Copyrighted material. For private use only.
(this article appeared first in abridged form in NG-religii on 3 November 1999 under the title "Silence of the pastors")
"I was silent and still, not even saying anything good, and my anguish increased" (Ps 38 [39]. 3)
"But the people remained silent and said nothing to him because the king had given the order: do not answer him" (Is 36:21)
Two years have passed since the events that saddened everyone happened in the Moscow church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God in Pechatniki, after which one of the largest parishes in the Russian Orthodox church was thrown out of the building which it had opened and restored. The spiritual father of this parish, prorector of the Saint Filaret's Moscow Orthodox Christian School of Advanced Studies and founder of the Transfiguration brotherhood, Fr Georgy Kochetkov, still remains under ban from ministry and cannot even receive Holy Communion, along with twelve of his most active parishioners. The parish has suffered; the church has suffered; and the end of these sufferings is not in sight. This article, which does not pretend to being absolutely complete and objective, is devoted to some of the results of this two-year history about which it is not accepted to speak openly.
And so, the conflict has already lasted two years. Its course has been followed both within Russia and abroad and its resolution is awaited in all dioceses of our church, but today nobody can say when the church will be freed from it. The banned priest and his parish have taken, it seems, all possible and impossible steps in order to enable the Moscow patriarchate to resolve the situation. All of the requirements of the official patriarchal decree have been fulfilled, as have been statements given in oral form by one or another of the patriarchal workers. Letters have been sent, not just once or twice, by those who are under discipline to the bishop of Moscow, along with hundreds from people who support them. All of them, both ordinary parishioners and people who are world famous, have asked the patriarch to restore justice and peace in the church, to remove the open-ended discipline from the priest and his parishioners, and to restore normal activity within the parish. But the patriarch is silent. For the time being the primate of the Russian church seems to be caught in a vise and trapped in circumstances which he is powerless to overcome. Nevertheless the resolution of the conflict now depends entirely on him alone.
However, the patriarch made one attempt to get out of this situation that is so scandalous for both him and the whole church. On the eve of the Great Fast in 1999 many parishioners of the church of the Dormition, despairing for an answer to their requests to the chancellery of the Moscow patriarchate, directly approached His Holiness at a divine liturgy and asked when the conflict would be healed. The patriarch responded by addressing the members of the parish from the pulpit of the church of Christ the Savior after the liturgy on Forgiveness Sunday, 21 February of this year. He said that it was necessary to ask forgiveness of all who had been offended and "then it will be possible for us to lift the discipline." On the evening of that same day in the patriarchal cathedral church during the traditional ritual of forgiveness the parishioners of Fr Georgy told the patriarch that for two years in a row they have been asking forgiveness of all who consider themselves to have been offended in any way, but they have not received this forgiveness. In response, in the opinion of many bishops, His Holiness promised to resolve this question with the help of Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk, administrator of affairs of the Moscow patriarchate. By the end of the Great Fast rumors were going around the church in Moscow that by the feast day of Pascha all discipline would be removed and supposedly it had been determined which church Fr Georgy Kochetkov would be assigned to for his ministry.
But Pascha passed and then Ascension, then Trinity, and again there was no response from the staff at Chisty Lane. Recently the deceived folk again petitioned their bishop. Now the patriarch answers everyone with the same laconic response: "Everything has been turned over the Metropolitan Sergius. He has to decide everything."
At the present time in church matters any bishop has practically unlimited power within the boundaries of his diocese. (Even if there are canons regulating episcopal power, there are no forces or church courts that are capable of exerting control over the observance of the canons.) What has kept His Holiness from achieving his wish that he stated before the Great Fast? What unseen power prevents him from resolving the conflict which is not simply very troublesome but is directly harmful to his personal and the church's domestic and international authority? Why has the primate of the church, who regularly promotes peacemaking as the basic principle of his own and the church's conduct in society, not been able to restore a just peace immediately within his own diocese, in Moscow?
Church history of recent years tells us that unfortunately this event is not unique in its nature. The course of church scandals has been going on at least since 1996, the time of the illegal ban from ministry of one of the best contemporary church icon painters, Archimandrite Zinon Teodor, and his excommunication. Throughout the whole century, the century that perhaps has been most horrible in the history of Russia and the Russian church, there has not been a time of such active persecution within the church: the ban of Fr Zinon and the break-up of his icon painting school and monastery, the provocation against the parish of Fr Georgy Kochetkov, the hounding and literal "pushing into schism" of the parish of the church of the Presentation in Kherson, the misbehavior of the bishop of Tomsk, accompanied even by countless bans and exiles of priests and the dispersal of their parishes, the burning of books by contemporary Orthodox theologians in Ekaterinburg and the banning of a priest who disagreed with it, and the renewed dispersal of the parish of Hegumen Martiry Bagin (now the residence of the Alexandrine patriarchate is located in this church), and then a new scandal in Ekaterinburg. All of this in less than four years at a time when the state is not struggling against the church and there are no agents of the state behind the backs of bishops, etc.
Bishops now really are free in deciding church questions and, it would seem, should be supporting all initiatives "from below" intended for the recovery of the church. But then why in all of these cases have the bishops taken to such non-church methods which often, as in the case of parishes in Moscow, Kherson, and Tomsk, are more like those used by famous agencies only a couple dozen years ago? Why is it that suddenly a single absolute principle in the conduct of a bishop in every circumstance has arisen and been established: "whoever is not with the bishop is outside the church" (see the interview of Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk in NG-religii, 12 May 1999)? What kind of theological training and ecclesiastical consciousness must one possess in order to state openly without shame: "The church is the bishop. Whoever is against the bishop is against the church" (from an interview of Bishop Nikon on the Ekaterinburg TV program "Land of Sannikov")? Or have we already forgotten Who is the head of the church or abolished the words of the holy apostle: ". . . and placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything in the church which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way" (Eph 1.22-23)?
Answering such questions is fearsome and dangerous. But the church, despite all this, is still alive and the fact that, for example, the bishop in Tomsk was removed (who, like the Ekaterinburg bishop, was removed by decision of the Holy Synod on 20 June, although he remains a bishop, which means that at any moment he could be reassigned to a diocese) says that it is possible for justice to be fulfilled in our church. But this is the task not of separate individuals or even parishes. It is the work of the whole church, the whole church people, especially now that the situation in RPTs obviously is such that to fix it in the spirit of holy scripture and holy tradition, without violence, schisms, and other disorders, can be achieved only by a genuine popular intrachurch movement. All possible changes "from above" will always be fraught with serious church conflicts.
But let's return to the Moscow story. In considering why the present impasse has arisen while it is obvious that its continuation is not to the benefit of any of the sides, one can draw at least two conclusions.
First conclusion: the patriarch has either a personal grudge or complaint against Fr Georgy Kochetkov and thus however much Fr Georgy himself and his parishioners try to do everything in order the rectify the situation, they cannot succeed in doing anything. It is noteworthy that there have never been any personal relations between Patriarch Alexis II and Fr Georgy, so one can conclude that such a problem could arise only on the strength of some "manipulation" of the patriarch by somebody in his entourage. Obviously such a problem can be overcome, if it exists, by only one means: a personal meeting in which the misunderstanding could be removed. But consequently it becomes quite evident that Archbishop Arseny, Archpriest Vladimir Divakov, and Archimandrite Tikhon never would permit this meeting. They were the ones who were named by the second priest who was assigned in 1997 to the church of the Dormition as the direct cause of his provocative acts. For them such a meeting, where the patriarch could hear the truth about all that happened, would be a "fatal blow."
Second conclusion: the patriarchate does not want to reverse itself. If it lets Fr Georgy resume his ministry, even in the far off wilderness, this could mean at least a partial admission that it had been, let's say, unfair. Even more important it would mean that for very many church people in both Moscow and other dioceses there is no need to fear the "system" (as Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin said) and that they can openly conduct a church case without fear of being denied a place in the parish or church school for it, and without fear of being excommunicated simply because, for example, they had undergone a thorough adult catechesis under Fr Georgy, as now has been done with the blessing of the local bishop in all (!) churches in Tver.
Unfortunately, for the time being there is no basis for ruling out either of these two conclusions.
People who know little about Moscow church affairs asked with sincere puzzlement: "Why are Fr Georgy and his parish being hounded?" Really, why? What did Fr Georgy Kochetkov or his parishioners do contrary to the gospel and church tradition that deserved all that they have endured since 1993?
Fr Georgy never fought or called others to fight against anyone or anything except for evil and sin. Anyone who cares can become convinced of this because his sermons have been published openly. His parish, one of the largest in Moscow, was also one of the poorest, and the Saint Filaret's Orthodox School of Advanced Studies which he founded does not have a single regular sponsor and exists entirely on the contributions of members and friends of the informal Transfiguration brotherhood. Thus financial greed as the source of aggression can, it seems, be ruled out. This translation, evangelistic, catechetical, educational, charitable, and parish activity of many years was completely open, known by all, and it never evoked suspicion of canonical error or contradiction to the gospel of church tradition. Indeed the thousands of people who came into the Russian Orthodox church through the Open School which he founded are more than "sufficient" proof of his ecclesiastical "reliability." If somebody doubts this, then why not turn to the competent people or even commissions which exist in great number, say, under the synod, in order to get an investigation of all such matters?
In the Open School of Saint Filaret's Orthodox School of Advanced Studies for years people have been being prepared for baptism, or if they were baptized in childhood but had not been attending church they have been prepared for first confession and communion. People have undergone a coherent, comprehensive training on the fundamentals not only of Christian faith but also of life simply because individual persons should consciously choose their own spiritual paths and embark upon them with complete responsibility for themselves and their neighbors and in the final analsysis for their church. Fr Georgy and his associates have tried to teach people how not to be a "crowd of believers" but the people of God who would be able effectively to conquer evil and sin within and around themselves.
Of course, such people who know Who is the head of the church and what proper place the hierarchy occupies within it are laity who cannot be ruled by a scornful shout. They cannot be dispersed with a wrathful glance. It is just those people of whom the holy apostle Peter said: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, people taken as his possession: once you were no people but now are the people of God; once you were without mercy but not have mercy" (1 Pet 2.9-10). With such people, or more accurately among such people, one need simply live, but sometimes it is hard.
Isn't it the fear of such people which is the basic cause of the persecution of Fr Georgy's parish and others like it mentioned above? Isn't the "lonely crowd" more convenient for the current church hierarchy, which looks to the priest as an "elder" so that nothing comes out of them? Of course, from the position of the hierarchy it is simpler to deal with the crowd which stays put, which can easily be pleased "with the knout and honey" and be made to go in any direction it wishes. But if, God forbid, the current "comfortable" external conditions when it is possible to build churches and monasteries without hinderance should suddenly come to an end, who will protect everything that has been restored and rebuilt? After all, we already know who. Remember history!
Of course unfortunately the Moscow patriarchate could not develop such an old policy in the face of perceptible opposition to it on the part of the bishops and clergy. The overwhelming majority of clergy in Moscow know and understand that the whole conflict in Dormition church in 1997 was an illegal provocation from start to finish. But none of the clergy serving in Moscow has officially spoken about this. There is no need for someone to express sympathy personally for Fr Georgy Kochetkov or his associates. The issue is the defense of the simple truth of God. In all other dioceses (Pskov, Ekaterinburg, Riga, Tomsk, etc.) where in the last few years there were cases of similar persecutions of the church, there were clergy who were not afraid to speak the truth, even at personal loss. In Moscow there is not one! Apparently someone thinks that he can save his business, or more accurately, his parish and his spiritual children. Apparently that's how Fr Martiry thought when after the ban on Fr Georgy he meekly quit teaching at Saint Filaret's school. A year had not passed when he and his parish underwent the same scenario as the parish of the church of the Dormition in Pechatniki. Again Moscow was silent. Actually, such silence declares that at the present all of the Moscow priests, whether intentionally or not, agree with those sinful methods which have been used against the parishes of Fr Georgy, Fr Martiry, and others.
Now it is exceptionally clear, after these events, that to maintain his "own" a priest must not simply silently turn away from Fr Georgy or others like him. One must restrain oneself and order his parishioners to restrain themselves, or better to disperse, as is sometimes done, on the principle: "You do your work and I'll do mine; I also have to feed my kids." After all they are no longer suppressing those who speak out in support of Fr Georgy or who defend the right of parishes to conduct services in Russian or the fulfillment of other decisions of the local council of the Russian church of 1917-1918. They are trying to suppress those who are trying in church to live in the first place in accordance with faith and the gospel, who gather the flock of God and teach it, and train children in vital faith. This is the tragic reality of contemporary church life and it cannot be denied. This reality must be acknowledged soberly.
In conclusion it is impossible not to say a few words about Fr Georgy's parish. Only a madman could think that only one "side" is guilty of everything that has happened. Obviously those people who are under discipline do not think this. Otherwise why would they have repented in confession to the diocesan confessor of the city of Moscow?
The church activity of Fr Georgy Kochetkov and the life and ministry of his parish, according to one metropolitan, has "evoked tension within the church." It's hard to disagree with that. When someone in a crowd sighs and begins to stir, this always makes "tension" for the crowd. When someone in a silent hall begins to tell the truth, this always evokes "tension" in the hall and everyone feels awkward. That is so familiar! It has never been otherwise in history. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, as we know, evoked a certain "tension" in the "well-ordered" Jewish society. God's word and God's business have this inevitable characteristic: they always evoke "tension," "an offense for the Jews and foolishness for the Greeks." Always. Without exception. Thus talk about how "Fr Georgy is running ahead of the locomotive" or that he has "separated himself from the wagons and thus has elicited such a reaction from the fundamentalist circles against himself" is, alas, irrelevant and impertinent talk. As a result of the "tension" activity of Fr Georgy (actually not his alone) there now is nobody who can say that there is not in our church, for example, a problem of drawing adults into the church or of the language of the liturgy or of local conciliarity.
Nevertheless, there still has not been open discussion of the fundamental, really serious, and truly ecclesiastical problem of the parish of Dormition church. Fr Georgy has taken on a heavy burden, the profound drawing of the intelligentsia and youth into the church. (In his parish there was a great diversity of people, but the intelligentsia still predominated.) The need for this was stated back in the soviet years not only by Fr Georgy but also Fr Tavrion Batozsky and Patriarch Iliia II of Georgia. In the first place it is necessary to teach those who can teach others. But the intelligentsia, like the youth, are the most problematic people in a spiritual sense because of their extreme individuality, trying to have an opinion on everything in the world and a judgment about everyone, and so forth. It is most difficult for these people to be of one mind and spirit; most difficult to live together like a church.
Fr Georgy gathered such people into the parish which suffered its first expulsion in 1993-1994 out of the Vladimir cathedral of the former monastery of the Presentation. A second "confessor" was forced upon it (as Archbishop Arseny said: "You must accept Fr Mikhail") and the parish meekly accepted him. It accepted him knowing already from his first service in the church of the Dormition that this was going to be destructive for the parish itself and a trial for the church. It was a second and more serious trial when the rector of the church, Fr Georgy, was helpless to do anything and it was the people who had to act. The parish could not endure. Now it is obvious that it was impossible even to let in a "savage wolf who would not spare the flock" (Acts 20.29). Even for the parishioners who were doubters this became clear on 6 May 1997 (more than a month and a half before the crisis of 29 June) after he sanctified the holy gifts in the Eucharist, i.e., in accordance with existing ecclesiastical principles, when hundreds of worshippers in the church on that day witnessed his overtly schismatic action. Already it was too late to shut the doors of the church to the blasphemer and to demand, finally, a meeting with his bishop, the most holy patriarch. But the congregation endured it all.
The outcome of the situation came despite everything. Since the Dormition community was more independent, more responsible, and more decisive, since it was more a community than simply a parish, the outcome could be much less painful for Fr Georgy and for the twelve who were excommunicated later, as well as for the community itself and for the whole Russian church.
As a result the congregation now is going along a different path. This path can be compared with the journey which the people of Israel took in the Sinai wilderness in order finally to get out of it as a free people, the people of God. Evidently it now is experiencing something similar.
We all are called to cast off the paths of age-old slavish fear and we are called to love and learn to value what is most precious in life, freedom, of which scripture says: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Without this we cannot enter the promised land in which the Father can receive us not as slaves but only as friends. We will steadfastly go further and hope that the Lord will shorten the time of our journey so that it will not be as long as the forty-year journey of the Old Testament people. (tr. by PDS)
Russian original at St. Filaret's web site
(posted 7 November 1999)
Armageddon has already arrived for my daughter
Rossiiskaia gazeta, 21 October 1999
To the editor
From the depths of our soul we thank the newspaper and your reporter in St. Petersburg, Sergei Alekhin, for the proper and very timely article in your paper of 2 October 1999 [sic, properly 2 September], "Question to the Petersburg mayor Yakovlev, Are you a governor or simply a Witness?" [see also Continuation of topic: Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Petersburg Advocates, RG, 14 October 1999]
Tartarstan is hospitable for the Wahhabis and in St. Petersburg the Jehovah's Witnesses feel at home. Here in our city there exist the circumstances for the spiritual expansion of the Jehovah's Witness totalitarian sect because of the patronage for it on the part of the city government and the indifference and inaction of the governor.
The population of the city began to be worked over back in May 1992 when Mayor A. Sobchak permitted a three-day international congress of Jehovah's Witnesses, which was attended by 42 thousand Jehovists from all over the world. Many Petersburgers call this congress the "Trap" into which our children and grandchildren fell, along with retirees. Leaders of the sect determined precisely the time of the beginning of the expansion upon the residents of Petersburg, when the majority of the population of the city was in terrible shock as the result of the onset of the reforms of Gaidar, when the prices of goods soared sharply. After the sessions of the congress and the following days the Jehovists surged along the streets of the city in a mighty wave and knocked at the door of apartments, offering their magazines, booklets, and demonstrating with Bibles in their hands the existing signs of the approach of Armageddon (the end of the world). They persuaded our citizens that all of the trials of the world (wars, violence, injustice, hunger, sickness, crime, etc.) were the responsibility of the "false religions of the Christian world," of which the most prominent was Orthodoxy because of its ignorance of the Bible.
They offered salvation and subsequent life of paradise "within the only true visible organization of God," of which they identified themselves as the witnesses. Here they even caught my fifteen-year-old daughter in their Jehovist net, which radically changed her worldview which already had been formed and completely wiped out her family upbringing and school education regarding life and her country. Whereas before the Jehovists showed up she was an active, serious, and diligent person (a good student, who worked in crafts, read a lot of classical literature, engaged in music, swimming and hoped to be a good writer in order to serve people following the example of her favorite teacher), subsequent to the sect's influence she began to hate the world around her and constantly said that "the devil sits" in the hearts of people who do not want to learn the "truth" from Jehovah's Witnesses.
Her eyes have lost the vital and energetic sparkle and a glazed cast has appeared. She has become indifferent to everything that has nothing to do with the sect. She devotes all her time to going about apartments and preaching and to distributing magazines and booklets on the streets and to the repair of the buildings that the sect has leased for conducting meetings, which they call "Jehovah's Kingdom Hall."
She is not interested in school and family activities. She has stopped meeting her friends and she is about to quit school so that she can preach and save more people from destruction in "the approaching Armageddon."
I have appealed many times to the leaders ("preachers" of the assembly from Poland) and they have responded to me that my daughter is very gifted, well developed, and in possession of a splendid memory, who quickly grasps everything so that the older people in the congregation turn to her. They even thank me with an innocent glance for my daughter's good upbringing.
Under enormous psychological pressure from the leaders of the sect, my daughter quit the Herzen pedagogical university after her first year, where she had enrolled on my request. She said to me that she could not study since she had no intention of working for the "devil's state" and "the education which the Jehovah's Witnesses give is better than that of the world." It's been six years since then. All her friends and other students of the mathematics department in which she studied have completed university and college, but my daughter has worked all this time as a maid, which the sect considers to be the most honorable occupation. The sect permits her to work no more than two or three hours per day so that she will not starve to death, but at the same time she must contribute to the sect a certain amount in monthly contributions in accordance with the above-named amount which has been previously established for each meeting. My daughter always was paid up in the sect, since for six years she had been a so-called "Pioneer" who was a full-time minister of Jehovah, who preached and canvassed homes 90 to 100 hours monthly.
In the past two years the sects has stopped expecting the end of the world in the near future since "Armageddon" has not happened in the times that the Jehovists have often named. Generally speaking, the Jehovist doctrine that the generation of people who joined the organization since 1914 will live in Paradise after Jehovah God has destroyed sinful humanity who do not wish to serve in his organization has been set aside. At the present time members of the sect are told that Jehovah has "shed new light" and its proclamation around the world still is not complete. It is necessary to conduct more substantially his "worldwide educational program," and to be totally devoted "to the true and wise servant of Jehovah" as the Brooklyn headquarters styles itself, which "always provides spiritual nourishment untainted by the influence of the satanic world."
The endless daily visitation of apartments with the heavy briefcase, from morning to night, even on weekends and holidays, when the preachers say that evangelism should increase, has had an enormous impact on my daughter and left her little time for her own life. At present my daughter has quit her job as a maid since she was assigned by the Brooklyn center of the Watchtower Society to the depths of Russia where according to the assembly's preachers more preaching is needed. In that place she will work 140 hours per month as a "special pioneer" receiving a miserly salary from the society.
Ultimately my daughter will cease receiving pay for her work and she will not be able to count on a pension. My daughter has become socially defenseless. The Brooklyn corporation will not come to my daughter's aid if she becomes sick.
According to statistics reported in NG-religii on 8 September 1999, in the article "Jehovah's Witnesses in the mirror of statistics," in the Russian affiliate of the sect there are 70 percent women and 30 percent men, aged from 9 to 70 years. The men occupy all the leadership positions. The men in the category of 9-20 year-olds constitute 24.4 percent while the women in this age range are 12.6 percent. In the age range of 20-30 years, men are 35.1 percent and women are 22.4 percent. In the age range 30-40 years, mean are 10.6 percent and women 16.1 percent. In the age range 40-50 years, men are 13.6 percent and women 16.1. In the age range 50-60 years, men are 10.6 and women 16.7 percent. By professions, supervisors constituted 6.3 percent, teachers and studf=ents constituted 15.6 percent, and retirees, 39.1 percent.
All of these specialists could be called former professionals since many of them are working part time in order to achieve the number of hours of preaching required by the sect, on which matter there is much written data transmitted from the Brooklyn Administrative Center. They also must use their workplaces for drawing new persons into the sect and they all "do not live in the world."
In all countries of the world active opposition to the spread of the "destruction cult" of Jehovah's Witnesses is going on. This work has been increased especially in European countries. Before he was elected governor, V. Yakovlev made an official declaration that "in the event of his election, there would be fewer totalitarian sects." ITAR-TASS published this declaration in all newspapers of the city and our citizens trusted it. But all that was said has remained only words. The governor has taken no steps for stopping the construction of the Jehovah's Witnesses Hall of Congresses, which Sobchak allowed two days before his reelection.
Our correspondent Sergei Alekhin wrote correctly that even if residents of the seashore region could collect 10,000 signatures against the construction of the Jehovists’ halls in the Udelny park, and even if they picketed the administration of the city, and despite the article in Rossiiskaia gazzeta titled "St Petersburg," there will be no collective response from the deputies of the legislative assembly. The governor himself appealed to the absence of "a supreme Russian law" which would permit banning the activity of totalitarian sects.
Such a law was worked out by the duma in 1997, and President Yeltsin signed it despite pressure from the congress of USA against this law and numerous letters from foreign members of the Jehovah's Witnesses' organization. The press has reported that in the preparation and production of the law "On freedom of conscience and religious organizations" the president received during June to December 1997 about 5,000 letters from 44 countries, where Jehovah's Witnesses are found.
According to article 14 of the law, the Jehovah's Witnesses organization could be prohibited right away on several points, on which was based the petition of the procurator in Moscow court for prohibition of the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow. The trial which began in autumn 1998 has still not been completed. But the bureaucrats in the Petersburg administration act as if this law does not exist. And the media, apparently, have received orders not to talk about the topic of destructive cults, since both newspapers and television have been silent about this topic. In this matter the article of your reporter has been very timely and useful for our city. Thank you very much for this publication.
It would be interesting to know how Governor Yakovlev would respond. What are our children facing? Will state services help victims of nontraditional religions to become mature and free persons, as happens in European democratic countries?
With respect,
Valentina Petrovan Kozlova,
St. Petersburg
(tr by PDS)
(posted 6 November 1999)
Convening in Echmiadzin on 27 October, delegates to the National Ecclesiastical
Assembly elected Garegin Nersisian, Archbishop of Ararat, as the 132rd
Catholicos of All Armenians. Nersisian received 263 votes in the second,
secret ballot, compared with 176 for Archbishop Nerses Pozapalian. Nersisian,
who is 48, was born in a village near Echmiadzin and entered the seminary
there in 1965. He has studied theology in Vienna, Bonn, and the Russian
Orthodox Church Academy in Azgorsk, from which he graduated in 1979. LF
WILL THE ARMENIAN CHURCH MAINTAIN UNITY?
Election of new catholicos had evoked a series of political scandals
by Armen Khanbabian
Nezavisimaia gazeta--religii, 27 October 1999
When this issue of the newspaper apears the name of the new, 132nd patriarch of the Armenian Apostolic church, the catholicos of all Armenians, will be known. In all likelinood, the delegates of the national church council, which began its work yesterday in holy Echmiadzin, will give their preference to Archbishop Garegin Nersisian of the Ararat diocese, who in such an event will take the name Garegin II.
The elections of a new head of the Armenian church were preceded by events that were unprecedented in their drama. At the end of September practically all newspapers in Armenia and the foreign diaspora published a declaration by six of the most authoritative archbishops in which the hierarchs expressed profound concern about the situation that had arisen on the eve of the election of the catholicos. The document, written by primates of the Echmiadzin, Constantinopol, Jerusalem, Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), Russian, and eastern American dioceses of the Armianian Apostolic church (AATs), maintained that the process of the election of the patriarch had been threatened because of interference by civil authorities. In the opinion of the declaration's authors, "the upper echelons of authority have reached a consensus in favor of one of the candidates, whom they are trying to elevate to the seat of catholicos. Thereby the ethics and legality of the process of the election have been threatened, which is fraught with unspeakable consequences."
The candidate "in whose favor the authorities have reached a consensus" and, incidentally, had informed the holy fathers, was Archbishop Garegin Nersesian of the Ararat diocese. There is a rumor that he was promoted successfully by a strong and financially powerful figure of the foreign Armenian diaspora. This circumstance played a decisive role in the formation of the preferences of the "upper echelons of authority;" material aid from abroad is extremely critical because the budget of the country is in terrible shape.
It seems that the press service of the president of the republic immediately denounced the claim about state interference in church affairs. However President Robert Kocharian himself did not hide that on this matter he has a definite opinion and "would be very sorry if the head of the state did not have an opinion on a question that is so important for the nation." Robert Kocharian noted that he had openly spoken about this with church hierarchs, although he added that the final choice is up to them and thus the accusatory cry of the "declaration of the six" seemed rather incomprehensible to him. "Why did not anyone protest when over the course of many centuries the catholicos was appointed in the literal sense of the word by Persian shahs, Turkish sultans, Russian tsars, or the politburo of the CC CPSU? At present the issue is just an official opinion." At the same time the head of the government expressed regret with regard to the "dirty preelection technologies and discrediting of opponents which are being employed in church circles."
Nevertheless public opinion was shocked. They began to draw parallels with the election of the catholicos in May 1995 when President Levon Ter-Petrisian also openly supported the leader of the western wing of the Armenian church, the Cilician Catholicos Garegin. The former president, who himself was an emigre from Syria, explained his decision by the necessity of putting an end to the schism which had arisen between holy Echmiadzin and the Cilician Great House after the establishment of soviet power in Armenia. Over the course of more than seventy years the western Armenian church structures were absolutely beyond the control of Echmiadzin and consequently free from ideological pressure from the communists. Although the "Dashnaktsutiun" party with its national socialist ideology exercised a lot of influence on the Armenian church in the diaspora, the church played an enormous role in the consolidation and preservation of the diaspora and the national culture and language beyond the boundaries of the historic homeland. With Armenia's achievement of independence, the causes for the schism lost their force. After the former Cilician catholicos ascended the Echmiadzin throne there began an active process of the consolidationof the two branches of the Armenian Apostolic church. It seemed that by the time of the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, AATs would achieve its historic honor of indisputable spiritual authority in all its splendor.
However the uproar evoked by the unprecedentedly harsh protest of the archbishops set AATs on the brink of a new and more dangerous schism. Suggestions began spreading that pressure on the part of the state could lead to a boycott of the election or postponement of the national church council. Sources close to church circles stated that if the state insisted on its choice, the dioceses headed by the authors of the "declaration of the six" were prepared to leave the jurisdiction of Echmiadzin. This would mean a loss of a third of the flock and, what is more important, authority in the diaspora and in Armenia itself. Besides, such a development of things would threaten to cause substantial material damage to Echmiadzin (and consequently indirectly to the government) which would be incomparable in scale to the benefits which would result from fulfilment of the wishes of those who were lobbying for Archbishop Garegin Nersesian. It is necessary also to consider that one of the authors and instigators of the "declaration of the six" is the authoritative Archbishop Pargev Martirosian of Artsakh, who aspires to the throne of the Armenian primate, not without basis. In light of this fact, schism threatens to lead to severe political consequences.
However Archbishop Pargev himself hopes that before it comes to this "the wisdom of the people will not permit the church to be led to schism," for, in his words, this would mean catastrophe. The problem, however, is that the people exert a rather indirect influence on the election of the catholicos. The head of AATs is selected by the national church council, 455 delegates of which represent all 29 dioceses of the Armenian church. The greater part of the delegates are laypersons elected by diocesan assemblies. The voting process itself proceeds in three rounds by secret ballot. Urns are placed in the church and opened in the presence of all delegates. An appointed delegate announces the name of the candidate that has been marked on the ballot and then three other delegates confirm whether the name of the candidate is correct. Only after this is the ballot given to the tabulation commission which registers it. After the third round of voting and the completion of the tabulation, the name of the new catholicos of all Armenians is solemnly announced. Then the mourning shroud is removed from the primatial throne. The newly elected patriarch is ceremonially vested with the pastoral staff and raiment. The act is accompanied by the ringing of the bells of the cathedral church of holy Echmiadzin. The gates of the church are opened and the patriarch ascends the throne. (tr. by PDS)
See "Armenian church elects acting catholicos"
(posted 31 October 1999)
The tenth anniversary of the formation of the Belorussian Orthodox church was the focus of the session of the Holy Synod of the Belorussian exarchate held on 28 October in the Minsk diocesan administration under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Slutsk, the patriarchal exarch for all Belarus.
In October 1989 at the bishops' council of the Russian Orthodox church held in Moscow it was decided that the dioceses with their deans, parishes, and monasteries located on the territory of Belarus would canonically constitute the Belorussian exarchate of the Moscow patriarchate. Now at its celebrational session the Belorussian Holy Synod adopted a Letter for the tenth anniversary of the formation of the Belorussian exarchate of the Moscow patriarchate, which will be published in all Orthodox parishes before the arrival of the jubilee year 2000.
"In establishing the Belorussian exarchate as a separate church structure, the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox church was fully aware of what enormous significance the church of Christ had in the formation of the national character of Belorussians and of the heritage of their life, customs, and culture," the letter says. "Over the course of more than 1,000 years Orthodox pastors along with their people from generation to generation have borne a heavy cross, and have endured suffering and tragedies in which Belolrussian history is so rich."
The synodal letter emphasizes that the formation of the Belorussian exarchate was not a sign of encouragement of national exclusivity and local self-aggrandizement, for the idea of division, certainly on a national basis, contradicts the teaching about the church and canonical practice: it is alien to the church and arises apart from it. From the time of its establishment the Belorussian exarchate has received from the mother church greater independence in the resolution of all internal questions. At the same time, the ten dioceses constituting the exarchate, united by their common national and state territory and thousand-year historical fate, recognize themselves as an organic part of the Russian Orthodox church.
Over the course of the days of the session, members of the Holy Synod completed the Act of Canonization of locally venerated saints, twenty three new martyrs and clerics of the Minsk diocese of the first half of the twentieth century. Their names, lives, and feats were the subject of a five-year church examination of materials of the investigative files preserved in the archive of the KGB of the republic of Belarus.
As a result of this work, the date of 28 October (new style), the day of their canonization, was established for the commemoration of the new martyrs. An icon of the newly glorified saints already had been painted in the diocesan iconpainting workshop and the texts of their lives were also approved by the synod and their publication was blessed. All these people perished in the first half of the twentieth century. Existing information about them, although sparse, is completely trustworthy. They were condemned illegally and at the present time have been rehabilitated.
It was decided to hold the glorification of the new martyrs who were resplendent in the Belorussian land with an elevation of their holy names on 12 December in the Minsk cathedral church of the Holy Spirit.
Members of the synod approved also the formation of a convent in honor of the holy martyr Grand Princess Elizabeth Romanova in the village of Novinki near Minsk. The nuns of the Saint Elizabeth sisterhood have been working since 1997 at the republican psychoneurological clinic which is located there. Fifteen of the 130 members of the sisterhood constitute the base of the newly established convent, which is the first to be located in the immediate vicinity of the capital of the republic and the fifteenth Belorussian Orthodox cloister. The nun Elizabeth Sysun was appointed abbess of the convent and a pectoral cross appropriate to her post was bestowed upon her.
At the expanded session of the synod the results of the ten years of work in the basic services and organization of the Belorussian exarchate were reviewed. The patriarchal exarch of all Belarus emphasized specially that the present celebration is not just an ordinary event in anticipation of the great Christian jubilee of the bimillennium of the birth of Christ but also a significant and extremely appropriate stage in the historical existence of Orthodoxy on the lands of White Rus. (tr by PDS)
(posted 30 October 1999)
Since 1995 the Minsk diocese has been conducting work to discover persons of clerical and lay vocations who suffered in the years of persecution of the holy Orthodox church during the tragic twentieth century which is now passing into eternity. This activity was conducted by a priest of the Minsk diocese, Feodor Krivonos. In five years of study of materials from the investigative files preserved in the archive of the Committee on State Security (KGB) of the republic of Belarus he composed a "Synodik of those who suffered in Minsk diocese for the faith and Christ's church," published in 1996 for commemoration in prayer. It contains the names of 330 clergy and laity of the central part of Belarus who suffered persecution in one form or another. As a result of analysis of this number of persons, twenty-three names were distinguished of those who faced the approaching tribulation with special meakness and steadfastness of spirit and accepted a martyr's death for confession of faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. On the basis of the documents, their lives were composed. All of these people perished in the first half of the twentieth century. Although the existing information about them is sparse, it is completely trustworthy. They all were condemned illegally and at the present have been rehabilitated.
ACT of the Holy Synod of the Belorussian Orthodox church regarding canonization of twenty-three locally venerated saints, new martyrs and clergy of the Minsk diocese in the first half of the twentiety century. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
Verily God is glorified in his saints! Just as in the first centuries after the birth of Christ the church glorified the feats of martyrs and their blood was the seed of Christianity, which grew and conquered the hearts of people, so in the current second millennium, tribulations sent by the Lord to our Holy church have revealed to the world new martyrs in our fatherland. Among them we testify with thanks to God about twenty three priests of the Belorussian land. They are a clear example of the martyr's achievement for faith in Christ, an example of sacrificial love for his holy church and the flock entrusted to them by God. The Holy Synod of the Belorussian exarchate of the Russian Orthodox church, having carefully studied the lives and achievements of twenty three priests of Minsk diocese, unanimously has determined with reverence that:
1. Clergy of Minsk diocese
1. Archpriest Vladimir Khirasko (d. 1932)
2. Archpriest Vasily Izmailov (d. 1930)
3. Priest Petr Grudinsky (d. 1930)
4. Priest Valeriian Novitsky (d. 1930)
5. Priest Vladimir Khrishanovich (d. 1933)
6. Priest Ioann Vecherko (d. 1933)
7. Archpriest Sergii Rodakovsky (d. 1933)
8. Priest Vladimir Taliush (d. 1933)
9. Archpriest Mikhail Novitsky (d. 1935)
10. Archpriest Porfiry Rubanovich (d. 1937)
11. Archpriest Mikhail Plyshevsky (d. 1937)
12. Archpriest Dimitry Pavsky (d. 1937)
13. Archpriest Ioann Voronets (d. 1937)
14. Archpriest Leonid Biriukovich (d. 1937)
15. Archpries Alexander Shalai (d. 1937)
16. Priest Nikolai Matskevich (d. 1937)
17. Priest Ioann Pankratovich (d. 1937)
18. Deacon Nikolai Vasiukovich (d. 1937)
19. Archpriest Vladimir Zubkovich (d. 1938)
20. Archpriest Vladimir Pasternatsky (d. 1938)
21. Priest Dimitry Klyshevsky (d. 1938)
22. Archimandrite Serafim Shakhmut (d. 1945)
23. Archpriest Matfei Kritsuk (d. 1950)
are added to the list of the locally venerated saints, new martyrs
of the Belorussian Orthodox church.
2. The celebration of church commemoration of these saints is established for 15 October on the Julian calendar (28 October, new style), the day of their canonization.
3. Holy icons for veneration will be painted for these saints of God in accordance with the rules of the seventh ecumenical council.
4. Lives of the holy new martyrs of the Belorussian Orthodox church will be published for general edification and liturgical texts will be composed and adopted for services.
5. The whole Belorussian flock will be informed about the glorification of the twenty three new martyrs resplendent in the Belorussian land.
6. His holiness, the patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus, Alexis II and the Holy Synod will be informed with thanks about this Act of the council of the Belorussian Orthodox church.
Appealing for the intecessory prayers of the holy new martyrs of the Belorussian land, the synod of the Belorussian Orthodox church earnestly calls the pious flock of our fatherland to stand firm in the Orthodox faith and to live their lives in accordance with the commandments of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 30 October 1999)
Attack on congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Tbilisi seen by Georgian patriarchate as a provocation against the Orthodox church
by Nodar Broladze
Nezavisimaia gazeta--religii, 27 October 1999
Recently an hysterical crowd carried out a pogrom against the Jehovah's Witnesses sect in Tbilisi. The immediate cause for the attack and bloody beating of the sectarians was the receipt of information by the "zealots" for Orthodox which said that the Jehovists were going to conduct on one of these days a special meeting for converting a number of citizens to their faith. Although the event had an obviously religious hue, the peculiarities of public life that characterize the past decade undoubtedly had their impact.
More than 100 persons, led by the former priest Fr Basil, attacked the apartment headquarters of the Jehovists. Four years ago, when Basil was head of one of the dioceses, he disputed with the views of the patriarchate, in particular the issue of ecumenism, which was settled to the advantage of the patriarchate's opponents, primarily the Zviadists. In a high-handed manner he hounded priests appointed to the diocese, at times beating representatives of the Orthodox clergy whom he disliked and at times demonstratively ignoring orders from the holy and blessed catholicos of all Georgia, Iliia II. Typical of his flock is the overwhelming presence within it of supporters of the former president Zviad Gamsukhurdia.
Fr Basil, who mixes divine services with political events in defense of the ideas of Zviadism, frequently has become the object of media attention. In 1995, by decision of the Holy Synod, he was unfrocked, after which Fr Basil (secular name, Vasily Mkalivishvili) became an ordinary layman, but he continued to conduct services, under the open sky. This time, dressed as before in the vestments of a priest, he led a procession of the cross through the district against sectarians and Jehovists, calling out in a loud voice to destroy the "satanic forces" and to destroy the nest of alien believers. Women were beaten and their hair was pulled. The "holy father" personally maimed several members of the sect with a heavy cross. The premises where the meeting was held was trashed. Several Jehovists had to be taken immediately to the hospital where they were given emergency treatment.
The pogrom was conducted ferociously and totally. In a frenzy the crowd threw Jehovist literature out the windows and then burned it along with a New Testament (which was symbolic!) which accidentally fell in the midst of the papers. It seems that the police arrested those guilty of the orgy although they subsequently released the so-called Fr Basil on the basis of his signed promise not to depart from the area. Stating his own point of view, the president of Georgia declared that the matter should be resolved in a judicial and legislative manner and none of the culprits should be allowed to escape punishment.
It is extremely disturbing that the incident was assessed by nongovernmental organizations that called in their resolution for the law enforcement agencies to react adequately. In the administration of the city police a criminal case was instigated on charges of hooliganism and damage to public buildings. Since parliament still has not adopted a law on religion, there is no specific criminal category for such incidents, and the government's attitude toward any particular sect has not been defined.
The patriarchate of Georgia, the Orthodox church, naturally has no enthusiasm for the work of the Jehovah Witnesses sect in the country. (Incidentally, one court case was held earlier in which the Jehovists were defended by foreign patrons, including some who work in local offices.) Obviously this is not just a matter of alternative readings of sacred texts, nor of attempts of some sectarian movements to take holy scripture into their own hand, nor even that the Orthodox church is trying to prevent the dangerous effect of an independent approach to the study and understanding of Christianity. Jehovists, as the press center of the Georgian patriarchate told the NG reporter, try at every opportunity to "recruit" into their ranks citizens of weak faith, to force them to leave Orthodoxy, and to harm the church in other ways, going so far as to try to destroy momuments of Orthodox architecture such as happened in the city of Duwheti. However this does not mean that the violent actions of obscurantists like the team of Vasily Mkalivishvili can be approved in the least by the patriarchate. The position of the Orthodox church with regard to such criminal behavior as that of Mkalivishvili is that he is trying to call society's attention to himself and to rehabilitate his image as an active and convinced champion for the triumph of Orthodoxy. In reality he is promoting the creation of a situation where religious sects can be viewed as persecuted within society. Such an impression can inevitably lead to the undesired effect of evoking, for example, sympathy for the Jehovists in the country. The patriarchate assessed the event as a provocative action intent upon discrediting the Orthodox church.
The appearance of intolerance in such an aggressive form is characteristic of a certain portion of the adherents of Zviadism. The patriarchate declared that among the parishioners of the so-called diocese of pogromists are also members of the "Round Table," a movement of Zviadists who are participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections. These are people who are fearful of integration into the international community and who try to avoid the influence of western culture and cooperation with the United States and other countries. The overwhelming majority of those who have such convictions have a positive attitude toward the actions of the pogromists. Obviously such a phenomenon does not correspond with the image of a country that has achieved its independence not in order to implement the principles of governmental isolationism in international relations policy, as had been manifested after November 1990 following the victory of the "Round Table--Free Georgia" party in the elections. Fortunately, at the present these people have almost no influence. But traditions are vital. It is easy to imagine what kind of fate awaits the state if the medieval consciousness of its subjects is translated out of the religious and mystical sphere into the realm of politics. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 29 October 1999)
"This corresponds entirely with the constitution," declare the members of the Council on Relations with Religious Association.
by Ekaterina Stupina
NG-religii,
27 October 1999
The Council on Relations with Religious Associations of the presidency of the Russian federation held a regular session on 20 October. Participants in the sessions included both the permanent members of the council, Mufti Ravil Gainutdin, Chief Rabbi of Russia Adolf Shaevich, Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, and others, and specially invited representatives of state and public organizations and religious associations.
On the agenda of the session was the question regarding the implementation of the federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations. The issue was that according to the law adopted in 1997 all religious associations wishing to carry out their activity on the territory of our country must undergo obligatory reregistration with the agencies of justice of the Russian federation before 31 December 1999. After this time, religious organizations that have not undergone reregistration may be liquidated by judicial procedure upon petition from the registering agency. In an address to the council, deputy minister of justice Evgeny Sidorenko noted: "The organizational and procedural work conducted by the ministry of justice has facilitated on the whole the normal implementation of the law and has not led, as was predicted by many, to serious and massive violations of human rights and the equality of religious associations before the law. Throughout the Russian federation 355 cases of official denial of reregistration have been confirmed, which most often is related to the failure of submitted documents to conform with the requirements of the law. All these decisions may be appealed in accordance with judicial procedure. Agencies of justice also can review the applications of confessional associations a second time after the reasons for the denial have been corrected."
The process of reregistration, however, has gone slowly. On 1 October 1997 there were around 16,000 officially registered religious organizations, uniting believers of sixty confessions. At the present time, only 160 religious centers with federal status and around 3,000 local associations have undergone reregistration. "The basic cause of such delay is the failure of religious organizations to make application on this matter in a timely manner," Evgeny Sidorenko comments. "Today it is obvious that in adopting this law the legislature established a clearly unrealistic period for reregistration. In this regard the ministry of justice has taken the initiative to raise the question of extending the period for reregistration by one year, to 31 December 2000." The appropriate draft of a federal law was worked out, which in the near future will be submitted for review by the State Duma.
The second question discussed at the council dealt with participation of the representatives of religious organizations in the upcoming parliamentary elections. According the Alexander Veshniakov, chairman of the Central Election Commission of the Russian federation, "the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state establishes a direct prohibition, contained in article four of the law on freedom of conscience and religious associations, upon participation of religious associations in elections to state offices and local administration, as well as upon participation in the activity of political parties and providing material support to these parties."
Members of religious associations, as citizens of the Russian federation, on the contrary, have complete electoral rights. They can elect and be elected (with the exceptions of cases provided by federal legislation, that is, in cases of incarceration in prisons on the basis of a court sentence and in cases of court-declared incompetence). At the present in the electoral lists confirmed by the Central Election Commission there are ten clergy.
According to existing legislation, the conduct of the election campaign by members of religious associations must not occur during the time of divine services or be carried out in the name of any particular confession. Members of religious organizations and clergy may participate in other stages of the elections to the State Duma: they may work in the election commission, in agencies of public supervision of the voting process, and in the counting of votes.
Reporters invited to the session were especially interested in the members' opinion on the problem of religious extremism and the totalitarian sects in our country, as well as the course of the review of this question in the Council on Relations with Religious Associations. The chief of staff of the president of the Russian federation on questions of internal politics, Andrei Loginov, as deputy chairman of the council, was restrained in his assessments: "The council is a collegial body in which, beside relations between the state and religious associations, relations among confessions are dealt with. In the course of interconfessional dialogue it is forbidden to use such terms as "sect" and "totalitarian sect." Such labels sometimes sound like accusations and produce tension and conflict among representatives of various confessions. The goal of the council is peace and harmony among confessions. Members do not try to use the council in order to restrict the activity of some religious organizations in the interests of others."
Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna expressed his point of view on the issue: "Laws alone will not save us from threats of terrorism. The success of the struggle depends upon the daily activity of our religious organizations. From the very beginning of the conflict in the northern Caucasus, the Orthodox church has been in constant contact with both Muslim leaders and adherents of other religions and international religious organizations. You know that our church also has suffered; several Orthodox priests have died and thus this pain is very real for us." (tr by PDS)
(posted 28 October 1999)
Compass Direct,
23 October 1999
Public meetings by four evangelical Protestant congregations were brought to a halt in the Georgian capital Tbilisi at the end of August against a backdrop of hostility from the police and radical Orthodox activists. Public services have not restarted yet, one of the pastors told Compass on October 12, though small-scale services have been held in private apartments.
Police reportedly went to the directors of the halls and clubs that the four congregations rent and issued a verbal instruction to suspend rental to the churches. All four have one-year contracts with the relevant institutions.
However, according to Pastor Zaali Tkeshelashvili of the Madli (Grace) Church, the police confiscated all the documentation relating to the rental agreements and told the directors that they would let them know whether they would allow meetings to resume.
Tkeshelashvili and others involved in the Tbilisi churches speculate that the police will make no decision until after the parliamentary elections, which will be held across Georgia on October 31.
None of the four congregations owns a church building, thus making them vulnerable to pressure from the authorities. Only two Protestant churches continue to hold services in Tbilisi: the Baptist Church (which owns its own building) and the Russian-language Pentecostal church Word of Life, led by Pastor Viktor Lutsik. Evangelical churches in other Georgian regions have not been affected.
At the end of August, police raided three meeting places where services are normally held. The Madli (Grace) Church, led by Tkeshelashvili, already had decided to cancel their August 29 service after learning of police plans to raid the service, but two other congregations had services brought to a halt by police, backed up by vocal protesters loyal to a rebel Orthodox priest.
Finding no one at the building Tkeshelashvili rents for services, the police then moved to a building rented by a congregation led by Bishop Oleg Khubashvili, the leader of the Christians of Evangelical Faith in Georgia. "The police of Gldani and Nadzaladevi came not in uniform, but in plain clothes with guns," a group of Tbilisi evangelicals declared in a September 9 statement cited by Keston News Service.
"They began to riot and beat some of the church members from Pastor Oleg's church," the statement said. "The police took some of the members' documents and told them that they would be returned if they came to the police station. The police and their supporters destroyed the meeting. Uniformed police came and assisted the evangelical members to leave their building to return to their homes." The police then sealed the building.
The police were joined in their raid by anti-Protestant demonstrators, apparently linked to rebel Orthodox priest Father Basil Mkalavishvili, who has been defrocked by the Georgian Orthodox Church for his extremism. His supporters were shown on Georgian television news shouting slogans against the evangelicals, calling them "dirty people" and "apostles of anti-Christ."
Also raided was the congregation of the Word of Life Church, which had organized an evangelistic rally in Gldani's House of Culture featuring a visiting preacher from Ukraine. The meeting was unable to go ahead.
In the wake of these raids the evangelical churches were left with nowhere to meet, as rental agreements in a number of venues were unilaterally revoked as directors of public buildings (the only suitable buildings available for hire) came under pressure not to rent to Pentecostals.
"Because of the work of the police from these two districts (Gldani and Nadzaladevi districts of the capital), all of the evangelical Pentecostal churches in Tbilisi are now without a place to meet," the group of evangelicals declared. "Pastor Oleg, Pastor Zaali, Pastor Gia and Pastor Vitali are unable to hold Sunday meetings anymore."
The latest round of problems for Tbilisi's evangelicals began when police in Gldani, a poor district on the edge of Tbilisi, broke up an open-air evangelistic rally organized by the Madli Church last May. Tkeshelashvili and his wife, the assistant pastor, took the police to court in a civil case, accusing them of brutality.
Keston News Service reported that the Gldani district court ruled against Tkeshelashvili on August 17, though the pastor immediately lodged an appeal to the regional court. A hearing of the Tbilisi regional court is due on October 20, Tkeshelashvili told Compass.
However, the Gldani police were reportedly infuriated that the pastor had made public his allegations of brutality and brought a case against them. "Because of the filing of the appeal, the police have become even more negative towards Pastor Zaali and the evangelical Pentecostal churches," the September 9 statement declared.
Tkeshelashvili remains unbowed by the latest harassment. "We are blessed in the church. We had a hard time but now we are building the church in stronger way than before," he declared. "We feel the presence of God more strongly." He also remained confident about his case against the Gldani police. "We are awaiting the next hearing and believe we will have the victory."
(posted 25 October 1999)
Uzbek police raided a meeting of an unregistered Evangelical Baptist church in the city of Karshi on October 10, raising fears of a new wave of religious repression, reports the Keston News Service. Uzbek religious groups had experienced a thaw in relations with the government in August and September when authorities released imprisoned believers and registered some groups that previously had been denied registration. Several hundred Muslim prisoners, all known Christian prisoners, and two Jehovah's Witnesses were released.
The Karshi church is part of the Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, which rejected state control under the Soviet Union.
Based on reports from the US-based Russian Evangelistic Ministries and the Friedensstimme Mission in Germany, Keston says that local police beat up and imprisoned many of the participants in an annual harvest celebration at the Baptist church in Karshi. The police report stated that Christians were participating in an anti-government political gathering under the direction of A. Andreichenko, the owner of the house where the meeting took place.
Two men arrested at the meeting, B. Belan and A. Vakhidov, were sentenced to 10 days in prison under the Administrative Code and authorities are threatening to press charges against Andreichenko, who remains in detention. Authorities confiscated Christian literature and materials that were taken at the meeting.
An October 12 statement signed by participants in the meeting says that more than 40 church members were taken to the police station where some were hit in the face, head, and kidney area. Police beat those who refused to sign a document of confession dictated by police, the church members said. An ethnic Uzbek convert, R. Usupov, was severely beaten to the point of being unable to sleep at night and was threatened with expulsion from the city of Karshi because he had became a Christian. Foreigners present at the meeting were deported and all but three of the detained believers were eventually released.
One church member, Nikolai Serin, wrote in a statement that police beat him with a plastic bottle filled with water and later with their fists. Serin claimed that police "put a gas mask over my head, and turned off the air supply and began to strangle me, demanding, 'Will you write (the confession)?' " God helped me to persevere."
Police also beat a deaf man's legs until he collapsed, threatening to "make him a cripple," the report said. A group of mothers whose teenage children had been maltreated by the police, wrote to Uzbek President Islam Karimov, complaining of "the display of lawlessness by the police officers." One of the sons, Nikolai Vinokurov, was beaten when he refused to answer questions in the absence of his parents. The church members' report said that Vinokurov was beaten in such a way as not to leave any marks on his body, hitting his spine and other painful areas on the body, and twisting his arms."
Keston says that the mistreatment of the Baptists and other documented cases are certain to come up for discussion in Geneva in November, when the United Nations Committee against Torture reviews Uzbekistan's periodic report.
Responding to an inquiry from Keston, the Uzbek Embassy in London denied that the government is repressing religious believers. The statement said "Uzbekistan is providing the full freedom of conscience to everyone -- Muslims, Christians, Baptists, Bahai etc. At the same time, Uzbekistan will take appropriate actions within the framework of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations against those, who would not abide the existent laws."
The May 1, 1998, religion law provides for freedom of worship but also imposes restrictions requiring that religious groups register or reregister under stricter guidelines than the law it replaced. To apply for permission a religious group must prove that it has at least 100 Uzbek citizen members compared with the minimum of 10 under the previous law. This enables the government to ban a group simply by denying its registration petition, human rights groups say.
The U.S. State Department's recent Annual Report on International Religious Freedom said that the government of Uzbekistan "perceives unofficial Islamic groups or mosques as extremist threats and sharply restricts their activities." Uzbekistan, the report said, "also restricts recently arrived religions that either the Government does not understand, or that proselytize."
The Uzbek Embassy in London reports that it has received "hundreds of letters" from people in Britain addressed to President Karimov thanking him for recently registering 20 religious organizations in Uzbekistan. U.S. State Department officials believe that Uzbekistan's awareness of the upcoming religious freedom report influenced their decision to register the groups and release prisoners.
(posted 21 October 1999)
Priests interfere in the private life of parishioners
by Alla Snegina, Evgeny Strelchik
Segodnia, 6 October 1999
My friend had a fight with his wife and went to a famous monastery for advice. "Have you been baptized?" the priest asked. "I have been, but my wife has not." "Get a divorce!." "And the children?" "What kind of family is it which the spouse does not honor God! The Lord will not abandon the children in distress."
Cases of such an acquaintance with the church have acquired a mass character recently. This is why the Holy Synod last autumn condemned the fashionable practice of priests who have advocated that spouses who are in a civil marriage to take vows of monasticism. In December the church leadership adopted the decision "Concerning the increasing cases of pastoral abuse of the power to 'bind and loose' given to them by God," in which it acknowledge that some of them had crudely "invaded the internal questions of personal and family life of parishioners and required spouses to break up marriages which were not conducted in the church" or "when one of the spouses does not belong to the Orthodox faith." Some "do not permit their spiritual children to marry for love but suggest that they marry someone recommended by the pastor himself." There have been frequent cases when priests have directly recommended to parishioners whom they should vote for in regular elections. The synod acknowledged that this not only violates the Christian's right to make independent decisions but also violates the law.
The problem has a long history. Priest Alexander Borisov, in his book "Whitened Fields" several years ago called attention to the first symptoms of the sickness and was reprimanded. Archbishop Mikhail Mudiugin also wrote about this. Magazine articles have been left by the patriarchate without discussion, evoking criticism that tries to discredit the church. It has turned out that the tendency toward the development of Orthodox fundamentalism that arose ten years ago now represents a serious threat to the unity of the church.
The cause of this lies in the church's historic path in the twentieth century. Ten years ago Moscow had 47 churches in which about a hundred priests served. In the whole USSR there were 6893 parishes. Pastors were trained in three ecclesiastical seminaries and two academies, whose students were very carefully selected. Today RPTs has more than 19,000 parishes, 480 monasteries, and in Moscow there are almost 400 Orthodox churches. A human flood has poured forth into open positions and the requirements for ordination to the clergy were lowered. Thousands of young people were ordained with an inadequate level of religious education and degree of churchmanship. The majority of them did not escape the temptation of the certitude that they already had achieved a high level of spiritual attainment and could teach others. In the church such a phenomenon has been called "youthful eldership."
The beginning of the public activism of representatives of this ultraconservative wing of the church where the "youthful elders" thrive was a reaction against an address by Patriarch Alexis before rabbis of New York on 13 November 1991, the very fact of which riled the conservatives. A number of monasteries refused to commemorate the patriarch in the liturgy. At the time the patriarch did not give this development any significance. And it was in vain. The fundamentalists strengthened their position.
After the death of Metropolitan Ioann Snychev, who was considered the leader of the opposition, the growth of fundamentalist tendencies within the church continued. An attack on the liberal wing was unfolded; There followed criticism of the priests Alexander Borisov, Georgy Chistiakov, Vladimir Lapshin, and Georgy Kochetkov. The leadership of the church was forced to make concession to the ultraconservatives. And now the decisions made by the upper church leadership take into account the opinion of this portion of the clergy. An example of this is seen in the church's position that has not logic regarding the burial of the tsarist remains and the fight with national television over Scorsese's film, the creation of antisectarian hysteria in society, and the weakness of the patriarchate in curbing the antisemitism which has flourished in many parishes.
As a result, an enormous number of young priests have fallen under the influence of the fundamentalists. Congregations have begun appearing where the believer will not make a single step without the blessing of the spiritual father. According to available information, in some monasteries and in churches in the capital, even the most intimate life of parishioners is examined during confession. The shelves of church stands are weighed down by literature with examples of piety. In the book "What do you advise, father?" the question "Are there sinful occupations?" is answered "There are sinful occupations: vodka trade, cigarette trade, being an actress or a physician performing abortions, or being a hairdresser." It is sinful to do business on Sunday or to go to the market or collect mushrooms in the woods or to go fishing. Orthodox are forbidden to undress in front of outsiders because it is shamelessness and thus they cannot go to the beach or swimming pool. "The theater is the devil's school," and "gourmet cooking leads to gluttony." The book "528 Answers to Various Questions of the Spiritual Life" forbids believers to dance: "Wherever there is dancing, the devil will be." Chocolate "causes the sin of the sweet tooth." To the question "is it permitted to consent to an operation suggested by doctors when one is sick?" comes the exhortation: "You should not. It is better to accept the illness and view it as a trial sent by the Lord God."
The synod's resolution will not reach every believer but such booklets are widespread. Such forms of spiritual leadership were condemned by the patriarch in December of last year. Fundamentalists were advised to let the dust settle and promised not to engage in personal disputes. Actually, in the past year not a single parish or monastery where "youthful eldership" is practiced has been identified. At the session of the Holy Synod that began yesterday, the supreme church authority intended to remind the clergy about the impermissibility of interference by priests in the private life of parishioners, especially at the time of elections, when the word of the pastor could influence the choice of the believer substantially. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 21 October 1999)
Protestants in the Muslim-majority nation of Azerbaijan claim that a recent raid on a Baptist church is part of a wider pattern of repression against Christians, the Keston News Service reports. Authorities freed two leaders of the Baptist Church in Baku, Sary Mirzoyev and Yahya Mamedov, on September 22 after serving 15-day sentences.
Protestants say they are the targets of a media campaign that accuses them of working on behalf of Azerbaijan's enemy Armenia. The campaign, they say, particularly targets the majority ethnic Azeris who have converted from Islam to Christianity.
Ministry of Justice officials confirmed to Keston that the Baptist Church is officially registered with the government and a Religious Affairs official denied that the raid and arrest of the pastors had any connection to their religious activity. An early September report from Christians in Baku said, however, that "During the last months illegal operations against Christians have taken place in Azerbaijan."
The report names three church movements targeted by law enforcement officers, the Nehemiah Church, Pentecostal churches, and Baptist churches. "(T)hey came and raided meetings at cinemas where churches are renting halls for their services," the report said. "After that people began to gather at homes and the government raided these meetings also and took believers to the police. They frighten people and cull their passports. (Azeri) believers are kept at police stations for a few hours and are demanded to believe in Muhammed instead of Jesus, because they are Azeris."
Christians say that television reports have falsely reported the events surrounding the September 5 raid by National Security Ministry officer on a Sunday meeting at the Baptist Church in Baku in which some 60 members of the congregation were arrested. About a dozen foreign citizens in attendance also were taken to the police station for interrogation, including children. Compass Direct News Service reported that the detained Azeri Christians were asked to sign a paper stating they had been attending an "illegal meeting" and promising not to attend the church again. Mirzoyev and Mamedov were charged with resisting the police and tried and convicted in a half-hour court hearing on September 7.
On September 8 the court charged eight of the foreigners with "propagating religion." A 1997 presidential decree reinforces a ban on religious propaganda by people without Azerbaijani citizenship. The foreigners insisted, however, that attending a legally-registered church does not constitute "propagating religion."
The recent U.S. State Department Annual Report on International Religious Freedom cited numerous cases of raids by Azerbaijani authorities on church meetings over the past two years. The September 9 report included the breakup of a July 1998 meeting which resulted in a court fining nine Azerbaijanis and three foreigners for holding an "illegal religious gathering." One foreigner was expelled from the country. Authorities also broke up numerous meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout 1998 and 1999. At leave five foreigners have been deported since the beginning of 1998 for reasons related to religious activities.
The State Department report also noted "some evidence of widespread prejudice against ethnic Azerbaijanis who have converted to Christianity." Pro-government press reports have depicted Christian missionary groups as a threat to the identity of the nation, often associating them with Christian-majority countries Russia and Armenia, which many Azerbaijanis believe historically have sought to undermine or control Muslim Azerbaijan.
(posted 19 October 1999)
Thousands of Churches Will Be Illegal by Year's End if the Amendment Fails
by Beverly Nickles,
Compass Direct, 22 October 1999
MOSCOW (Compass) -- A proposal to extend the deadline for reregistration of religious organizations in Russia was accepted at the first level but still must be approved by the State Duma (parliament). The majority of religious organizations will be unable to meet the current December 31 deadline.
The Committee on Religious Organizations approved the federal Justice Department proposal to extend the deadline until December 31, 2000. Russia's State Duma must approve the amendment by early December before the extension becomes effective.
A controversial new religion law enacted in October 1997 required all registered religious organizations in Russia to reregister by the end of 1999. According to Justice Department statistics as of September 1, only 37 percent of religious centers had successfully reregistered on the federal level and only 20 percent on the local level. Due largely to a several-month delay in releasing registration guidelines and to the lack of staff in local justice offices, thousands of churches will be illegal by the year's end.
In some local areas, reregistration documents where rejected for "formal reasons," such as mistakes in documents or wording unacceptable to regional authorities. In some cases, these rejections are believed to be due to harassment or discrimination. Khabarovski krai holds the worst record, having denied 62 out of 65 applications, according to the Institute of Religion and Law.
No reliable statistics exist to indicate the number of registration applications denied nationally. But in Moscow, of 647 religious organizations, only 290 were registered as of the end of September (including 42 registered for the first time). A total of 127 applications were denied mostly for "formal reasons." Two were rejected for "ideological" reasons of having a destructive character, which included the Church of Scientology and the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army reportedly was denied because their headquarters is located abroad, though other such groups were approved.
The consensus among religious rights watchers is that the extension will be approved. However, should the Duma fail to take up the issue or reject the proposal, then thousands of religious entities will find themselves in violation of the law come January 1. The full effect of the law is expected to become clear in the spring.
The Russian Orthodox Church, also bogged down in the reregistration process, backs the deadline extension. The Russian Orthodox Church needs to reregister a total of more than 10,000 legal entities, including all dioceses, parishes and monasteries.
On the federal level, the Orthodox Church was granted symbolically the "first" reregistration document. But in many regions of Russia, the majority of Orthodox entities still need to be reregistered, according to Fr. Vsevolod Chaplin of the Patriarchate's Department of External Affairs. He attributes the reregistration bottleneck to both the lack of staff in local justice offices and lack of time for the Orthodox Church to redraft charters for their various entities.
A preliminary hearing is set for October 21 on the Constitutional Court case challenging part of the 1997 new religion law. The case is expected to go before the court by the end of the year, possibly in November.
The case challenges the constitutionality of the most controversial aspect of the new law, which limits the status, activities and rights of religious groups existing in the country less than 15 years.
The Catholic religious order "Society of Jesus" (Jesuits) filed a separate constitutional challenge after being denied registration at the federal level in April. At conflict with the new law is the order's independent status from the local bishop within the Catholic Church.
If the Court decides to consider the two challenges at the same time, it could result in a further delay of the case, according to Anatoly Pchelintsev, director of the Institute of Religion and Law, which filed the original Constitutional Court challenge.
courtesy of Ray Prigodich
(posted 19 October 1999)
"I do not consider the existence of a state religion a violation of religious freedom," declares new director of Keston Institute, Lawrence Uzzell.
by Maksim Shevchenko
NG-religii digest, 6 October 1998
Keston Institute is the most authoritative research institution in the West dealing with the study of problems connected with freedom of conscience. Created in the soviet era by Dr. Michael Bourdeaux, it supported dissidents who were persecuted in USSR for their religion convictions, regardless of their religious confession. In 1997 Keston Institute expressed sharp criticism of the "Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Association" and in its turn was subjected to criticism from the Orthodox church and the state. We call the attention of readers to the interview with the new director who recently was a private correspondent in Moscow, Lawrence Uzzell, who is unique in his own right. Mr. Uzzell answered NG-religii's question quite frankly. To what extent it is up to readers to judge.
--Mr. Uzzell, you have become director of Keston Institute. Tell us, please, a few words about what your institution does.
--We study and defend religious freedom of believers in all communist and former communist countries. Keston Institute was created in Great Britain by a group of specialists on USSR and eastern Europe. Unfortunately, today we do little with China, but if we have the means, I hope the Institute will devote more attention to that country. I often have heard from Russians that a double standard exists in the West. This is partly true: the West, for example, does not criticize Uzbekistan as it criticizes Russia, although the situation in Uzbekistan is worse than in Russia. But this is natural; here in Moscow there are far more western journalists, rights defenders, and observers than in Tashkent. For you Russians there are more plusses than minuses in this. But I would like nowto be occupied with Central Asia and China.
--Speaking about Central Asia, do you have in mind that you would like to work also with Islamic organizations?
--Yes, I consider very important the defense of the religious freedom of all legitimate confessions, regardless whether they have good relations with Washington and London or not. In the south of Russia, in Stavropol, I observed a situation where police forbade local Muslims to gather for communal prayers on Fridays even in private apartments. We published an article about this. I tried to persuade the American media to deal seriously with this problem, but I was unsuccessful. I am sure that if the issue has been protestants or Catholics, there would have been immediate reaction from Washington. This, in my view, shows a "double standard."
--Mr. Uzzell, perhaps my question to you will seem strange, but it interests many of our readers now: was Keston Institute once connected with western intelligence agencies or British or American spy services, perhaps at the time of the cold war?
--We are frequently accused of that. I can say that intellegence agencies are acquanted with our materials, as they are acquanited with materials from the Times or New York Times; that's all that our ties consist of. We do not get any donations of money from any intelligence services.
--What sources of financing does Keston Institute have?
--Quite diverse. We are helped by rich and poor people, private firms, and funds. In this way we do not depend on any one source and thus we have the possibility of criticizing even those religious organizations from which we receive help. For example, recently we asked for a grant from a Catholic organization, United State Catholic Conference. At the same time in the American Catholic maganize First Things my article appeared in which I criticized the pope of Rome for his position, which in my opinion was too mild, with regard to the law on freedom of conscience and religious associations, signed by Boris Yeltsin in 1997. I felt quite free to criticize Catholics even at a time when we were seeking help from them.
--Mr. Uzzell, I know that Keston Institute has criticized rather sharply the law on freedom of conscience and religious associations, which you mentioned. Did the Institute receive any special grants for this fight from any governmental or nongovernmental institutions?
--Our vigorous activity on this problem and the fact that we were regularly mentioned and cited in articles devoted to criticism of the law, of course, promoted our popularity and this undoubtedly helps us when we ask for grants today. But there was no direct support for the struggle against the law.
--Are the staff of Keston Institute believing people?
--We are a Christian institution. Our literature says: "Keston Institute is inspired by Christian faith." Among our sponsors are the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Catholic archbishop of Westminster. Not all of our staff are believers, but the majority are Catholics, protestants, and Orthodox. The first director of our institution was an Anglican priest. I myself, it seems to me, am a symbol of the toleration of Keston Institute. I was an Anglican and I converted to Orthodoxy. Besides, I am an American and despite this from the first I was appointed representative of the institution in Moscow and then the new director.
--Does Keston Institute deal with the problems of the countries of the former United Federated Republic of Yugoslavia?
--Unfortunately, little. Today the institution has, besides the head office in Oxford, representation only in Moscow and a correspondence office in St. Petersburg. We do not have representation, for example, in Belgrade. Therefore, quite unfortunately, we do not have the possiblity to write about the situation in Yugoslavia on the spot, as we do in Russia.
--Mr. Uzzell, does such careful attention to Russia have anything to do with the fact that the institution was formed by slavists? Why is it that our country has remained a priority of the activity of Keston Institute?
--It seems to me that of all postsoviet countries, Russia now plays the most significant role in the world. I think that it is better to do a few things well than to deal with everything superficially. The important part of my new responsibility is a search for financial support for the institution. I hope that we can begin to collect it also for the study of the situation in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania. I very much want to create a correspondence point in the Balkans or in Romania for work of the Institute in eastern Europe.
--What is Keston's opinion on the issue of religious freedom in Russia today?
--In the course of these five years we have worked here, the situation has gradually worsened. Only at the present moment can I say that today the situation in Russia is not worse than it was six months previously. Whether the situation will get better or again worsen nobody knows. Russia is the most unpredictable country in the world. Now a great deal depends on the conduct of officials immediately after New Years. By that time all religious organizations must get reregistration. This is technically impossible. A lot will depend on how literally and strictly officials apply the law. I can say only that now the situation would be much worse if the law on freedom of conscience and religious association had been strictly implemented from the moment of its adoption. I consider this law much less democratic in comparison with the constitution of the Russian federation. The constition defends religious freedom to a sufficient extent, but unfortunately its provisions are not being observed.
A great problem consists in the decentralization process that is underway in Russia today. In various regions the situation on freedom of conscience is developing in various ways. There are regions where real religious freedom exists. There are regions where it does not. In this regard Russia consists of 89 separate states and this makes an analysis of the situation in the country as a whole difficult. We try to travel throughout Russia to observe the life of various regions, but this is hard work.
--Just what kind of situation for freedom of conscience would you want to see in Russia? Do you have in mind absolute freedom of conscience for all faiths without restrictions, let's say, without support for one tradition? Would you choose the American model: each person has the right to practice a faith whatever it may be?
--I would wish that Russia would observe its constitution. I do not consider the existence of a state religion a violation of religious freedom: there is a state religion in Norway and Great Britain. If the Orthodox church were the state church in Russia, I would not consider that illegitimate with respect to human rights. But if Russia wants to create a state of law, it must observe the constitution or adopt amentments in accordance with the actually existing situation. In the basic law, complete separate of church and state is formally established; however a state religion exists de facto. Such inconsistency I consider harmful for both state and church.
--You constantly criticize the Russian Orthodox church. Do you consider that it is the one that initiated the infringement of religious freedom in the country?
--The Orthodox church in Russia is a very complex organism. All the political and cultural fractions that exist in Russia exist within the Orthodox church. Unfrotunately, the whole leadership of the Moscow patriarchate displays the strongest expression of the soviet mentality which is hostile to freedom in general. It is very sad that the Moscow patriarchate, for example, did not respond to the church of the Old Believers when two years ago it proposed to RPTs to resolve the problem of disputed church property. Under the guise of opposing extremists, it began fighting against what I consider to be the most Russian form of Christianity, Old Belief. If Old Belief is not a traditional religion for Russia, then what is traditional?
--Does Keston Institute recognize the existence of such a thing as a sect?
--I consider that the notion of "sect" is dangerous as a judicial term and I consider that its use in this context is undesirable. But as a Christian, as a scholar of religion, I recognize the existence of sects. In an interview with BBC I said that I consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be a quasi-Christian sect. However I would wish that Jehovah's Witnesses win their court case which is being conducted now in Moscow, because depriving an organization of the right to engage in religious activity on the basis that their leaflets speak of the exclusive correctness of their beliefs is a dangerous precedent.
--Do you consider that there are sects which pose a danger, in particular, to current Russian society? Do you consider it possible to forbid or legislatively restrict the activity of such organizations?
--Such groups as Aum Shinrikyo are really dangerous. But a law like the 1997 law is not necessary to prohibit them. Aum Shinrikyo could be prohibited even without the use of this law. Groups which practice deception, violence, and brutality are punished in many countries on the basis of existing legislation. The adoption of a special law about such religious organizations is superfluous. In Russia today there are many activists: greens, feminists, advocates for homosexual rights. They defend their point of view and preach and agitate everywhere. The rights of believers should be protected to no less an extent than the rights of secular people. However, in my opinion, one should not fight by police measures but by spiritual ones.
--How do you distinguish which organizations to defend and which not? Aum Shinrikyo, for example, before the explosion in the Tokyo subway was considered a radical but not terrorist group. In defending one or another organization, do you investigate its belief system and does this determine whether you will defend it?
--I have defended Mormons despite that fact that I consider their theological views simply absurd. But in general they are sincere, civilized people. All Mormons whom I have met in Russia have studied the Russian language. I cannot say that about the Baptists from America. But I consider it unacceptable that these organization have gone into schools and distributed textbooks under the guise of objective, neutral literature. I could not defend such organizations.
(Interview printed in abbreviated form; full text was published in NG-Religii on 22 September 1999) (tr. by PDS)
(posted 10 October 1999)
The story of former deacon Morozov shows that it is not difficult
by Ekaterina Stupina, Maksim Shevchenko
Nezavisimaia gazeta--religii, 6 October 1999
It is no secret that in our country the life and fortune of a person are not protected from arbitrariness, which most often goes unpunished. Somewhere out in the provinces, far from Moscow, Russian legislation has lost its effect and the situation of a citizen is governed by the whim of the authorities or by criminal-business connections which operate at the level of the local elites. NG-religii has already written about the fate of the former deacon Evgeny Morozov, when we published in the 28 July edition a letter from his wife, Irina Morozova.
Late in the evening of 16 August in a district court in the Lebiazhie settlement of Kirov province, Evgeny Morozov was sentenced to three years in prison. He is the father of four children who, in 1997, was deprived of his deacon's rank by order of Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna. At the present Evgeny Morozov is in a holding cell in the city of Yaransk. A "NG-religii" reporter has listened not only to the point of view of Morozov himself but also has conducted an investigation on the spot, in Kirov province, traveling more than 1,000 kilometers by car, and has met with all participants in this conflict which has produced such dramatic results.
The sentence of the Lebiazhie district court states: "In the summer of 1998 Morozov, who had come to the village of Melianda of Lebiazhie district, Kirov province, for the purpose of stealing the money of citizens, represented himself to the residents of Melianda and Lebiazhie as a clergyman, changing into a cassock on a number of occasions, and he asked to borrow money from them knowing that he could not repay them, after which by deceit he stole the money of the residents of Melianda and Lebiazhie, causing them material loss."
What caught our attention in this truly amazing sentence? First, that it contains the word "clergyman," which Morozov represented himself to be, and "cassock," which he put on "on a number of occasions." Second, that in the Russian federation nobody is forbidden to represent himself as a clergyman, or even as a god, or to put on any conceivable religious garment. "A cassock is the outer garment of Christian clergymen, which they wear outside of divine services. It is a wide, straight garment , sometimes narrowing at the waist, covering the whole body from shoulders to heels, with large sleeves, broadening at the middle of the arms." This is how the dictionary "Christianity" describes it. A cassock is a rather valuable and ceremonial item; clergymen and monks of the Orthodox church regularly wear a light cassock, even in everyday life. We emphasize that no single law in the Russian federation can forbid a person to put on a cassock, light cassock, or any other garment (except a military uniform without proper basis).
Here it is necessary to digress into the story of Evgeny Morozov's life. On 17 December 1995 Evgeny Morozov was ordained a deacon in Moscow's New convent (Novodevichy monastery) and he was immediately assigned for ministry in the Stupinsk deanery of the Moscow diocese. According to his wife, "in the parish of the Tikhvin church, Matushka Tamara, wife of the dean, established a regimen according to which the families of the clergy could not live in the parish and only on major feast days could they visit their clerical husbands." The Morozovs, who did not want to be separated (by this time there were three children in the family), were settled into a decrepit house. They could draw water from the well only with Matushka Tamara's permission and the family allowance was very small. In the winter of 1995 Fr Evgeny got sick (there is a hospital certificate as evidence). Upon return to the parish he was handed a decree of the ruling metropolitan of the Moscow diocese, Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, which said: "Deacon Evgeny Morozov is banned from ministry and placed on inactive status for voluntary abandonment of the parish." All of Deacon Morozov's requests to explain the situation were rejected. We already have frequently called the attention of authorities to the total absence of rights of Orthodox clergymen. No citizen of Russia can be dismissed from employment simply like this (in our country there still is labor legislation). But a priest or deacon can simply be "banned" and left without the least means of subsistence. And no court will review these "bannings;" secular legislation is simply incompetent to examine the clashes that are connected with the application of church law. No labor union can stand up for a clergyman. And no independent and objective church court exists in Russia as previously.
One can only guess about the reasons for the decree. In the victims' version, there were no problems in Deacon Morozov's relationship with Fr Mikhail Redkin, dean of the churches of Stupinsk region. Before his ordination, Fr Evgeny had been a part of the parish of Fr Georgy Kochetkov, who now is banned from ministry. The ordination itself was conducted upon the recommendation of the well known Moscow priest Pavel Vishnevsky.
In November 1997 the ordination of Deacon Evgeny Morozov was rescinded for criminal perjury, "for concealment at the time of taking vows before ordination to the office of deacon of information that precludes clerical ministry (18th apostolic canon), and forgery of documents." This pertains to the apostolic canon that requires a clergyman to be married only to a women who has not previously been married. Evgeny Morozov had married a divorced woman. In violation of the 25th apostolic canon, he did not mention this fact at the time of ordination, since according to them the Morozov couple considers that their present church marriage is their only marriage performed with Christian grace, and that Irina Morozova's first marriage was not a previous marriage.
Such stringency is more than amazing. If one makes a list of all the well known priests (including some serving in the suburbs of Moscow) who are not only married to divorced women but who even have abandoned older wives who they have become tired of in order to marry young ones, it turns out to be quite impressive. Of course, we will never name names and get into private lives.
Patriarch Alexis II left an appeal submitted to him by Morozov without review. After Fr Evgeny had completed his penance serving as the psalmist in the church of Nicholas the Wonderworker in Biriulevo and after the birth of a fourth child in the family, the situation had not changed. The rector of the church, Fr Vitaly, wrote in his report: "Fr Evgeny fulfilled his obligation conscientiously; he was not tardy for service; he read with the necessary piety and sincerity."
After numerous attempts to get an explanation for the situation that had developed or a statement about the possibility of further ministry within the clergy of the Russian Orthodox church, Evgeny Morozov and his family decided to move to Kirov province, the homeland of the ancestors of his wife, although both Evgeny and Irina were Muscovites. The Morozovs settled in the village of Melianda of Lebiazhie district. Evgeny worked on the regeneration of the Orthodox parish: he conducted services in accordance with the layman's rite, held literary and cultural evenings, and discussed religious topics with parishioners. He worked on returning the church of the Kazan icon of the Mother of God to the ownership of the Orthodox church and on restoring it (in the past the church has been used by the Melianda collective farm as a storehouse, with a furnace in the altar area).
On 21 July 1998, the feast of the Kazan icon of the Mother of God, a cross was erected on the church, an event that was widely reported in the local media and brought parishioners from many neighboring villages. Evgeny's vigorous fellowship with the youth evoked distrust on the part of some of the local priests, who considered suspect the deacon's predilection for "songs accompanied by a guitar, reading of verses, and long conversations with young parishioners about the faith."
On 29 July 1998 (a week after the placement of the cross, before which the diocese simply paid no attention to the eccentric who occupied himself preaching Orthodoxy in a remote village) Archbishop Khrisanf of Viatsk and Sloboda informed the vice-chairman of the administration of Lebiazhie district, Alexander Vlasov, that Evgeny Morozov's activity in Melianda was being conducted without the blessing of the ruling bishop of Viatsk diocese.
After this the Morozovs began to suffer difficulties and shortages. Finally, on 15 March 1999 Evgeny Morozov was arrested on a charge of fraud (article 159 of the criminal code of the Russian federation): "E.B. Morozov . . . represented himself as a clergyman and, . . . promising to return the money, although he had no intention of returning the money, . . . he stole the money of the following citizens . . . [list]." At the same time, a petition to the district court, which residents of Melianda gave to the NG-religii reporter, (whose signatories included the "victims" listed in the text of the judicial indictment) said: "We, residents of the village of Melianda, parishioners of the Kazan Mother of God church, petition for the release of Fr Evgeny Vladimirovich Morozov from prison and we ask that you take pity on his children and resolve the situation fairly. . . . On our part, we wish to declare that we do not agree that Evgeny Morozov 'represented himself as a clergyman,' as the investigator and judge declare. Deacon Morozov lived in the village; everybody knew him; he did not need to 'represent himself' because everybody knew him and his work for the church well. We also do not agree with the accusation that he did not conduct restoration work in the church. Deacon Morozov is not guilty. The church building belonged and still belongs to the Melianda collective farm and it still has not been given to the parish and thus work inside it is impossible. We also do not agree that Fr Evgeny did not communicate with the Viatsk diocese. He, his wife, and parishioners of the church frequently communicated in writing and orally with the Viatsk diocese, but no response has yet been received from Master Khrisanf. And this is very offensive since we wish that Evgeny Vladimirovich Morozov could be the chairman of our parish and that the parish be under the canonical supervision of the Russian Orthodox church. But since there has been no response from the leadership of the Viatsk diocese, our parish under the leadership of Evgeny and Irina Morozov is existing as an Orthodox religious group, in accordance with the law 'On freedom of conscience and religious confession.' Parishioners of the church of the Kazan Mother of God do not have any complaints against Deacon Evgeny. Deacon Morozov never concealed anything from us. He telephoned and wrote letters from Kirov, where he moved with his family in the winter of 1998-99, and in the letters he asked that we be patient about the debts since they had a difficult situation. Deacon Evgeny never hid his problems and he said that he had been banned from ministry (so he performed the layman's rite). . . . He showed us all documents. He also said that he wanted to be a priest and he asked the patriarch to investigate the situation. It is a great pity that at the trial of 11 August 1999 neither the judge nor the court asked the opinion of residents and parishioners of Melianda. Our statement that the debts had been repaid was not considered at the trial of 11 August 1999. Fr Evgeny Morozov is not tuilty and we ask that you release him. 15 August 1999. Alexandra Stepanovna Patrusheva, Anastasia Stepanovna Dushkina (total of 19 signatures)."
It should be noted that of the possible preventative measures (written promise not to leave the area, bail, arrest) for the former Deacon Morozov the strictest measure was selected--arrest, while the accused, according to his wife, was not able to get hold of a written refusal of a change in preventative measures for his appeal to the supreme court.
On the envelopes of letters which Fr Evgeny sent home from the holding cell, in front of the name the word "sacred deacon" was crossed out. According to Irina, the procurator of Lebiazhie district, Pavlovsky, said at a meeting with her husband: "You know, your wife has left you. She went to Moscow." After this Fr Evgeny began eating poorly and his legs swelled up. In the cell the prisoner was offered "a shot," but when he asked what kind of shot they couldn't give him an intelligible answer and he received no injection.
The court sessions (the first of which was held only on 19 May, after frequent postponements) have not been confined to a review simply of the accusations of fraud but they have dealt also with the subject of the removal of Morozov's deacon rank, his activity in Melianda, and his personal life. As Morozov affirmed in his declaration in the Lebiazhie district court, "at the first hearing (19 May) the court posed the question to a witness: 'did Fr Evgeny perform the church service correctly?'" The letter written by the accused to the authorized representative of the president of the administration of Kirov province, Martianov, was crumpled up by Procurator Pavlovsky and thrown into the toilet in the cell.
Irina Morozova affirms: "In the course of the hearing conducted on 10 August, remarks were made to me as defense counsel and on the basis of them I was removed from the room. The trial continued. When the defendant stated his protest, he also was removed and the hearing continued without the defendant and the defense." The Morozovs already have sent letters to the president of USA, the American embassy in Russia, and the Organization of United Nations. The western Christian public has followed the development of the situation carefully. Irina Morozova has received e-mail with messages of support from Catholics, protestants, and Orthodox of various countries. Evidently, for the time being a citizen of the Russian federation cannot feel himself protected in his own country, within the bosom of the church to which he has decided to devote his life. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 9 October 1999)
On Saturday the annual cycle of the reading of the Torah, the Pentateuch of Moses, begins in the synagogues.
"In the beginning the Almighty created heaven and earth. The earth was empty and unformed and darkness was over the abyss, and the spirit of the Almighty moved over the water. And the Almighty said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Thus begins the book that occupies first place in the list of world best sellers, the Pentateuch of Moses, the Torah. It was given more than three thousand years ago on Mount Sinai to the Jews, people who call themselves the people of the Book.
Other people call our book, the Tanakh or Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. The ideas set forth in it have served as the basis for European Christian and Muslim civilizations, at least. The foundation of the Tanakh is the Torah, the Pentateuch of Moses. Inasmuch as this is the Book, with a capital letter, and our book, we, the people of the Book, every year continually read and reread it. The Torah is divided into a little more than fifty small parts; they are ceremonially read in the synagogue on Saturdays. A continual return to the Torah has a special purpose; the Book remains the same but we change.
For ceremonial public reading there are parchment codices, the Sefer of the Torah, in which every letter is written in accordance with the canon. If a codex is somewhat under threat, it is buried in a cemetery. In Israel, in the city of Tsfat, there is a Sefer of the Torah which was brought from Spain five hundred years ago and is it still read on holidays. There are codices of the Torah which are more than 1,000 years old, preserved in fragments.
The day on which the annual cycle of the reading of the Torah is completed is celebrated as a holiday among us. The name of the day is Simhath Torah: rejoicing and happiness with the Torah. At that time, in the same service, we begin again with the reading of the Torah. It is symbolic: the Torah can never be completed. On the holiday of Simhath Torah people dance in the synagogues with codices of the Torah in their hands. What other people treat their book in such a way, which has been read for a thousand years now?
For this day, everybody is summoned to the reading of the Torah, even year-old children. Older children are covered with a talith, a white prayer shawl, and they are put on a riser in the center of the room. Adults read for them.
At the end of the 1960s Soviet Jews began openly to assemble on this day outside the synagogue. Outside, because there was not any synagogue that could accommodate so many people. Since 1971, there never has been fewer than 15,000 people attend the Simhath Torah at the synagogue on Arkhipov Street in Moscow. And this was a half kilometer from the central committee of the communist party. What is most amazing is that more than half of the people did not know what the name of the holiday meant. Some did not even know the name. It is interesting that according to Jewish tradition, this holiday falls on various dates of the ordinary calendar. So that it was necessary, first, to know when it would be and, second, not to be afraid to show up. Many of those who came to synagogue on this day soon left for Israel. But new people continually arrived. This continued all the way to the end of the soviet era.
I constantly ask myself: why did people quietly choose for such a demonstration this holiday of the Simhath Torah? After all there are in the Jewish calendar other, no less significant, days. Apparently, in their hearts there was the awareness that it is in the Torah that there is truth and power, happiness and renewal.
(The author is a rabbi who in the past was a well-known refusnik who organized an illegal netword of Jewish religious education in USSR; he has been awarded the "Magen Erushalaim" prize and he is the co-director of the international educational organization Esh a Torah.) tr. by PDS
(posted 2 October 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/.