Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 15 -- After its problems
with the Polish John Paul II and its more hopeful ties with the German Benedict
XVI, Moscow views the new Argentine pope, Francis I, as a very mixed blessing,
someone with whom the Russian government and its Church may be able to cooperate
on occasion but someone whose approach challenges the way both do business.
In a commentary on the
Portal-Credo.ru site, Aleksandr Soldatov, one of the most thoughtful
independent observers of the Russian religious scene, says that the election of
Pope Francis is “for the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church of the
Moscow Patriarchate more bad than good news” (portal-credo.ru/site/?act=comment&id=2022).
But Soldatov suggests that despite
that, there are some aspects of the new pontiff’s approach that may allow at
least limited cooperation between the Vatican and the Moscow Patriarchate on
particular questions, such as missionary work in Orthodox countries like Russia
and support for traditional values.
The direction the new pope is likely
to pursue, Soldatov argues, is shown by the name he has chosen for himself. “The
Catholic Church knows only one Francis, he of Assisi, and therefore the selection
of his name by the Pope clearly indicatives thepriorities of the new
pontificate – ‘the apostolate of poverty’ with its struggle against luxury and an
overly comfortable life.”
Moreover, the background of Francis
I has involved his involvement and cooperation with “’eastern spirituality,’”
including with the man who now leads the Urainian Greek-Catholic Church,
Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv and Galicia.
Both these apects of the life of
Francis put him at odds with Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church,
and they may explain why Kirill did not rush to congratulate Francis the way he
had done earlier when Benedict was elected to the papacy, the church observer
suggests.
But there is still more that
separates Francis and Kirill. When he was an archbishop, Francis organized in
his cathedral “joint prayers with Musims and Jews,” something the Russian
churchman has been loathe to do. And that too means that the new pope can”scarcely
hope for friendship with Moscow,” at least under its current leaders.
Moreover, he says, the new pope has
shown himself to be “an opponent of the Latin mmass and Catholic
traditionalists with whom Benedict XVI sought rapprochement,” an attitude that
makes an “alliance” between the Vatican and the Moscow Patriarchate in support
of “’European values’” and against “conceptions
of human rights hardly possible.”
“On the other hand,” Soldatov says, “the
new Popealready in his younger days radically distanced himself from ‘liberation
theology’ which is popular in Latin America” because he concluded that it had
absorbed too many elements from Marxism.
On that point, at least, the Pope and the Patriarch probably agree.
But the real obstacle to a rapprochement
of the two church leaders and something that almost certainly precludes any
meeting between the two anytime soon, the Portal-Credo commentator suggests,
are the positive feelings of the new pope to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic
Church.
Archbishop Shevchuk of that church
sys that the new pope was educated by one of the Greek Catholic leaders, knows
the liturgy of the Greek Catholic church, is informed by its spirituality and
will, beyond any doubt, “be concerned” about a church that the Moscow
Patriarchate in general and Kirill in particular view as a threat to their
dominance.
But in some ways, even this
relationship of the new pope to the Ukrainians is of less moment with regard to
the relationship between Rome and Moscow than is the clear contrast between the
commitment of Francis to fighting ostentation and helping the poor and the way
in which Kirill has promoted luxury in the Russian hierarchy and close ties
with the Kremlin “sometimes agains the interests of [his] flock.
‘There is every reason to think that
the values of Pope Francis do not correspond to all this ‘Gospel of wealth,’”
that Kirill has pushed, Soldatov concludes, and every reason to believe that
his example will represent the kind of challenge that Kirill in particular will
resent and oppose.
Francis may not represent the
frontal attack against the Russian Church that many of the hierarchs of the
latter saw in John Paul II, who was invariably described by Moscow as “the
Polish pope,” but the new pontiff does represent – as other Russian commentators
have observed – “a breathe of fresh air”
for church life not only in the West but in Russia as well.
A somewhat more hopeful reading of the new
pope at least from the perspective of the Russian Church is offered by a
commentary in the Orthodox publication, “Neskuchny sad,” which directly
addressesthequestion of “how the new pope of Rome will relate to the Orthodox”
(nsad.ru/articles/kak-novyj-papa-rimskij-otnositsya-k-pravoslavnym).
It cites the
comment of Bishop Ioann of Caracas and South America concerning his relations
with Francis before he was elected pope.
When he was still an archbishop and cardinal in Argentina, Ioann
observes, he was extremely helpful to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,
especially after that church decided to establish communion with the Moscow
Patriarchate.
Not only did the then-archbishop help to
overcome divides between the hierarchy of the Church Abroad and the leaders of
many of its congregations who objected to ties with Moscow, Ioann says, but he
also helped smooth the way for the registration of the hierarchy with the
Argentinian government.
According
to Ioann, the then-“Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergolio displayed GREAT INTEREST in
Orthodoxy,” visiting “all the main holiday serviesin the cathedrals of the
Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in Buenos Aires” and
providing facilities for the display of church art when the Orthodox needed
them. (For more detail on this, see russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/documents/art_bpjohnsadiocese.html.)
For the Moscow Patriarchate in general
and Kirill in particular, establishing communion with and ultimately the absorption
of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, these past actions of the new pope, the “Neskuchny
sad” commentary says, “speak to the willingness of the new pontificate to
engage in dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church.”
The weekly then adds that “a number of
experts on the Vatican say that the new pope will not support proselytism in
traditionally Orthodox coutries but will turn his primary attention to the growth
of the Catholic church in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa,
and Asia.”
Such predictions may reflect more the
hopes of their authors than anything else, but they and the other observations
by “Neskuchny sad” suggest that there may be some basis for cooperation between
the new leader of the Vatican and Kirill in limited areas, even if they
approach their pastoral responsibilities in such contrasting ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment