Copyrighted material. For private use only.
SESSION OF HOLY SYNOD
Communications Service of OVTsS, 20 July 1999
On 18-19 July a session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church was held with His Holiness Alexis II, patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus, presiding.
On 18 July the Holy Synod held an expanded session in which, along with the permanent and temporary members of the synod, reverend bishops who had arrived for the feast day of Saint Sergius of Radonezh at the Saint Sergius-Holy Trinity lavra also participated. At this session it was decided instead of a jubilee local council of the Russian Orthodox church to hold an bishops' council. At this council, in particular, a final determination will be made on the position of the church regarding the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II and his family.
The Holy Synod made a positive assessment of the visit by His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II and the delegation accompanying him to Belgrade on 20 April 1999, stressing the importance of brotherly support that was shown with regard to the suffering people of Yugoslavia and expressing satisfaction with the peacemaking significance of the visit, which was expressed in the sermons delivered by His Holiness, appealing to the Serbian people, as well as in the presentation made to the state leadership of Yugoslavia and to the leader of the Kosovo Albanians giving specific suggestions for gaining control of the conflict around Kosovo that were positively received by the powers that be and to a great extent contributed to the successful advancement of the peace process. After hearing the report of the chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kalingrad, regarding the situation in Kosovo, the Holy Sunod issued a special appeal whose text is given below in full.
Approval was expressed with regard to the synod's commission on canonization of saints by Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna and the Holy Synod relayed for decision by the next bishops' council the question of the churchwide canonization of a great number of bishops, clergy, and laity among Russia's new martyrs and confessors, about whose life and martyrs' feats materials were presented by diocesan bishops.
The Holy Synod approved the decision of the Church-Public Conference on Matters of Preparing and Celebrating the Bimillennium of the Birth of Christ. The conference was held at OVTsS MP on 23 March 1999 at the office of the Working Group of the Jubilee Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church for Inter-church relations and for Relations with the Public and Scientific Circles (cochairmen are metropolitans Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna and Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad). At the conference a decision was made for the creation of a church-public coordinating group on preparation and celebration of the bimillennium of Christ's birth under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Kirill. The Holy Synod also approved the conceptual principles of the church-state and church-public relationships in connection with celebration of the jubilee.
A high assessment was given to the visits to the Russian Orthodox church by His Beautitude, the pope and patriarch of Alexandria and all-Africa, Peter VII (30 Apr - 7 May), and His Beautitude Theodosius, metropolitan of all-America and Canada (8-13 June). The synod acknowledged the importance of the opening of an annex of the Alexandrian church in Moscow, of the grant to the Russian church of a church in Cairo, and of the activity of the American annex in Moscow.
After hearning a report from Metropolitan Kirill about his trip to Greece and Mount Athos, 11-17 May 1999, the Holy Synod considered as useful meetings of the chairman of OVTsSMP with His Beautitude Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and all-Greece and representatives of the Greek-Russian Orthodox Association. The synod expressed satisfaction with the restoration and repair work on the Russian Saint Panteleimon's monastery on the Holy Mountain. It underscored the importance of religious and cultural links between Russia and the Russian monasteries on Athos and the necessity of preserving them through dialogue with the patriarch of Constantinople.
The synod approved the results of talks conducted by the chairman of OVTsS, Metropolitan Kirill, with representatives of the Old Believer metropolia and the Ancient Orthodox Litoral [Pomorie] church. On the basis of decisions of the local councils of 1971 and 1988 removing the curse on the old rituals, the Holy Synod called diocesan bishops and clergy to take account of these churchwide decisions in practical activity. The synod discussed the violent methods of overcoming the schism which took place in the past, as the result of the interference of secular authorities in church affairs. The Holy Synod called printing shops that put out church literature to adopt a critical approach to reprinted literature that was published in the prerevolutionary era, in which Old Belief was criticized by incorrect and unacceptable methods. Questions dealing with property that have arisen for local church authorities with Old Believers as well as questions of the use of buildings and parcels of land, according to the synod's decision, must be resolved in a spirit of accord, respecting the parties involved, and in accordance with the legislation. In OVTsS a commission for coordinating the actions of the Russian Orthodox church with the Old Belief will be created.
In connection with the visit to the Russian Orthodox church on 3-7 July 1999 of the presiding bishop of the Episcopal church in USA, Frank Grizwold and persons accompanying him, the Holy Synod expressed satisfaction with the good relations of the two churches that have been established and found it useful to develop bilaterial ties for strengthening inter-Christian cooperation in peacemaking and social services.
On discussion of the conclusions of the consultation of representatives of Orthodox churches and the European Union on the topic, "Reconciliation and rehabilitation: the creation of planned networks in developing countries and southeastern Europe," (Luxembourg, 24-26 June 1999), the Holy Synod decided to consider as useful authoritative discussion by the hierarchies of all interested local Orthodox churches of questions of their mutual relations with the European Union and other international organizations, having in view the necessity for coordinated activities and decisions relative to the principles and organized structure of such relationships as well as plans of organizing events involving local churches, which are already at the stage of defining their usefulness and original preparation. At the same time the synod indicated the need to keep in mind that only a mutually agreed position by the hierarchies of the interested local churches can be a basis for expressing a pan-Orthodox position.
After hearing a report about the visit of the chairman of OVTsS MP, Metropolitan Kirill, to Finland on 26 April to 3 May 1999, the Holy Synod considered his meeting with the head of the Evangelical Lutheran church of Finland, Archbishop Yukka Paarma, useful. Archpriest Viktor Liutnik, rector of the church of the Protection in Helsinki, was named official representative of the Moscow patriarchate in Finland.
The synod considered as useful the conversations Metropolitan Kirill had during his vist in Norway, 26-29 June 1999 with representatives of the church of Norway, the National Council of Churches of Norway and the minister of foreign affairs of that country, and the acting chairman of CSCE, K. Vollebek. The talks dealt with the activity of parishes of the Moscow patriarchate in Norway, cooperation of the Russian Orthodox church with the church of Norway, and dialogue with CSCE.
The synod expressed satisfaction with relations with the second session of the Joint Russian-Iran Commission on the Islam-Orthodoxy Dialogue (4-7 May 1999). It considered important the continuation of the dialogue with the Muslim society of the Islamic Republic of Iran. On the basis of the results of the visit to Russia, on invitation from the Russian Orthodox church, of a delegation from the Center for the Study of Christianity of the Academic of Social Sciences of the People's Republic of China, the synod considered beneficial the development through OVTsS MP of scholarly and business contacts with governmental institutions and public and scholarly organizations of PRC.
The civil regulations of ecclesiastical seminaries and church schools were adopted in a unified form for the church schools on the territory of Russia and as a model for church schools in countries of the near abroad.
The Holy Synod requested a continuation of the ministry of Archbishop Kornily of Tallin and all-Estonia, who had asked for retirement upon reaching 75 years of age. Archbishop Valentin was appointed to the Orenburg see. Hegumen Tikhon, superior of the Saint Catherine's monastery of the Moscow diocese, was appointed bishop of Vidnovsk, a vicariate of the Moscow diocese. Bishop Viktor of Podolsk was retired in accordance with his request. Bishop Evgeny of Vereisk was named assistant to the chairman of the synod's theological commission.
Having recognized that mistakes committed in administration of the diocese
by Bishop Nikon of Ekaterinburg and Verkhoture had led to a division among
clergy and laity and evoked confusion among believers and the public, the
Holy Synod order that Bishop Nikon be retired, taking into consideration
that he himself for the sake of church peace had asked to be relieved of
his administration of the diocese. Archbishop Vikenty of Abakansk
and Kyzylsk was appointed to the Ekaterinburg see. Temporary administration
of the Abakan diocese was entrusted to Archbisohp Antony of Krasnoiarsk
and Eniseisk. For conducting a study of the circumstances of the
conflict that has arisen in Ekaterinburg diocese, a commission headed by
Archbishop Alexander of Kostroma and Galich was appointed.
(see RUSSIAN PRIESTS ACCUSE A BISHOP,
PLUNGING THE CHURCH INTO TURMOIL, New York Times, 18 July 1999)
The synod approved the opening of new monasteries, one for men in Yoshkar-Ola diocese and one for women in Tula diocese. It also gave its blessing to the opening of a church school in the city of Tiumen.
Archpriest Mikhail Furik was relieved of responsibility of the priest of patriarchal parishes in Canada. Hegumen Venedikt was relieved of his post of rector of the Ascension parish in Zurich, Switzerland. To this post an associate of OVTsS MP, Fr Oleg Batov, was appointed. Deacon Gennady Budko, a cleric of the city of Moscow, was consecrated a priest and named rector of the newly opened Saint George chruch in the Russian embassy in Prague, Czech republic. Archimandrite Tikhon Bondarenko, who served the Russian parist in Prague, was placed at the disposal of the holy patriarch. The Holy Synod also made a number of other decisions pertaining to internal church life, international activity, and the public ministry of the Russian Orthodox church. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 20 July 1999)
In April of this year the Voronezh provincial duma adopted the law "On procedures for conducting missionary activity on the territory of Voronezh province." What conditioned the adoption of this legislative act? How will missionary activity on the territory of the province now be "regulated" and how in the aftermath of its adoption will relations between state agencies and relgious associations develop? With these and other questions a correspondent of the newspaper turned to a deputy of the Voronezh provincial duma, Alexander Kosyrev, who participated personally in the preparation and development of the basic provisions of the law.
--Alexander Alexandrovich, until recently you headed the commision of the provincial duma on relations with the mass media and public and religious associations, which subsequently was reorganized, joining it to the mandate commission. But, as I understood from a conversation with the chairman of this duma innovation, Lidia Kuznetsova, she will not deal with relations with religious associations and she will send all documents on such questions to you. You were one of the persons who stood at the sources of the adoption of the new law and, it would seem, your labors should be noted and understood as directing this accomplishment. But now, you have been removed from the post of chairman of the "most public" duma commission.
--In the order that was adopted on this matter there is the formulation: "For purposes of financial economy and improvement of the structure of administration. . . ." But, in my opinion, this reorganization was more the result of political considerations rather than basic administrative and budgetary concerns. And, of course, by no means were the religious concerns. Elections are approaching, and our political views--mine personally and the views of the leftist majority of the duma--do not coincide. You know my position: I also have spoiken against pressure on the mass media as well as public organizations.
--Has it developed that today such pressure is being demanded?
--I think it will be forthcoming in the near future. I would not want to be a Pythia, but I am very much afraid and thus I think that with this reorganizations there will be no need for the commision to work. The newly created commission, apparently, will have a long and complicated title. For example, the commission for deputies' ethics, regulation, and relations with public and religious associations and media of mass information. In general, everything is being lumped together. But I as a deputy in the future will be concerned for questions of support of our Orthodox church. Although earlier we also held all religious associations without exception which were registered on the territory of the province.
The adoption of a local law on missionary activity took place with difficulty. Like others who worked out its basic provisions, I experienced painful attention from the sides. I cannot say who specifically, but here is an example. We conducted a small working conference of our commission for discussing one of the versions of this law. On the next day the provincial procuracy called us up and wanted to know: "Fellows, what are you up to over there?"Apparently we had to prove that we have the right to adopt such a law. But in any case the law on missionary activity was worked out very carefully. It took over a year and a half. On first reading only a third of the draft was supported. The general conclusion was that the local law fully conforms to federal legislation.
--But Voronezh province somehow managed with this law in the past. Why did the need for such a regulatory act arise specifically at the present time?
--There was one problem. On the territory of the province organizations are operating which are registered as public organization when esentially they are religious or theosophical ones. For example, the Rerich movement, which has definite occultic doctrines in its ideology. But since this organization has at its base a certain religious tinge, it should declare its religiosity. Besides this, there is here a restriction on activity, for example, in public educational institutions. Incidentally, in the West it long ago was adjudicated that the Hubbard Center of Dianetics is recognized as a religious organization. Here they are trying to register as a public organization. (The last such attempt did not meet with success. Representatives of the Center of Dianetics were denied registration by the administration of justice.) A public organization can conduct classes in schools. But according to the Russian constitution, religious organizations have the right to conduct extracurricular classses for school children with the consent of the pupils' parents. In any case it is necessary to announce that chilcren will be taught not simply things like, for example, survival but also certain religious and philocophical notions. Because in the final analysis everything affects the world view of a person. The newly adopted legal act is supposed to regulat the activity of such organizations.
--In your opinion, does dianetics conceal within itself a serious threat for the purity of the consciousness of residents of the province?
--According the Western classification, the Center of Dianetics belongs to the category of totalitarian sects. Besides, there is another matter which is regulated by our law. That is the activity of foreign missionaries.
We already have a precedent when all of Voronezh was shocked by the murder of a university teacher, Vladimir Subbotin, which the law enforcement agencies have linked with the activity of adherents of one of the eastern religions. And another scandal is well remembered, when some student from Nigeria organized in the city a department of a religious organization that is widespread in his country, one of whose members, a young girl, committed suicide.
There also is the problem that in 1917 and the 1930s, when in our country the cult of militant atheism flourished, much was destroyed in the religious world view, and now many people who consider themselves Orthodox are really to a great extent pagans. In this regard we are uneducated people. I consider myself in that category. In my student years I "passed" scientific atheism and I treated religion with scorn, although I was Russian and regarded Orthodoxy favorably, but no more. Now, with maturity, I have had to reevaluate a great deal. I can say that I enjoy my personal study of Orthodoxy along with religion in general. This is a very structured religious and philosophical teaching. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 19 July 1999)
MOSCOW (AP) -- The Russian Orthodox Church may decide next year whether to move toward canonization of the country's last czar, Nicholas II, executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918, the head of the church said Monday.
Church officials earlier had said a decision could be made by a Synod council this year. But the Synod session held in Moscow this week has not discussed the possibility of canonizing Nicholas, and is not authorized to decide on the issue, Patriarch Alexy II said.
``Now, only the archbishops' assembly in 2000 has the right to decide whether to put the issue on the agenda or postpone it until the next all-church assembly,'' Alexy was quoted as saying.
Nicholas II was executed by a Bolshevik firing squad in 1918, a year after the Russian revolution, along with his family and four servants. Their remains were recovered in 1991 and buried in St. Petersburg last summer.
Alexy has opposed Nicholas' canonization, saying that the czar and his family did not deserve sainthood for the way they ruled the country and led the church before they were executed.
Other church officials have suggested that Nicholas should be regarded as a victim of the Bolsheviks, and therefore worthy of canonization as a martyr.
(posted 19 July 1999)
In connection with the murder of Archpriest Boris Ponomarev in the city of Mozhaisk, Pariarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus sent a telegram of condolences to the most reverend Juvenali, metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna:
Your Eminence!
The news of the murder of Archpriest Boris Ponomarev, rector of the church of Elijah the Prophet in Mozhaisk, has evoked in the Orthodox people unmeasured grief and sorrow.
Regarding the crime which has been committed as a most grave offense against the laws of God and humankind, we hereby express our serious concern about the use of means of terror against our church and its ministers for destabilizing society, promoting within it disorder and division, and creating an atmosphere of distrust and fear.
Sharing with Your Grace, with the whole plenitude of the church, and with all people of good will the sorrow of the present loss, we join you in the hope for the ultimate triumph of justice and divine law avenging sacrilege and the shedding of innocent blood. For "no murderer has eternal life abiding within him" (I Jn 3.15).
METROPOLITAN KIRILL SPEAKS AGAINST THE DANGER OF EXTREMISM AND HOSTILITY
IN CONNECTION WITH PAIR OF CRIMES AGAINST RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
from Communications Service of OVTsS, 19 July 1999
The sad news about the murder of Archpriest Boris Ponomarev, rector of the church of Elijah the Prophet in Mozhaisk, and arson at the church of St. Filaret the Merciful in Zelenograd has evoked the sorrow and concern of millions of Orthodox believers. The chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, send a telegram of condolences to the most reverend Yuvenali, metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna:
Your Eminence, Dear Master!
In connection with the murer of Archpriest Boris Ponomarev in the city of Mozhaisk and arson at the church of St. Filaret the Merciful in the city of Zelenograd, accept this expression of brotherly love, sympathy, and prayerful support in this hour of grave suffering for you personally and for the diocese which you admnister.
The pair of crimes, whose victims are a house of God and a minister of the Lord's altar, truly cry out to the heavens, for "cursed is the one who secretly kills his neighbor" (Dt 27.24).
Such grave crimes against our church will awaken all to whom Orthodoxy and the future of Russia are dear to oppose with full decisiveness extremism, interreligious hostility, terrorism, and violence which are being sanctioned in contemporary society.
Together with all the people of God we pray for the repose of the murdered archpriest Boris in the abode of the righteous and for the descent upon all the living of a spirit of brotherly love and compassion. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 19 July 1999)
We have a humble request of your prayer support. In recent times our religious rights have been seriouly strangled both by Orthodox church and mass media, as well as other organizations.
Our Church is the largest protestant congregation in this area (we have 1500 members) while discrediting us they try to discredit all protestant faith in our city and region.
For 8 months already each Sunday a group of 5 to 10 of Orthodox believers has been picketing our sermons, though it is illegal. They use insulting posters and leaflets which describe our Church as a dangerous organization.
On July 4, 1999 the building which we rent for the sermons was picketed by representatives of a fascist organization (Russian Nationalist Union - RNU). They lined up in front of the building, blocked the entrance, shouting slogans alternated with bad swearing, violating the order and provocing a scandal. We had to call for the police. During the procedure of clearing out the circumstances of the accident in the police one of the representatives of RNU confessed that this picket had been initiated by the Orthodox priest.
Next Sunday, July 11, 5 minutes before the beginning of the sermon all the believers were ordered to leave the building because of a telephone call to the police saying that the facility had been mined. It was a false alarm. The aim of this provocation was to disrupt a sermon and was inspired by the same people.
We also face more frequent negative reports on the activity of our Church in regional and city mass media. So, in "Orthodox Newspaper" in several issues continuously are published conclusions of different psychologists, saying that methods used during the sermons can be harmful for people's health. In addition they draw an analogy with totalitarian sects, which kill their members, and contain other false information and slander. As a result this forms a very negative attitude to the Church.
Tonight the City Latest News report over the television informed that on coming Sunday, July 18, the fascists plan to take a revenge and hold a huge manifestation in front of the building where we have our sermons.
In this situation we only trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We again ask you to lift up our church and this situation in your prayer.
Victor Sudakov,
Senior Pastor of the Church "New Life"
received 17 July via e-mail from victor@newlife.ru
(posted 17 July 1999)
The commissioner for human rights of the fraction of the communist party of the Russian federation sharply criticized the law "On freedom of conscience.
A year and a half has passed since the adoption of the law "On freedom of conscience," but the discussion surrounding it has not quieted down. At the beginning of April the conclusion regarding the law from the commissioner on human rights Oleg Mironov was received in the State Duma of the Russian federation. According to this conclusion, it "in the main conforms with the obligations of Russia under international law which it has taken upon itself as a participant state of the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights and of the European Convention on Protection of Basic Human Rights and Liberty." At the same time, in Mironov's opinion, individual provisions of the law contradict principles established by international documents and could be protested in the case of a submission of complaints to the European Court on Human Rights. The document notes: "In essence these standards cannot even operate on the territory of the Russian federation, because of the premise that rules established by international treaties take precedence over domestic legislation, as provided by the constitution of RF." Among those standards Oleg Mironov cites the privileged position accorded several religions in the law's preamble, the distinction in the law (art. 6-7) between religious associations and religious groups with disfranchisement of the latter, as well as the limitation of the rights of religious organizations that do not posses a document attesting their existence in the specific area for at least fifteen years, which is established in point 3 of article 27 of the law. At the same time, in the opinion of the commissioner for human rights, the law "could be brought into conformity with generally recognized principles and standards of international law."
The appearance of such a negative conclusion about the law on the part of the communist Mironov, who voted for its adoption as a deputy three times, seemed somewhat surprising, although it gave the possibility of again raising the question about controversial articles in the law and the implementation policy associated with them. Such problems were the focus of the May session of the Permanent Chamber on Human Rights of the Political Consultative Council of the presidency of Russia (PKS). To be sure, before that, when Mironov met with Patriarch Alexis II, he already had managed to state the necessity of "setting up a roadblock" in the path of "totalitarian sects" into Russia, which against the background of the already existing document seemed not fully logical. At the same time, the commissioner's conclusion itself was not withdrawn.
Addressing the session of the Chamber on Human Rights, an employee of the commissioner's staff, Andrew Lebedev, confirmed that there had been no change in the position on the document of the department that he represented. Moreover, in his opinion, the retention in the law "On freedom of conscience" of standards that violate international law could lead those whose rights are violated to the European Court on Human Rights. The decision of this court would be, Lebedev suggested, not in Russia's favor because its internal legislation contradicts the European Convention on Protection of Basic Human Rights and Freedoms. "Russia will be in the capacity of defendant and will suffer both morally and materially inasmuch as it will have to reimburse all costs in this case. And finally, if RF for some reason refuses to change its domestic legislation in the event of a decision by the European court, this would lead, in accordance with the regulations of the Council of Europe, to the possibility of suspension of Russia's membership in the Council of Europe or Russia could be completely dismissed from this most important international organization," the representative of the staff of the commissioner on human rights summed up.
Mironov's position was sharply criticized in the address by the deputy of the chairman of the Commission on Affairs of Religious Associations of the government of Russia, Andrei Sebentsov. He expressed regret that "the commissioner on human rights, who by law has possibility of using the full potential to get all necessary available information on this topic, but for some reason he did not go that route." Thus, in Sebentsov's opinion, it is a clear exaggeration to maintain that the law established a privileged position for some religions. The reference to the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia really is in the preamble, but this, Sebentsov suggests, merely takes note of Orthodoxy's significance for the cultural and spiritual development of the country and it does not in any way signify a privileged position for RPTs. Besides, this deals with the preamble which has no normative effect. Acknowledging that the law is not perfect, Sebentsov at the same time noted that its most controversial principle, point 3 of article 27, is currently being appealed to the Constitutional Court by two organizations and it possibly will be eliminated.
The lack of study on the part of the commissioner for human rights of problems connected with the law "On freedom of conscience" also was noted by the secretary for relations between church and society of OVTsS of the Moscow patriarchate, Fr Vsevolod Chaplin. At the same time attorneys and representatives of religious organizations who addressed the session of the chamber produced numerous cases of the infringement of the freedom of conscience of Russian citizens: refusal of registration of religious organizations or refusal of rental of premises, and the like, which have been the result of the application of this law in practice.
Some dissent in these addresses was made by a member of the chamber, the former mayor of Vladivostok Viktor Cherepkov. He declared that it is impossible to regulate by any laws the relations among confessions and he vividly illustrated this with the example of Vladivostok. Japanese gave the city a statue of the Buddha which was set up on one of the hills. Soon not far away a large Orthodox cross appeared. "Thereupon a real war began," Cherepkov said. "As a result the Buddha lost its head and the Orthodox cross was set on fire."
Another surprise came in the speech of a secretary of the chamber of human rights of PKS, Lev Levinson. Having taken note that the law "On freedom of conscience" laid the foundation for the practical clericalization of Russian legislation since in the past year and a half a whole series of laws have appeared that promote the interests of RPTs, he at the same time noted that the West's policy with regard to this law can hardly be viewed in any other way than as the appearance of a double standard. "The violation of the freedom of conscience for the majority of our fellow citizens is not so serious a problem as they have tried to represent it in the West," Levinson declared. "Moreover, the western sponsors of the struggle for freedom of conscience see only one side of this problem: discrimination against religious minorities, especially protestants. The violation of the principle of the secular state and secular education or the interference of the church in the activity of agencies of state authority they try not to notice. For us this problem is much more important. Another aspect was that the draft of the labor code, proposed by the government, was quite recently criticized in the chamber. Practically all participants in the session criticized it because it would undo all the social achievements of the last hundred years, beginning with the eight-hour working day. The West is not interested in this because the adoption of this code is being promoted by the ministry of internal affairs. In this situation our position is tragic: when we shout about freedom of conscience and violations connected with it, the West immediately begins supporting us, taking measures and threatening sanctions. When the issue is human rights, which affect one and all, the West is silent. This is a very dangerous situation in which freedom of conscience becomes small change in a political game."
On the basis of the conclusions of the session, the Chamber on Human Rights adopted a decision citing the rise of violations of the rights of believers as a result of the implementation of the law in practice. At the present time, "in connection with the position of the leadership of the country" they do not have a "mass and all-embracing character." "But under a new president of the country or a new composition of other agencies of authority, state policy with regard to religious organizations could change," the document notes. "Standards that are now being applied against some associations of believers could be turned against all." The chamber appealed to the Constitutional Court to accelerate the review of the cases presented by religious associations regarding the incompatibility between point 3 of article 27 of the law "On freedom of conscience" and the Russian constitution. However, in the opinion of members of the chamber, these cases do not deal with other regulations of the current law which violate the constitution, and their resolution will not substantially change the illegal situation connected with the law.
Thus the chamber supported the suggestion of the commissioner on human rights to bring the law into conformity with standards of international law and called agencies of state power, including the court and procuracy, not to apply the regulations of the law that violate international law. It also called the State Duma to begin work on preparing a draft of a law "On amending and supplementing the federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations," and it suggested to the government's commission on questions of religious associations that it "take measures for overcoming mistaken interpretation" of the indicated law.
On 21 May a response signed by Andrei Sebentsov arrived from the commission. "The decision of the permanent chamber contains an interpretation of a federal law which is most unauspicious from the point of view of the guarantee of human rights to freedom of conscience and religious confession and for the achievement of the rights of religious associations," it says. "With regard to this, the commission cannot be guided by it in its explanatory work directed against misuse and violations of the constitutional rights the individual and citizen." Sebentsov also noted that "substantial explanatory work" already has been conducted. He recommended that the chamber "refrain from attempts at introducing changes into the indicated law before the Constitutional Court has made its decision." (tr. by PDS)
(posted 17 July 1999)
The public uproar erupting over Bishop Nikon of Ekaterinburg and Verkhoture after the April decision by the synod of the Russian Orthodox church has not only not quieted down in the past two months but has gone to a new level. In May the clergy, upset by the inaction of the higher church authorities with regard to Bishop Nikon, began assembling believers for prayer services conducted every Sunday in Ekaterinburg at the site of the murder of the tsarist family. From 300 to 500 believers participated in the services, praying for the liberation of the diocese from Bishop Nikon.
Measures in reaction did not force themselves to wait. In those parishes of Ekaterinburg diocese whose rectors, for various reasons, took the side of the bishop there began collections of signatures under an appeal in defense of Master Nikon. Everyone who spoke out against him with accusations regarding morality in turn was accused of slander and attempted schism which had to be prevented by means of canonical punishment of the "schismatics."
The bishop himself after several weeks of seclusion again began to appear among the people and to participate in public events. Such a short period of "illness," which was the official explanation of his absence, was linked by many with the support which he received from Governor Eduard Rossel. On the bishop's birthday he was one of the first to congratulate him personally, giving him several compliments and hugging and kissing the bishop in front of television cameras. To be sure, several days later Russel had to give the press an explanation of his attitude toward sexual minorities, which hardly gave him pleasure. At the same time the main argument of the governor remained the decision of the synod which he periodically repeated in response to questions which arose in regard to Master Nikon.
The number of such questions has grown. In June one of the former students of the Ekaterinburg church school who was a victim of the importunity of the bishop submitted a declaration to the procuracy. On 21 June a criminal case was instigated against Oleg Vasilevich Mironov (one and the same as Bishop Nikon) on article 133 of the criminal code ("Coercion to acts of a sexual nature"). Nevertheless now, while the investigation is in its first stage, in Ekaterinburg they are saying that the case will not go to trial. Reports of witnesses are being set aside or retracted; the case itself is constantly being switched between the provincial procuracy and the investigative department of the administration of internal affairs that instigated it, and sources close to law enforcement agencies report that the most intense pressure is being exerted upon the investigation.
On 23 June the clergy opposing the bishop decided the next time to appeal to the supreme church authority. In their open appeal to the patriarch, synod, and all Orthodox, eighteen priests, modestly calling the decision of the synod "mistaken," demanded a church trial of bishop Nikon with all witnesses of the accusation summoned. They declared that eleven parishes of Ekaterinburg diocese have refused to consider him their bishop and although "for the sake of mystical unity of the Holy Mother Church" they have not ceased commemorating him in the divine liturgy, they have ceased to submit to Master Nikon "until a final resolution of his questions in a church trial." On 27 June this appeal was read at the time of the prayer service at the site of the murder of the tsarist family, after which around 1,000 believers and 24 priests made a procession to the quarters of the bishop. There 40 clerics and around 300 parishioners awaited them, standing in defense of the bishop. It was practically a situation of "wall facing wall," but a collision did not occur. After standing silently for a time face to face with the supporters of the ruling bishop, his opponents released into the air a great number of blue balloons, after which they dispersed.
In response to the next appeal of clergy to the church hierarchy, two of the most active opponents of the bishop, Fr Foma Abel and Fr Gennady Vedernikov, were summoned to Moscow for conversation with the administrator of affairs of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan Sergei. Details of the meeting, held on 1 July and lasting six hours, are unknown. However at its conclusion Fr Foma Abel reported that they are ready to repent for having made the story of the Ekaterinburg bishop public, but only after the question about Bishop Nikon's remaining in his see has been resolved in a canonical way. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 16 July 1999)
continued from 1 July
It is hardly worth linking closely the religious situation in Ukraine with the political situation in the country, just as it is not worth viewing the internal politics of Ukraine from the standpoint of the struggle among the confessions, although the very fact of the existence of a young, strong, independent state objectively urges the political elite to think about the necessity of the existence of "their" church. It is this powerful tendency that the largest confession, UPTs--MP, has opposed and continues to oppose.
The first stage in the "privatization" of the church by the Ukrainian government in 1991-1992 by means of "sturm und drang" was frustrated due to the soviet mentality of state officials, including President Kravchuk and Metropolitan Filaret Denisenko, who provoked active opposition with their force and sternness. The internal laws of the church and the wishes of believers were not taken into account (apparently the former head of the communist party central committee for ideological reasons simply did not know of their existence).
The second stage, which began several years ago, included more compromise; the state and the competitors in the struggle for the souls of believers (principally UPTs--KP) proposed that UPTs--MP be maintained as the single organizational structure but that RPTs grant it autocephaly, i.e. complete independence. Within UPTs--MP itself there also were advocates of autocephaly. For example, in August 1997 clergy of Vladimiro-Volyn and Kovel dioceses addressed a letter to Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan regarding the necessity of obtaining autocephaly. In these demands they also were supported by their bishop, Simeon Shostatsky. The broadly popular Metropolitan of Poltava, Feodosy Dikun, also was a proponent of the creation of a canonical patriarchate in Kiev. There were rather highly placed proponents of autocephaly even in the metropolitan's residence in Kiev. Although as early as the end of 1996 the Holy Synod of UPTs--MP unequivocally declared that there was no need for autocephaly, in time the situation could change. The longer an independent Ukrainian government exists, the more difficult it will be to explain to believers, especially in the central region, the necessity of subordination to Moscow. This is even more so because Orthodoxy in Rus began in Crimea and Kiev.
While some politicians speak about the abnormality of "administrative centers" of churches existing outside the boundaries of Ukraine (UPTs--MP, RKTs, some protestants), they are countered with accusations of nationalism and the politicization of religion. Although it is more difficult to justify the confessions when priests and bishops serving in Ukraine begin making political declarations in favor of one or another government. Although it is not only members of UPTs--MP who are guilty of such declarations (several Catholic priests have served with Polish flags at the altars, which evoked protests from Ukrainian Catholics, who reacted by bringing Ukrainian flags to services), the greatest claims have been made with respect to them. Not without basis, there is fear in Ukraine of the resurrection of Russian imperial ambitions and thus the generally known "imperial" views of some clergy of UPTs--MP elicit accusations of the existence of a "fifth column" in the state. If one omits discussions about a "fifth column" and the imperial heritage, then Ukrainian politicians, just like their Russian colleagues, have a poor understanding of the state of affairs on the "religious front." Although, of course, there are extremist political organizations who tie their existence with one or another confession, they are not very influential. Suffice it to say that despite the fact that in parliamentary elections in March 1998 many clergy of varying ranks (including two bishops of UPTs--MP) were candidates, only one, a pastor of the "charismatic" Word of Life church from Donets province, V. Shushkevich, made it into parliament. The party of Regional Regeneration, whose list of candidates included in second place the father superior of the Kiev cave monastery, Bishop Pavel Lebed, who also was supported by the largest religious organization, UPTs--MP, did not get even one percent of the votes. The other parties with religious orientation did not receive, even all together, the four percent necessary for getting into the Supreme Soviet. Serious political parties that are represented in parliament advocate in their programs little-understood slogans like "regeneration of spirituality" to appeal to as wide a spectrum of voters as possible.
Nevertheless, despite such vagueness of slogans, the larger parties have more or less firm positions. The "right," which received its most votes in Galicia, supports UPTs--KP on the national level; the "left," whose electorate is the population of the southeast, are supporters of UPTs--MP. Within the executive branch various confessions also have their admirers. As Bishop Pavel said: "We have good support at both the city level and the level of the presidential administration." But details about their mutual relations are carefully concealed.
In local elections, clergy summon their parishioners to vote for one or another candidate on the basis of circumstances and not because of the political aspirations of the hierarchy. Naturally, primarily the local administration gets support in these cases, as well as a whole range of "contributors." Typically, even clergy who run in elections appeal in their campaign programs not to faith but to the greed of the voter. Thus the aforementioned Shushkevich presented himself to the voters exclusively as a person who promised to raise pensions. There was no exception also in the case of the prominent Orthodox priest from Transcarpathia, Archpriest Dimitry Sidor, in whose program religious aspects occupied the tenth, eleventh, and twenty-second points. As a result, around 60 priests won office in local bodies, of which 36 belong to the clergy of UPTs--MP, 12 to UPTs--KP, 6 to UGKTs, and 4 to UAPTs.
Among the deputies there are two Pentecostals and one "charismatic." It is interesting that the heightened interest of protestant congregations in regional elections (and in provincial soviets there are not only presbyters but also leaders of congregations) is explained primarily by considerations of their personal security. It is practically impossible to "pressure" a congregation that has its own deputy, no matter what ideas drive the state bodies. In the future, after the foundations of religious liberty have been strengthened, perhaps the role of protestant activists in politics will grow. Even now various protestant associations, especially "charismatics," have some influence within business circles and the political elite. For example, in January 1998 more than fifty deputies of the Supreme Soviet signed an appeal to the ministry of internal affairs requesting an end to the persecution of "charismatic" preacher Sandei Adelaju, a citizen Nigeria.
For now local authorities have complete freedom of action within the religious sphere and they are guided by their own understanding of the opinion of the overwhelming portion of their voters. In the east, UPTs--KP parishes are denied registration and subjected to all kinds of repression; in the west the city council of Lvov persistently ignores "advice" coming from Kiev to allot land to a UPTs--MP parish, and somewhere in Cherkassy a mayor openly has expressed his support for the Baptists.
Specific problems of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church--Moscow Patriarchate
The largest church, UPTs--MP, has experienced a strong contradiction between the unified approach to believers and to the administration of dioceses and parishes to which it is accustomed, on one hand, and the complicated regional peculiarities that exist in contemporary Ukraine, on the other. Actually UPTs--MP now comprises at least three "churches": a church of more or less settled autocephalists (western and central regions), a traditional canonical church for Ukrainians and Russians (southeast and part of central regions), and an ethnically Russian church (Crimea, Malorossiia, Donbas, and Russian parishes in western and central Ukraine). The extreme points of view are these: Archbishop Illarion Shukalo of Donets, at a press conference on 7 May 1999, said that because of the protests of the Union of Orthodox Citizens he cannot speak about a "Ukrainian church" in his sermons and he is forced to say "our church," while at the same time in Ivano-Frankovsk or Lvov dioceses only a few of the several dozen remaining parishes of UPTs--MP commemorate the Moscow patriarch in their liturgy inasmuch as believers cannot bear the word "Moscow."
The diversity within UPTs--MP associated with such a complicated regional situation gives rise to serious problems in its relations with the outside world. What is pleasant to the ear of an adherent of UPTs--MP from Volyn often is just as unpleasant for an Odessite to hear, and vice versa. The primate or Holy Synod of UPTs must have great diplomatic talent in order to be able to please everybody--believers, state officials, and the public--with their statements on a national level For now the leadership of UPTs--MP has taken recourse in the simplest device--silence. Interviews and public declarations "of substance" from its head, Metropolitan Vladimir, are great rarities. Accusations from "competitors" and critics are completely ignored. If it is known that at some event some one of the "self-proclaimed patriarchs," as the primate of UPTs--MP considers them, will be present then under no circumstance will he go to such a meeting. The rudeness and condescension of many bishops and clerics of UPTs--MP has given this church the reputation among reporters and scholars of religion of Ukraine as the most closed confession.
Another important problem of UPTs--MP is the presence in it of a rather powerful, although lacking organizational structure, movement of laity which operates against the episcopate. For now it does not have a clear program, but its not fully conscious displeasure with the bishops is spilling over into a semi-sectarian mass movement that erupts artificially in some question ("ecumenism" or "identification numbers") and accusations of "betrayal of Orthodoxy" against all, or the greater part, of the bishops.
Often "Orthodox brotherhoods" act as a "political wing" of these mass movements, which also are typical for Russia although there they do not assume such serious dimensions. On the political level the brotherhoods are inclined to extreme imperialism, antiecumenism, and often antisemitism. In practice they now are organizations of the Russian diaspora in Ukraine but they definitely are not organizations of believers as their name claims. Within the church they get some not very strong support from rank-and-file priests and they oppose the bishops who are inclined, in their opinion, to ecumenism. In the parliamentary elections they called for voting not for the party of Regional Regeneration which supported the interests of UPTs--MP, but for the "greens."
In 1997-1998 the "brotherhoods" and the "antibishop movement" spoke out in unison on the matter of the "identification numbers." In Ukraine the tax police began introducing a unified system based on the use of individual identification numbers where the three constant numbers, according to the claims of several priests, added up to the figure of 666, the "number of the beast." Underground leaflets and anonymous letters with disclosures of the tricky attempts of "dark forces" showed up in the parishes. The Holy Synod, somewhat tardily, figured out the scope of the movement that had taken over the formerly "loyal" southeastern dioceses. On 3 June 1998 it adopted the letter prepared by the official confessor of the Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods, Bishop, now Archbishop, Avgustin Markevich of Lvov and Drogobych, which said that believing people should have freedom of choice in whether to accept the numbers, but the Holy Synod did not see anything terrible in them. This facilitated an ending of the discussion and in May 1999 the passions about identification codes were treated as a thing of the past.
The third problem of UPTs--MP pertains to the effectiveness of the administration of the church, in particular the question of church finances. The absence of clear and precisely written instructions about what a priest or bishop should do in this or that situation has led to various mistakes by some. It is impossible to resolve this problem by purely administrative methods, such as writing more instructions or punishing someone. First, those for whom these instructions would be written would have to acknowledge the need of observing them, which in the current situation of personnel confusion would be quite difficult. Second, in the conditions of contemporary Ukraine, strong pressure could lead to the departure of a cleric into another jurisdiction. There are enough dioceses in western and central Ukraine in which the bishop cannot even give an exact figure of the number of his parishes since he is not sure that a priest or even a dean whom he last saw two or three years ago recognizes him as his bishop.
Canonical and noncanonical churches on the possibility of unification
Hierarchs of UPTs--MP understand that Galicia as a whole has fallen out from under their influence and they do not cherish any hope for its return. As regards "Filaret parishes" in other provinces, priests of UPTs--MP affirm in a single voice that "folk do not attend" them and that they are "empty parishes" created with the cooperation of local authorities by "bandits," i.e. emigrants from Galich. In their conception UPTs--MP cannot simply reunite with anyone. The "Anathema" (which is how they label former metropolitan Filaret who was anathematized by the bishops' council of RPTs in 1997) and his supporters should return the churches and monasteries they seized to RPTs and repent.
Patriarch Filaret of Kiev and all-Rus and Ukraine transfers talk about a potential unification immediately onto a political plane: "In Ukraine the process of the formation of a local church is taking place. . . . In Ukraine there are leftist forces who are not interested in stabilization of the situation . . . . The formation of a united church is a matter of fundamental governmental importance. . . . RPTs has been uncanonical from the start but they recognized it none the less. . . The Moscow patriarchate created a schism in Ukraine inasmuch as with the loss of the Ukrainian church its role in world Orthodoxy would sharply decline. . . . The state should cooperate with the national church. . . . those parishes who do not want to join a national church can temporarily (italics mine, N.M.) form an exarchate of RPTs in Ukraine. We have a united position on a national basis with the Greek Catholics and there is a tendency toward unification. UAPTs was created with the consent of soviet authorities for the fight against Greek Catholics in western Ukraine."
In this system of coordinates in which Filaret was accustomed to operate in the soviet period (and he administered the Ukrainian exarchate from 1968), possibly he would gain much. He understands patriotism as limitless loyalty to the authorities. "Some were afraid that Metropolitan Nikodim and I would say something against the authorities when we were abroad, but to no purpose; we were patriots," he said. And a broad "governmental" approach to problems is also dear to the hearts of officials at all levels. Even L. Kuchma, who was "pro-Russian" at the start of his presidential term, in time began treating Filaret with great reverence. Filaret however, it seems to me, does not understand very well that the independent state of Ukraine has been built on new principles and the unification of all churches into one at the command of the administration of the president will never occur, however much some politicians would wish it. Ukrainian leadership has learned quite well that it must earn the next transfer from the World Bank or membership in European organizations and the simplest way to do this is to observe the rights of its own citizens, especially in the religious sphere.
As regards UAPTs, which separated from UPTs--KP in June 1995 and now under the leadership of Patriarch Dimitry Yarema is dragging out a rather miserable existence, it is little regarded within religious circles in Ukraine. The thousand parishes that it claims are not even able to support financially their patriarch, who received the reporter from Russkaia mysl in his office with a threadbare carpet on the floor and complained about financial difficulties.
The absence of a dominant confession in Ukraine which can realistically aspire to a monopoly with the religious sphere permits all other religious organizations to feel rather free. As one of the leaders of a large protestant congregation said in an unofficial conversation: "Praise God this is not Russia. For now the Orthodox are fighting among themselves and they cannot pay attention to us." (tr. by PDS)
(posted 16 July 1999)
Yesterday the Basman procuracy of Moscow opened a criminal case against the student of the Academy of Labor and Social Relations, Nikita Krivchun, who severely wounded the night before the commercial director of the Jewish Cultural Center, Leopold Kaimovsky. No charge was entered against him; he is suspected of attempted murder. Kommersant reporter Sergei Topoly managed to get a short interview with the criminal in the IVS interrogation room of the 29th department of the police.
--Are you Orthodox?
--No, I have not been baptized.
--What is your attitude toward religion?
--It depends on which one. I consider all faiths good except for the Jewish and satanist ones.
--Why do you consider Jews your enemies?
--Two years ago I came to this conclusion after becoming acquainted with religious literature. I read the sources. I drew my own conclusions. I began with the Old Testament. I did not agree with the New Testament. There Christ associated with Jews.
--But what about "thou shalt not kill"?
--I wasn't trying to kill him. I have nothing against him personally. This was an attack. My goal was to commit a political act directed against our political system. In this was expressed all the hatred that I feel for Jews. I wanted to call attention to the problem of genocide that Jews are committing against Russians!
--But what have they done to you?
--Not to me; to everybody!
--Well okay. And did you think that your victim has children and a wife?
--The consequences are regretable; I am confused.
--And what do your parents think about this?
--I will not talk about them. Probably they have suffered very much. I would very much like to see them.
--Besides religious literature, what have you read?
--For the soul, Pushkin's "Grief from reason"
--Can you recall something?
--"The Frenchman from Bordeaux" who came to Russia. However not exactly. I have forgotten. They persecuted me.
--Did they beat you?
--No, not physically; emotionally.
--What's wrong with your arm?
--It got cut in the struggle. It's too bad he wasn't. . . I think that he wasn't at all able to do this. I brought a lot with me to the synagogue, rope, gasoline, disguise; true I didn't know beforehand how I would use all of this. I thought, perhaps they would be somehow of use. I wanted to do this three days ago but something stopped me. This time there was an inner feeling that it is not worth doing this.
--Is everything normal with you psychologically.
--Psychologically everything is in order. I know that they will give me the maximum sentence; I will suffer. The law is like a harness.
--They brought you now from the interrogation. Weren't you afraid at the crime site?
--No comment.
--And why did you draw a swastika on your chest?
--It wasn't a swastika. It's a "kolovrat," the symbol of freedom which Russian warriors drew on their bodies before decisive battles." (tr. by PDS)
(posted 16 July 1999)
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/.