Paul
Goble
Staunton, June 12 – Not satisfied
with the three-year moratorium imposed by St. Petersburg governor Georgy Poltavchenko
on changing street and other place names in the northern capital, the city’s
legislative assembly is preparing a law that would permanently ban any such
changes, including the replacement of Soviet-era names with tsarist-era ones.
Boris Vishnevsky, one of the city’s
legislators, says that if the law is approved – and it has the support of the
city administration – it will become “impossible to change the names of streets
named in honor of people and events connected with the organization of
political repression, terrorismand extremism” (rosbalt.ru/piter/2015/06/09/1406967.html).
Among the toponyms that could not be
changed would be Bela Kun Street, named in honor of the Hungarian
revolutionary. Vitold Zalessky, a member
of Memorial, is among those who have sought the restoration of the pre-Soviet
name for that avenue lest people have to see the name of a terrorist every day.
Any such name changes are among the
most controversial issues in Russia today. Perhaps only the possibility of
removing Lenin’s body from the mausoleum on Red Square is more so. Some object
to the cost of changing names, while others insist that a new Russia should not
be in the business of advertising Soviet heroes.
According to a commentary on one
Russian Orthodox and nationalist site, “it is a good thing that St. Petersburg
already succeded in ceasing to be Leningrad; otherwise, raising that question
would be under bans. But it is characteristic,” it added, “that we are indebted
for this to the liberal Sobchak and not to the Orthodox Poltavchenko” (rusk.ru/newsdata.php?idar=71255).
That concluding line in the commentary
in fact points to something that helps to explain what is happening: the hierarchy
of the Russian Orthodox Church not unexpectedly has fallen in line with
Vladimir Putin’s defense of Soviet times and Soviet place names in behalf of
the continuity of Russian history, a defense that even many Orthodox Russians
find excessive.
One who does is Archdeacon Andrey
Kurayev, an independent and outspoken Orthodox thinker. In a blogpost recently, Kurayev pointed out
that “Soviet power began with revolutionary terror and the sharpening of class
war” and that as a result, the patriarchate is wrong to speak about “’solidarity’”
in Soviet times (rusnovosti.ru/posts/375642).
Not surprisingly, that criticism
both of Patriarch Kirill and of Putin’s defense of the Soviet past has
generated outrage among the patriachate’s subordinate churchmen. The reactions
of three of them have been surveyed by Regions.ru (regions.ru/news/2552293/).
Archpriest
Aleksandr Dobrodeyev, the deputy head of the Patriarchate’s department for work
with the armed forces and law enforcement agencies, led the charge. “In the history of humanity,” he began, “there
have been a very large number of various formations. There were times of
blessing, times of tyranny and times of atheism.”
“Of
course,” Dobrodeyev said, “during the Soviet period, there was a very great
deal of the bad, but despite all that, even in those most difficult conditions,
the Church prayed. Although only a few
hundred churches were open in the country, all the same prayer continued” and
kept faith alive.
“I
think,” he said, “the chief achievement of the Church under all these
conditions is that we did not get angry and did not condemn anyone. Condemnation
is not a task of the Church; it is the affair of politicians, ideologues and
others.” The Church thus should not condemn the Soviet past but rather “show
the force of the spirit of the people which overcame everything.”
Archpriest Aleksandr Kuzmin of the Kosma and Damian
church in Shubino, suggested that “the Soviet Russia existed on the foundations
of the Russian Empire, of the 1000-year-old Russia.” Moreover, he continued, “Russia
is moving along a path which was set by God from the time of the baptism of
Rus,” and the Soviet period is one part of that.
And Archpriest Svyatoslav Shevchenko
of the Blagoveshchenk cathedral noted that “the Holy Patriarch said that we can
take the best from the Soviet era,” not everything. And Father Svyatoslav
suggested there was a great deal of good from that time: including schools, Pioneer
camps, and organizations to promote patriotic feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment