was issued without rescinding the same order of 4 September 2002, that is, two different orders on a single declaration were in effect simultaneously. Also the judge indicated that the examination of the prosecutor's declaration was not done completely since in the examination the prosecutor's office deviated from the subject of the examination indicated in the statement, that is, it did not examine those acts that are identified in the statement.
Representatives of the plaintiff and their sympathizers in the courtroom congratulated one another for their "victory," although the abrogation of the decision of the prosecutor's office speaks only of a new round of struggle whose chief events lie ahead. (tr. by PDS, posted 16 July 2003)
RIGHTS DEFENDERS ACHIEVE LIMITED SUCCESS IN LEGAL PROCESS ON CASE OF
"FUNDAMENTALS OF ORTHODOX CULTURE" TEXTBOOK
Blagovest-info/Radiotserkov,
16 July 2003
On 15 July a Moscow court satisfied the complaint of the "For Human Rights" All-Russia Public Movement against the refusal of the prosecutor to open a criminal case on the act of distribution of Alla Borodina's "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook, which, in the opinion of rights defenders, facilitates the incitement of national and religious hostility. Judge Vladimir Nikitin based his decision on the fact that in refusing to open the case, workers of the prosecutor's office committed a number of procedural errors.
In the order of the Meshchansk district court of the city of Moscow, written by Judge Nikitin, it is noted in particular that the Ostankino district prosecutor's office, to which the "For Human Rights" movement had turned with a request to open a criminal case, was guilty of "incompleteness of verification actions." In addition, the court ruled, two refusals made at different times by the prosecutor's office contain formal contradictions in composition: in one case it speaks about the absence of the substance of a crime, while in the other, the absence of the commission of a crime. The court required workers of the prosecutor's office to eliminate the violations that were committed.
To the question of a "Blagovest-info" correspondent about their future actions, representatives of the Ostankino prosecutor's office and the Moscow city prosecutor, Khrapunova and Rybalko, who were present in the court as defendants, answered that the decision on this question is within the competence of their department. If the prosecutor does not file an appeal of the decision of the court, it will have to rewrite the refusal in more precise formulations, which would satisfy the procedural requirements.
The first time the "For Human Rights" movement submitted the petition for opening the criminal case "for the act of violation of the constitutional requirement of observing the secular character of the state and state education and for the act of incitement of interethnic and interreligious hostility" to the prosecutor general's office of RF on 18 June 2002. The reason for the petition was A.V. Borodina's "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook, issued by the "Pokrov" publishing house on the recommendation of the Coordinating Council for Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church. The activists of the "For Human Rights" movement consider the introduction of "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" into Russian schools violates the principle of the secularity of education. In addition, the authors of the petition affirm, the textbook contains elements of xenophobia and, in particular, antisemitism.
On 11 October 2002 the Ostankino district prosecutor I. Bozhko signed an order refusing to open the criminal case, citing materials of a consultation received at the Scientific Investigative Institute [NII] of the Problems of Strengthening Legality and Legal Order of the prosecutor general of RF. However on 30 December of that same year the Meshchansk district court found the order of Prosecutor Bozhko illegal, requiring him "to eliminate the violations that have been committed." Two weeks later, on 15 January 2003, the Ostankino prosecutor S. Lazutkin again refused to open a criminal case "for absence of the commission of a crime."
As observers note, representatives of the prosecutor's office were rather carelessly prepared for the judicial session. In particular, a majority of the materials that the representative of the Moscow city prosecutor petitioned to add to the materials of the case were rejected by Judge Nikitin on the basis that they were xerocopies that were not verified in the proper manner. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
On the eve of the day of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who is the heavenly protector of Russia, 17 July, Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus plans to conduct the divine liturgy in the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra, "Interfax" reports. As "Interfax" was told at the Moscow patriarchate, the patriarch intends to conduct a solemn liturgy also on the day when the whole Russian Orthodox church will observe the day of the discovery of the relics of the saint, 18 July,
It was decided to hold the summer session of the Holy Synod this year not on the day of the commemoration of Sergius of Radonezh, as usual, but on 30 July, during the jubilee celebration of the 100th anniversary of the canonization of Serafim of Sarov. As noted at the patriarchate, for the first time in history a session of the synod will be held not in the capital but in the city of Sarov in Nizhny Novgorod province, where a great quantity of representatives of the higher clergy will gather.
The session of the synod, as well as the jubilee celebration, will be headed by Patriarch Alexis. (tr. by PDS, posted 16 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
(Presenter) The first service in the new Church on the Blood was held this morning in Yekaterinburg, on the spot of the infamous Ipatyev House, where the last Russian emperor and his family were shot dead (by the Bolsheviks on 17 July 1918).
(Correspondent
Vadim Chelikov) The consecration began this morning. High priests of the
Russian Orthodox Church and members of the Holy Synod attended the service.
From the moment of its consecration, a church has a soul of its own. The
church was built on the spot where engineer Ipatyev's house once stood.
It was in the basement of that house that Nicholas II and his family were
shot dead. The foundation of the church contains stones from the Ipatyev
House foundation, and the lower side-chapel replicates its basement.
In front of the doors there is a monument to the Romanovs. They are shown as they were in the very last minutes of their lives, descending the steps leading to the basement.
The architecture of the church is unique, since from the beginning it was designed not only as a house of prayer but also as an historic monument.
(Unnamed parishioner) I believe it is the pride of the Russian Orthodox Church and all the people of Yekaterinburg.
(Correspondent) Pilgrims have been coming to Yekaterinburg for years, but today there are more than ever. Despite the tragic anniversary, people are congratulating each other on a happy day - the day of repentance and purification.
(Woman pilgrim) We are very pleased that our Lord made us come here from another town today of all days, to gather and pray together here, at this holy place in the city of Yekaterinburg.
(Correspondent) Holiday prayers are being said today at all the churches of Yekaterinburg. In addition to that, several exhibitions are opening today, and church choirs will give concerts. Late in the evening, a holy mass will be said at the Church on the Blood. The service at the Church on the Blood to commemorate all the saints of Russia is to continue until midnight, after which a religious procession with a cross and banners will set off towards the Ganina Yama landmark, where the Bolsheviks tried to conceal the remains of the last Russian tsar and his family.
Source: Channel One TV, Moscow, in Russian 0800 gmt 16 Jul 03 (Copyright 2003 BBC Monitoring, posted 16 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The "United bishops' council of the True-Orthodox church" was held a few days ago in Moscow. What is this? Why was it needed? What promises does it hold out?
First of all it is necessary to understand whom the hierarchs gathered at the bishops' council represented. This is not entirely obvious. For example, the "True-Orthodox church" is, in particular, the official name of Ukrainian parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (the church abroad), although this organization was not at the bishops' council. Who was?
Briefly speaking, who was represented were those church organizations that for some reason did not take part in the process of "legalization" of the catacomb church, beginning in the late 80s and early 90s, and these are a majority, and those who came to light no earlier than this time.
Properly speaking, of the "old" church organizations of catacomb believers, only one participated in the gathering, the one headed by Metropolitan Elifany Kaminsky of Minsk. This is the only "branch" of the historic catacomb church that maintained its own hierarchy to the beginning of the 1990s. All other catacombists, with the possible exception of a few groups who preferred to remain without a hierarchy at all, had lost their last bishops no later than the 1980s and preferred to restore their hierarchy from the church abroad. After this a portion of them remained within ROCOR, and thus now, along with the church abroad itself, are split into three hostile groups, and others broke off their administrative unity with ROCOR and joined the Russian Orthodox Autonomous church (RPATs) with its center at Suzdal.
The special position of Metropolitan Epifany was predetermined by the special situation of his hierarchy back in the 1970s-1980s among the other catacombists. This branch of the catacomb church, otherwise known as the "Serafim-Gennady," was actually founded in 1971 by Gennady Sekach, its first bishop. The problem, however, was that the majority of catacombists did not trust the validity of Gennady Sekach's episcopal ordination. And the issue was not the absence of documents--the times were hard and preserving such documents was difficult--but that even the accounts of the circumstances of the performance of this consecration were extremely contradictory. The impression was created that Gennady Sekach often rewrote his own biography on this point. The unfortunate impression that arose in catacomb circles resulted in an excessively conciliatory attitude of "Gennadyites" toward the Moscow patriarchate. They did not see any clearly defined doctrinal or canonical boundaries between them and it, and they even permitted concelebration of clergy easily. In practice, "Gennadyites" merged indistinguishably with the "catacomb" part of the Moscow patriarchate, that is, with those believers, monks, and clerics of RPTsMP who preferred to conceal their religious life from soviet authorities, conducting it nevertheless within the bosom of the official church.
Thus it turned out that the "Serafim-Gennady" hierarchy of Metropolitan Epifany went its own way, although it made no attempts to get state registration.
In time the soviet regime was abolished and the realities of the market economy arose. Laws of the market even penetrated church circles. This led not only to the widely known process of the turning of RPTsMP into a vigorous and very large figure in the market of religious goods and services but also to certain phenomena on a much smaller scale but with their own characteristics. In particular, there arose the possibility of creating so-called "commercial churches," that is, church organizations that had practically no parishioners and almost no, or even no liturgical life, but they had bank accounts and tax privileges.
One of the most solid participants in the meeting of 13 July was the bishop from Georgia. Incidentally, he is the most conservative of the participants. The divisions in the official Georgian church in the 1990s have gone on two different planes, the ecclesiastical proper and the political. As a result of the church division in Georgia, the True-Orthodox church of Georgia was formed and it entered the jurisdiction of the True-Orthodox synod in Boston. This church still does not have its own bishops although it is administered autonomously. It is clear that it could not be represented at this bishops' council. What was represented was that part of the Georgian church from soviet time that broke away after the defeat of supporters of Zviad Gamsakhurdia. This is the church of the "Zviadist" part of the Georgian diaspora. It has a sufficiently solid material condition, although prospects for its development have obvious limitations.
The Georgian "Zviadist" bishops were not participating in the Russian church "underground" of the 90s for the first time. The continuing cooperation with former representatives of another "commercial church" created by a former archdeacon of ROCOR in Moscow, Alexander Mikhalchenko, naturally led them to this bishops' assembly. Mikhalchenko changed his name to Sergeev and called himself a protopresbyter. At some time this structure, some time in the two to three year period between 1990 and 200, began quickly drawing to itself all the malcontents who had once been connected with RPTsMP, ROCOR, and RPATs, and very quickly began ordaining as bishops everybody who earnestly wanted it. At the first stage such a policy bore fruit--a rapid expansion of its own structure--but later it led to inevitable consequences (of course, centrifugal). Alexander Mikhalchenkov's talent was such that he seized the moment and during the flourishing of his structure he received episcopal consecration from the Ukrainian autocephalists. Of course the church of Alexander Mikhalchenkov-Sergeev is some how connected in its origin with ROCOR, but in the main, since it comes from the Ukrainian autocephalists, it does not have anything to do with the historic catacomb movement.
Soon, as should be expected, the church organization of Mikhalchenkov-Sergeev disintegrated. The immoderate diversity of the ideologies gobbled up by it did its work along with the sins of the human, too human, material. The majority of the participants in the former association preferred to return to the catacomb ways of existence. The more "civilized" portion of the former church of Mikhalchenkov remained on the surface of church life, emphasizing their status not so much as a catacomb church as a Russian analogue of the Kievan patriarchate. However all the others participated, including even the extremely liberal Apostolic Orthodox church that came out of the same Mikhalchenkov organization and whose chief ideologues are Gleb Yakunin and Yakov Krotov.
Having described briefly the composition of the participants, let's think about what led them to such a life; why did such a heterogeneous, especially in ideological matters, gathering want to declare itself a church organization united in administrative matters?
It is easiest to answer this in the case of the most marginal elements of the new church formation. Properly speaking, these are those who over the course of the recent past asked to be taken into all church organizations along with the hope of receiving through them the status of legal entity, without which one cannot survive in our state except by truly catacomb discipline. These were the interests of some of the "separate" bishops (for example, Alexander Mironov and Arseny Kiselev), as well as the whole organization of the Apostolic Orthodox church. With respect to the latter, there is reason to predict its rapid departure from the new church formation. The ideology of this organization is extremely unusual for church circles as a whole. One can only guess how peacefully this departure will turn out and how successfully they can avoid stern church punishments afterward.
It is somewhat more difficult to understand what the new association gives Metropolitan Rafail, its current head and, as we now have learned, the caretaker of the Moscow patriarch. He is a unique figure of the current council; the church organization that he heads has both state registration and a decent financial base. His doctrinal views can be quite exotic, but who of today's businessmen do not have exotic views? After all, this does not prevent them being practical people. Any practical person who shows up in church circles, especially among ambitious people who are completely impractical, will be able to maintain the position of the only sober person. Therefore we pose the question thus: why does a serious person need a children's nursery?
One must find the answer in those laws of business. In business it is impossible to remain at the status quo. There must be development; otherwise there will be collapse. The church brand is included in business, and thus a church organization must develop accordingly. For business on the country and international scale it is necessary even in church relations to get beyond the limits of Moscow and to create a church organization on a truly all-Russian scale. For this it does not matter at all who joins. More precisely, only one condition is important: that all these people be not so much manipulable (this is too costly) but simply "gagged." In other words, it is necessary to collect ineffective people as extras, ineffective in social and financial respects. Meanwhile, that all organizations entering into association with Metropolitan Rafail lack state registration is rather reliable evidence of such ineffectiveness.
By the nature of the church organization that is now formed it is possible to judge the current level of the business ambitions of Metropolitan Rafail. We consider him average. On one hand, there is the undoubted attempt to get to the Russia-wide level. On the other hand, this attempt, for now, is modest. The internal structure of the organization suggests the presence on the Russia scale of only its extras, who are almost manikins, and not full-fledged representations capable of some kind of activity. But you can't jump higher than your head.
Finally the question is especially interesting about the reasons for the participation of Metropolitan Epifany Kaminsky in the current association. Until now, the hierarchy headed by him has not participated in any of the church "projects" of the 1990s. Apparently this is an instinctive reaction to the "system crisis." Their doctrinal notions do not provide the "Gennadyites" a way to explain very clearly their distinction from RPTsMP, but being an "alternative" with respect to RPTsMP is still necessary to them for self-preservation as an organization. As a result, they still prefer to cast themselves on the mercy of one who in exchange for hospitality will not require of them any changes in their internal life (such changes as would be required in ROCOR or RPATs). They are hardly mistaken in these hopes.
What kind of conclusions can be drawn about the church situation in Russia on the basis of the results of the bishops' council that was held?
We would call the process that is going on coagulation: when tiny particles suspended in water so that they make it opaque suddenly settle so that what remains is only clear water and a dark layer on the bottom. Even quite recently it was difficult to hope that such diverse church groups, whose isolated condition produced such chaos in church life, would suddenly up and gather together; but now they have gathered together and we find the "dogmatically indifferent" catacombists of Metropolitan Epifany together with the renovationists (as they themselves call themselves in private conversation) of Gleb Yakunin in the single economically effective (and consequently, rather stable) organization of Metropolitan Rafail. One would wish for the new church association maximum stability.
Beyond the new church association, the water has become clear. In it are swimming fish long known to the reader: RPTsMP, multiplying divisions of ROCOR, RPATs, Russian branches of Ukrainian hierarchies, plus several parishes in the jurisdictions of Greek old-style synods. (tr. by PDS, posted 16 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
"There were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you who will introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who redeemed them, and they will bring swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their evil and through them the way of truth will be defamed. From greed they will ensnare you with lying words; their judgment was prepared long ago and their destruction is not asleep." (2 Pet 2.1-3)
In our difficult times the events that around the name of the True-Orthodox church that evoke the most sincere sorrow and confusion among faithful archpastors, pastors, and laity of IPTs have not ceased. Thus this time the news about the holding of a certain "unification council of IPTs" on 13 July 2003 (new style) has evoked our amazement.
According to the "Portal-credo.ru" information agency, on that day "eleven hierarchs and five priests of several 'branches' of the True-Orthodox church" assembled. "The 'unification bishops' council of the True-Orthodox church in Russia' was held in the residence of Metropolitan Rafail Prokopiev, who heads one of these 'branches.'"
"The complete list of participants in the council looks like this: [list of names follows]"
It is most regrettable that people who have the most distant relationship to the doctrine and hierarchical structure of IPTs have acted in the name of the True-Orthodox church. It was strange to see how in some unfathomable way the most strange people "united under the aegis of IPTs," people who had been unfrocked by IPTs and excommunicated from it, unfrocked clerics of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous church and RPTsMP, psychologically ill persons, and clergy who have the weakest conception of Orthodox doctrine. Even for people who are little acquainted with the history of the True-Orthodox church in our time it is completely obvious that the idea that the majority of persons listed are representatives of the doctrine and canonical structure of IPTs is flimsy.
It is not surprising that during the "council" little was said about our Lord Jesus Christ, but a great deal of attention was devoted to "restitution" and other worldly goods. Judging by all, it is the worldly intents and goals (and not concern about their own and their flocks' salvation) that were the driving motive for such a "unification."
In addition, the very fact that representatives of other jurisdictions (IPTsMM, RPATs, representatives of the Greek Old Style churches) were not even informed about the "council" clearly testifies that the event was nothing but a conspiracy of a group of people with some barely intelligible common interests, but it can in no way be called a council.
We would not have to appeal to the faithful and the world if this assemblage had not declared itself as some strange "united IPTs." In itself it is not deserving of serious attention. But since the self-called and self-appointed persons used the name of our church, we decisively declare:
This association did not have, does not have, and in future will not have anything (neither doctrinally, canonically, nor hierarchically) to do with the True-Orthodox church. By no means is it the case that anyone who does not belong structurally to RPTsMP is a child of IPTs.
The completely baseless opinion of some, that the True-Orthodox church is some kind of "zone of permissiveness and indiscipline," is categorically untrue. On the contrary, the True-Orthodox church has always preserved Orthodox doctrine and, especially, Orthodox canons. In the future we will take the most decisive measures for discrediting such gatherings.
We call the archpastors, pastors, and laity of IPTs known to us to multiply their prayers for the good order of mother-church and not to yield to tempting promises "of striving for false unity." We beseech those who have been deceived to wake up to the clever devices and to recall that true unity can be based only on the unity of the Orthodox confession of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, but in no way on human "understandings."
We also call all archpastors, pastors, and laity of IPTs known to us to intensify prayers and attempts for a true fraternal unity of all who truly confess our Lord Jesus Christ, created in a spirit of unanimity, brotherly love, and piety, and may the Almighty Lord strengthen all of us for this.
We invoke the blessing of the Lord on the faithful children of the church and we pray for the God's mercy for those who have strayed.
Archbishop Viacheslav Lisovoy of Moscow and Kolomna
Bishop Mikhail Vishnevsky of Bronnits and Velen
Bishop Aleksii Bondarenko of Minneapolis and Chicago
Archpresbyter Vladimir Rozental, secretary of the synod
(tr. by PDS)
Published on the Portal-credo.ru site, 16 July 2003
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The coordinator of the "In support of traditional spiritual and moral values" inter-fraction association of deputies, a member of the Union of Orthodox Citizens, State Duma Deputy Valery Galchenko sent to the prosecutor general of RF a letter requesting an end to the "hounding" of A.V. Borodina. The letter states that the inter-fraction association considers "actions of members of the 'For Human Rights' public movement Lev Ponomarev and Evgeny Ikhlov for the xenophobic hounding of A.V. Borodina's 'Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook as an organized provocation with the goal of inciting national and religious conflicts with the use of mass news media."
In the opinion of the letter's author, "the pseudo rights defenders cynically cover their provocational xenophobic activity against A.V. Borodina's textbook, which has received public recognition and the approval of the Orthodox church and Russian scholars, with slogans about human rights and they discredit this concept up to the level of open genocide of the population on the basis of religious convictions." V. Galchenko expressed "amazement" that the Moscow city court, in adopting on 27 May 2003 a decision about the illegality of the refusal to open a criminal case over the distribution of the textbook, ignored "numerous reviews, expert studies, and persuasive articles of authoritative scholars, including theologians, on behalf of the 'Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture' textbook, as well as the blessing of Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk," but at the same time it recognized "the expert analysis by N. Shaburova . . . theÊ incompetence of which has already been demonstrated by scholars and authoritative specialists in this area."
V. Galchenko addressed the request to the prosecutor general: "1. To conduct immediately an investigation of the activity of the 'For Human Rights' public movement and other participants in the xenophobic campaign with the purpose of discovering and bringing to account its true organizers and leaders; 2. To take measures for the immediate termination of the xenophobic hounding of the author of the 'Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture' textbook, A.V. Borodina; 3. To take under your personal supervision the situation surrounding A.V. Borodina's 'Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture' textbook; 4. To illuminate the situation in the mass news media with detailed explanations for the purpose of reestablishing the professional reputation of A.V. Borodina, ending the pressure on the leadership of education, and restoring confidence in the law enforcement and judicial agencies."Ê (tr. by PDS, posted 15 July 2003)
To Prosecutor General of the Russian federation
V.V. Ustinov
Esteemed Vladimir Vasilevich
The Inter-fraction Deputies Association "In support of traditional spiritual and moral values in Russia" views the actions of members of the "For Human Rights" public movement Lev Ponomarev and Evgeny Ikhlov for the xenophobic hounding of A.V. Borodina's "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook as an organized provocation with the goal of inciting national and religious conflicts with the use of mass news media. The deputies' special concern is evoked by the fact that numerous appeals from public organizations in Russia (the Committee for Human Rights, the "Citizens against racism and xenophobia" public bureau, etc.), the Union of Writers of Russia, Orthodox priests, scholars, the Central Ecclesiastical Board of Muslims, the Russian Associated Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith, and individual Russian citizens have been left without the necessary attention on the part of the Prosecutor General's Office, and as a result of the unhindered activity of a group of provocateurs there remains a threat of conflicts on religious and national bases.Ê The inaction of law enforcement agencies has untied the hands of the organizers of the xenophobic campaign into which new organizations have been dragged (the "We will survive until Monday" Club of Teachers, the Associated Committee in Defense of Jews in the Former USSR," the "Volunteer Corps" military historic organization), and on the Internet were posted the appeal "Russian society is obliged to unite its efforts for the protection of the secular character of state education" and the appeal to the Ministry of Education, whose goal was to stir up interethnic and religious tension at an international level and put pressure on the leadership of the education system on a very important question pertaining to the civil rights of the population to culture and education.
The falsity and insubstantiality of the conclusions of Ponomarev, Ikhlov, and company have been exposed by Russian scholars and reporters of various nationalities and religious convictions in numerous articles, in which the insulting and slanderous nature of the statements of the xenophobes who have gotten completely out of handÊ have also been constantly stressed and discussed.
The pseudo rights defenders cynically cover their provocational xenophobic activity against A.V. Borodina's textbook, which has received public recognition and the approval of the Orthodox church and Russian scholars, with slogans about human rights and they discredit this concept up to the level of open genocide of the population on the basis of religious convictions. We recall that the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of convictions are the most important human rights and it is the function of state and law enforcement agencies to guarantee the constitutional rights and to preserve these freedoms.
The decision of the Moscow city court of 27 May 2003, in which the presiding judge G.A. Stroeva and judges O.V.Svirenko and L.V. Generalova ruled that the scientific consultation of the "Problems of strengthening legality and legal order" institute, obtained by procedural means, was "unprocedural," and that the expert analysis of N. Shaburov, presented by the pseudo rights defenders, which is equivalent to it, that is, it really was gotten by nonprocedural means, was subject to review, has evoked the amazement of an aroused public. The incompetence of Shaburov's analysis has already been demonstrated by scholars and authoritative specialists in this area. It did not at all take into account the fact of Shaburov's interest in the matter; he is a religious studies scholar and head of a group of authors of a textbook that did not receive the same recognition of scholars and teachers that Borodina's textbook did. In addition, for some reason it did not subject to review the numerous reviews, expert analysis, and persuasive articles of authoritative scholars, including theologians, on behalf of the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook, as well as the blessing of Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk.
The strange decision of the judicial session under presiding judge G.A. Stroeva and judges Svirenko and Generalov, the absence of a timely response to it on the part of the prosecutor's office in the form of a required protest, and the refusal to conduct an investigation of the activity of the "For Human Rights" movement and other participants in the xenophobic campaign are viewed by members of the Inter-fraction Deputies Association "In support of traditional spiritual and moral values in Russia" and also other Russian citizens who have followed with alarm the blatant attempt to organize antireligious terror as something that requires special supervision.
The Inter-fraction Deputies Association "In support of traditional spiritual and moral values in Russia" addresses to you the request: 1. To conduct immediately an investigation of the activity of the "For Human Rights" public movement and other participants in the xenophobic campaign with the purpose of discovering and bringing to account its true organizers and leaders; 2. To take measures for the immediate termination of the xenophobic hounding of the author of the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook, A.V. Borodina; 3. To take under your personal supervision the situation surrounding A.V. Borodina's "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook; 4. To illuminate the situation in the mass news media with detailed explanations for the purpose of reestablishing the professional reputation of A.V. Borodina, ending the pressure on the leadership of education, and restoring confidence in the law enforcement and judicial agencies.
Coordinator of the Inter-fraction Deputies Association "In support of
traditional spiritual and moral values in Russia"
State Duma Deputy V.V. Galchenko
(tr. by PDS, posted 15 July 2003)
Original posted on Russkaia liniia site, 14 July 2003
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Representatives of five churches of the religious society of Christians of the Full Gospel conducted a general prayer service yesterday in Minsk in which around 5,000 believers participated. The "Interfax" news agency learned this from the press secretary of the "Blagodat" [Grace] Evangelical church, Andrei Khomich. He said that after the completion of the prayer service an appeal to Belorussian President Alexander Lukashenko was adopted. "The adoption of the appeal was produced by the unceasing campaign of slanders and threats against tens of thousands of evangelical Christians of the republic," Khomich said.
The appeal maintains that "the propaganda of violence with respect to a substantial portion of citizens of Belorussia is being conducted by separate state news media, especially Belorussian television." It also notes that "accusations against Christians of ritual murder and attempts to call them satanic vermin and enemies of the people, as separate news media do, is the incitement of interreligious hostility that already has led to violence against Christians."
"We have borne, we bear, and we will bear the truth of the gospel to the Belorussian people. We are law abiding citizens of our country and we will defend our civic dignity and constitutional right to freedom of conscience and religious convictions by legal methods and means," the document says. Believers "count on complete help and support from the president of Belorussia, as the guarantor of constitutional rights." They expressed in the appeal the suggestion "to create under the president of the republic a special structure for cooperation with religious associations," Khomich reported.
On 12 June of this year Belorussian Prime Minister Gennady Novitsky, who now is retired, and Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Slutsk, the patriarchal exarch for all-Belorussia, signed an agreement of cooperation between the state and the Belorussian Orthodox church. (tr. by PDS, posted 15 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items