Paul
Goble
Staunton, October 6 – A Ukrainian
bill that would make it easier for congregations to shift from the Moscow
patriarchate to the Kyiv one, the Kremlin’s decision to sacrifice Patriarch
Kirill’s contacts with the Vatican, and new data on the shifting balance of
religious groups in Russia are all religious developments with more than
religious implications.
First of all, Ukraine’s Verkhovna
Rada yesterday took up two amendments to the law on freedom of conscience and
religious organizations which if approved are likely to trigger new conflicts
with Moscow even as they make it easier for Ukrainian congregations to shift
from subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate to that of the Ukrainian one.
Not only do the amendments re-assert
the right of congregations to make these decisions on their own without
interference from the hierarchies, but they also define those congregations not
in terms of the membership claimed by the leadership but by the actual active
participants in religious life.
Given that many of the parishes,
especially those subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate claim as members all ethnic
Russians in their area, regardless of whether they ever go to church or not,
that sets the stage for meetings by active congregants that are likely to vote
for a change in subordination.
If that occurs on a massive scale,
the Moscow Patriarchate could quickly lose its dominant position in Ukraine
among the Orthodox, something that Russian churchmen and officials fear and
that commentator Petr Likhomanov argues in “Rossiiskaya gazeta” shows that
Kyiv, having failed to win autocephaly will ow use raider methods to take
control of religious life in Ukraine (rg.ru/2016/10/05/ukrainskie-deputaty-odobriat-zakonnyj-zahvat-cerkvej.html).
He suggests this could turn the
struggle between the two denominations of Orthodoxy from a cold war into a hot
one and notes that among those speaking against the amendments were the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Apostolic Nuncio in
Ukraine (which supposedly fears this tactic will be used against the Uniates),
and the Lutherans.
Second, several days ago,
Metropolitan Ilarion of Volokolamsk who heads the Moscow Patriarchate’s foreign
affairs department, denounced while in Italy a statement by a Uniate leader
against the Moscow Patriarchate, declaring that such comments “sow distrust
between the Orthodox and the Catholics.”
Illarion’s remarks, which clearly
had the approval of Patriarch Kirill and his backers in the Kremlin, suggest that
Moscow has decided to reignite its campaign against Uniatism and thus shoot
down all the progress toward cooperation between the Moscow Patriarchate and
the Vatican achieved in Havana, when Kirill and Pope Francis met.
That is the conclusion of Kyiv
commentator Yekaterina Shchetkina who says that this reflects the Kremlin’s
decision to isolate Russia from the West and in fact to put up a new “iron
curtain” that all of its subordinates, including the Moscow Patriarchate, will
have to obey (dsnews.ua/society/zheleznyy-zanaves-putin-zastavlyaet-patriarha-kirilla-otkazatsya-04102016124500).
Kirill, of course,
she notes, was anything but happy about Putin’s seizure of Crimea because it
opened the way for Moscow to lose control over the Russian church in Ukraine.
Now, he has even more reason to be unhappy because the progress he made in developing
contacts with the Vatican has been blocked as well.
That opens the way for a further
loss of influence by the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine, Shchetkina suggests,
and in turn means that the Kremlin has decided to support elements in Russian
Orthodoxy who are opposed to any modernization of church policy or contacts
with the West.
And third, on Monday, at a press
conference devoted to the release of new maps on the bishoprics of the Russian
Orthodox Church in the Russian Federation, speakers stressed the changing
balance of the official entities of religious life in that country over the
last five years (ruskline.ru/news_rl/2016/10/04/roman_silantev_russkaya_pravoslavnaya_cerkov_samaya_bystrorastuwaya_religioznaya_organizaciya_rossii/).
Archmandrite Savva, deputy head of
the administration department of the Moscow Patriarchate, noted that in 2009,
there was approximately one bishopric for each of Russia’s federal subjects but
that now there are 181, with many regions having more than one bishop. He added
that this process of administrative growth was close to completion.
Roman Silantyev, head of the Center
for the Geography of Religions in the Patriarchate, said that over the same
period, the Russian church had built or restored “more than 5,000 churches in
which services are held “not less than once a month, including about 3700 where
they are held once a week or more often.”
(While Silantyev did not say so, his
comment reflects two things: the fact that many Moscow Patriarchate churches
are anything but active congregations and that the church and Moscow both
evaluate the size of religious denominations not be actual participants but
rather by the number of “legal persons” each has.)
Silantyev added that as a result of
this growth, “at resent, the share of Orthodox organizations among all
registered ones has reached 60 percent and is continuing to grow. Fifteen years ago,” he continued, the Russian
Orthodox Church had “fewer than half” of all such “legal” entities.
Over the same period, he said, some
other faiths have also experienced growth in the number of registered religious
facilities, including the Old Believers, the Buddhists, the Muslims, and
supporters of the Armenian Apostolic Church. But others have seen the number of
their facilities decline.
The largest of those suffering
declines in number of facilities since 2009 are “pseudo-Orthodox sects” (down
40 percent), the New Apostolic Church (down 25 percent), and the Adventists,
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Baptists (all down five percent). Silantyev didn’t say so but most of these
declines reflect Russian government repression.
No comments:
Post a Comment