Living the Orthodox World-View. Part 1

Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)

A talk delivered by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) at the St. Herman Pilgrimage, August 1982, St. Herman of Alaska Monastery, Platina, California.
Introduction (MP3 file, 4:58 min. 4,62 Mb)  download >>
Before beginning my talk, a word or two on why it is important to have an Orthodox world-view, and why it is more difficult to build one today than in past centuries.
In past centuries — for example, in 19^th-century Russia — the Orthodox world-view was an important part of Orthodox life and was supported by the life around it. There was no need even to speak of it as a separate thing—you lived Orthodoxy in harmony with the Orthodox society around you, and you had an Orthodox world-view provided by the Church and society. In many countries the government itself confessed Orthodoxy; it was the center of public functions and the king or ruler himself was historically the first Orthodox layman with a responsibility to give a Christian example to all his subjects. Every city had Orthodox churches, and many of them had services every day, morning and evening. There were monasteries in all the great cities, in many cities, outside the cities, and in the countryside, in deserts and wildernesses.
In Russia there were more than 1,000 officially organized monasteries, in addition to other more unofficial groups. Monasticism was an accepted part of life. Most families, in fact, had somewhere in them a sister or brother, uncle, grandfather, cousin or someone who was a monk or a nun, in addition to all the other examples of Orthodox life: people who wandered from monastery to monastery, and fools-for-Christ. The whole way of life was permeated with Orthodox kinds of people, of which, of course, monasticism is the center. Orthodox customs were a part of daily life. Most books that were commonly read were Orthodox. Daily life itself was difficult for most people: they had to work hard to survive, life expectancy was not great, death was a frequent reality — all of which reinforced the Church's teaching on the reality and nearness of the other world. Living an Orthodox life in such circumstances was really the same thing as having an Orthodox world-view, and there was little need to talk of such a thing.

Today, on the other hand, all this has changed. Our Orthodoxy is a little island in the midst of a world which operates on totally different principles — and every day these principles are changing for the worse, making us more and more alienated from it. Many people are tempted to divide their lives into two sharply distinct categories: the daily life we lead at work, with worldly friends, in our worldly business, and Orthodoxy, which we live on Sundays and at other times in the week when we have time for it. But the world-view of such a person, if you look at it closely, is often a strange combination of Christian values and worldly values, which really do not mix. The purpose of this talk is to see how people living today can begin to make their world-view more of one piece, to make it a whole Orthodox world-view.

Orthodoxy is life. If we don't live Orthodoxy, we simply are not Orthodox, no matter what formal beliefs we might hold.

Life in our contemporary world has become very artificial, very uncertain, very confusing. Orthodoxy, it is true, has a life of its own, but it is also not very far from the life of the world around it, and so the life of the Orthodox Christian, even when he is being truly Orthodox, cannot help but reflect it in some way. A kind of uncertainty and confusion have also entered into Orthodox life in our times. In this talk we will try to look at contemporary life, and then at Orthodox life, to see how better we might fulfill our Christian obligation to lead other-worldly lives even in these quite terrible times, and to have an Orthodox Christian view of the whole of life today that will enable us to survive these times with our faith intact.

For further information contact http://www.stherman.com/catalog/

29 / 11 / 2007

The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin

May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin (published by Sretensky Monastery and St. Xenia Skete)

A year has passed since the repose of Russia's righteous elder, Archimandrite John Krestiankin of the Pskov-Caves Monastery. But his memory has far from faded; to the contrary, it is spreading far beyond the Russian borders, his writings being translated into other languages.
Pravoslavie.Ru (English edition) is therefore pleased to present each week day excerpts from the forthcoming book May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin (published by Sretensky Monastery and St. Xenia Skete). May our readers find in them answers to perplexities, sober instruction, and deep Christian wisdom, coming from a true elder and confessor of the Faith.
 

May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 19
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 8
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Clergymen,To Those Desiring the Priestly Rank, and to Priests’ Wives. Part 6
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 18
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 7
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Clergymen,To Those Desiring the Priestly Rank, and to Priests’ Wives. Part 5
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 6
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 17
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Clergymen,To Those Desiring the Priestly Rank, and to Priests’ Wives. Part 4
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 5
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 16
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Clergymen,To Those Desiring the Priestly Rank, and to Priests’ Wives. Part 3
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 4
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 15
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Clergymen,To Those Desiring the Priestly Rank, and to Priests’ Wives. Part 3
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 3
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 14
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 2
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 13
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Clergymen,To Those Desiring the Priestly Rank, and to Priests’ Wives. Part 2
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Clergymen,To Those Desiring the Priestly Rank, and to Priests’ Wives. Part 1
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Monks and Nuns. Part 1
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 12
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 11
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 10
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 9
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 8
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 7
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 6
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 5
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 4
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 3
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople. Part 2
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Letters to Laypeople, part 1
May God Give You Wisdom! The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. On the Work of a Pastor
May God Give You Wisdom!
The Letters of Fr. John Krestiankin. Introduction. Recollections of a spiritual son

31 / 12 / 2007

Search for Truth on the Path of Reason

New from Sretensky Monastery, a classic of Christian apologetics by Professor Alexei I. Osipov: The Search for Truth on the Path of Reason, is now available in English. Alexei Ilych Osipov of the Moscow Theological Academy is possibly the most widely known professor of Theology in Russia today.
This book fills the order of a needed genre: Christian Apologetics for intellectual seekers and products of the Age of Reason. The author believes that, “It is natural for a Christian to know ‘the certainty of those things, wherein he has been instructed’ (cf. Lk. 1:4). But, as the Apostle Peter writes, you should be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15).”
Prof. Osipov presents an overview of Western philosophy, the roots of religion and atheism, the relationship between religion and science, different forms of paganism, spiritual experience, and other related topics. He provides intelligent and clear arguments against atheism, and clearly delineates between all the various religious experiences, contrasting them with Orthodox experience and patristic teaching. This book has proved invaluable for seminary students and pastors in Russia as that country emerges from decades of religious persecution and a militant atheist regime. The Western philosophies and systems of thought described in this overview have left such a deep impressions on our society as well that we can scarcely see beyond their influence.
Osipov shows also the flip-side of Western rationalism, which is the various forms of mysticism and paganism that continually reproduce themselves in different guises. This book can help us to discern all of these trends, manifestations, and world views from an Orthodox, patristic perspective.

The book also includes a description of how Igumen Nikon (Vorobyev), who was Prof. Osipov’s spiritual guide and instructor from an early age, came to a sure and direct knowledge of God after desperate years of fruitless searching through science, philosophy, and psychology. He finally found the truth in his native Orthodox Christian religion; he then embarked upon the infinitely fulfilling study of the “science of sciences,” found in the unanimous experience of the fathers of our Church.
The Search for Truth on the Path of Reason can be purchased from:
           CSB Publishing
           P.O. Box 265
           Ash Grove, MO 65604
           tel./fax: 417-751-3183
           csbpub@sbcglobal.net
(ISBN: 978-0-9842848-0-1, 312 pages)
Also available from CSB Publishing:
Thou Hast Proved Me O Lord, and Knowest,
the inspiring biography of Hieromonk Vasily of Optina Monastery, who was murdered by a satanist on Pascha morning, 1993.

Alexei Ilyich Osipov

A Christian’s Freedom, the Church’s Freedom, and Religious Freedom
The Foundation of the Church’s Social Service

17 / 11 / 2009

Well-paid defense of their rights

They're well-paid by western, mainly American charity funds. But not all the organizations are paid by American funds. They granted only those groups which support them who's needed. If an organizaton defends the rights of them, who isn't needed, e.g. Latvian Committee defending the rights of Russians or Russian-speaking people living in Latvia – it's not granted. Such organisations are called... “Communist”! (O. A. Popov, “Moskva”, #1, 2004, http://www.moskvam.ru/).
It's not so necessary for managers of American funds to announce their preferences publicly – Russian human rights know by theirselves who “needs or needn't defense”. For example, the Chairman of International Helsinki Federation (IHF) L. M. Alekseyeva “knows” them. She and the rest of the leaders of IHF advised Serbian human rights activists in an open letter not to blame NATO bombings, even at the time when NATO bombs had been dropping on their heads (http://www.ihf.org/). But what should she do if six of the ten donors of IHF were the “charity” funds managed by the governments of the countries–members of NATO? Moreover, American Human Rights Watch financed by George Soros, collecting “materials on genocide and ethnical sweeps” in Bosnia and Kosovo is a member of this International Helsinki Federation. And George Soros himself is a member of the Board of Directors of IHF.
In this article the goals and motives of American funds to grant Russian non-governmental organizations (NGO) including human rights organizations are discussed. There is also a brief reference to the history, “philosophy”, annual budgets and leaders of some big American funds which traditionally granted Russian human rights organizations.
                                       

CHARITY FUNDS – WHO NEEDS THEM?

American charity funds may be classified as big (the Ford Foundation with its annual budget of 598 million dollars of grants and donations) and (or) small (J. M. Kaplan Fund with a budget of $ 6,9 million).
You may divide charity funds according to the type of corporations which invest them into “industrial” (the Ford Foundation) and “financial” (the Soros Foundations Network). They also may be “liberal” (e.g. managed by Soros) or “conservative” (e.g. Scaife Foundations), financing “neo-cons”; of a “general type” or “special”, financing only one of the spheres (only defense of human rights or preservation of nature.
It's also appropriate to classify “charity” funds as governmental or private. The majority of them are, of course, private. The number of private funds is, as specialists counted, more than 2000, the number of governmental ones is easy countable; it reflects American approach to financing non-commercial sphere. Originally charity funds were intended to release the government from supporting non-profitable spheres – science, art, preservation of nature, solution of the problems of homeless etc. Earliest of them were established at the beginning of XX century by Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford and their goals lay within these spheres; their activities were aimed at solving interior problems.
Joan Roelofs, a well-known researcher of charity funds called the three reasons of establishing funds and investing them the capitals of American billionaires (Joan Roelofs, “Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism”, SUNY Press, Albany, Feb. 2003). The first reason was purely financial – decrease of income that causes decrease of income tax. The second – to create an instrument for permanent influence on social-cultural atmosphere of the society and by means of that to enforce their control over the society. The third – to improve their image that is very important in terms of competitive economy.
As co-operation between the government and big business had been intensified and American political-economical elite had been formed, it became nesessary to create a neutral structure which businessmen, power structures and academician world could interact within. Private (non-governmental) and non-commercial organizations (NGO) became such structures; among them financial organizations played an important role in solving a number of national problems.
The need of establishing governmental funds occurred only when the solution of national geopolitical problems called for a coordinated governmental policy and control of both leading American parties – Democratic and Republican. Such a situation occurred after the World War II in view of forming a “communist” world leading by the Soviet Union.
American establishment was set a number of tasks depended on antagonism between the two superpowers – the USA and the USSR – as different civilisation systems:
-         financing organizations, parties and movements opposing “socialism” and “nationalism” (patriotic movement)
-         spreading the ideas and concepts of “open society” by the means of establishing and financing educational systems, schools, “liberal” press and TV
-         creating “non-commercial” sphere, i.e. non-governmental organizations (NGO), which would gradually take charge of cultural, educational, social, charitable functions of governmental institutions. As a result, the society (its legitimate and legislative bodies) would lose control over this sphere. So the conditions of civilisational transformation of the Russian Nation would be created; it causes the loss of its identity and definitive turning into a source of raw materials of the “golden billion”.
-         forming a “civic society” upon a western model on the basis of liberal and cosmopolitan human rights ideology
-         establishing and financing schools and universities to train lawyers and social workers; revision of existing educational programs, drawing up new laws
-         struggle against xenophobia, anti-semitism and Russian chauvinism, against infringing upon rights of non-traditional confessions.
You see that all above mentioned supposedly have nothing common with CIA. But even Central Intelligence Agency now isn't the same as in 50s – 60s. “Co-operation with respected and prestigious foundations lets CIA finance programs, influencing youth groups, universities, publishers and other private institutions, including human rights organizations with practically infinite sums” – we quote the materials of the hearings of the Congress on activities of CIA in 1976. Now funds are considered “the best cover of financial expenses...” Another information from the same materials of the hearings corroborates that almost 50% of “700 grants of the main American funds spent on international projects” were financed by CIA. 

THE MOST “POPULAR” IN RUSSIA AMERICAN FUNDS

What western funds (including American ones) are engaged in “civilizational” transformations in Russia? To answer this question it's nesessary to know who finances Russian non-commercial sphere (in particular, human rights organizations). It's impossible to investigate the sources of all grants received by Russian human rights organizations because some of them often don't report who is their sponsor (donor), and what sum they were granted.
Let us choose the two best known metropolitan human rights organizations – Moscow Helsinki Group and “Memorial” and the two provincial ones – Perm Human Rights Center and Ryazan branch of “Memorial”.
Here are ALL the funds financing Moscow Helsinki Group:
-         Liberty Road (governmental, the Embassy of Switzerland in Russia)
-         Department for International Development (governmental, GB)
-         European Commission (governmental, EU)
-         Ford Foundation (private, USA)
-         MacArthur Foundation (private, USA)
-         MATRA (governmental, the Embassy of Netherlands in Russia)
-         National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (governmental, USA)
-         Open Society Institute (private, George Soros, USA)
-         UK Foreigh Ministry
-         United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (governmental).
This shows that NO Russian organization is among the donors of Moscow Helsinki Group. But seven of them are the governmental structures of the countries-members of NATO (except Switzerland). Now you can imagine what sort of policy is conducted by this human rights group which is financially independent from Russian government but financially dependent on governments of NATO countries.
In the list there are five American foundations: three of them are private (Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation and Open Society Institute), two – governmental (National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID).
Here are the main donors of Moscow “Memorial” (some of minoritary donators, such as Edward Klein etc. aren't worth to be mentioned): Open Society Institute (George Soros), Ford Foundation, NED, Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Bradley Foundation and Guggenheim Foundation (USA).
Perm Center is financed by foreigh funds – Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute, Eurasia Foundation (George Soros), Henry M. Jackson Foundation, International Research and Exchange Council and G. Kennan Institute (USA). Worth to be mention Russian sponsors of Perm Human Rights Center are the administrations of Perm and Perm Region, LUKoil-Perm Company and Motovilikha Plant.
Ryazan human rights activists' foreign sponsors are Ford foundation, NED, Institute for Democracy in East Europe (USA), Open Society Institute, Eurasia Foundation, Freedom Path (the government of Switzerland) and the government of Netherlands. The only Russian organization financing Ryazan “Memorial” is a human rights group “For Civic Society” granted by the same Ford Foundation and NED.
So, the “leaders” in financing Russian human rights organizations are private charity funds – Ford Foundation and Open Society Institute, and governmental National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
                                              

“INDUSTRIAL” FUNDS

Ford Foundation is probably the biggest charity fund in the USA. It was founded by Henry Ford, an automobile industry tycoon in 1930s, but after the World War II it lost connection with him and by now have been managed by the Board of Trustees. It was the first of funds to join the “cold war”. In 1952-54 Richard Bissel was its director, later he became a deputy of the director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Allen Dulles. Then John McCloy, a former deputy Secretary of Defense, a former President of World Bank, a former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank became the director of Ford Foundation. It was him who created a special department within the Foundation to co-operate with CIA...
After the well-known denunciations of 1960-70s Ford Foundation began acting more flexibly and warely. Former leaders of CIA and its departments no more held leading positions at the Board of Trustees. From 1996 Susan Berresford has been holding the position of the President of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation. She is a member of the Council for Foreign Relations and also a member of so-called Trilateral Commission in which leading politicians, economists and financiers of capitalist world took part (Russian members – S. A. Karaganov and G. A. Yavlinsky).
The board of Trustees of Ford Foundation consists of 16 members including the presidents of the biggest American corporations such as Xerox, Alcoa Inc., Coca-Cola Co., Rock Creek Co. (an investment and insurance company, an affiliate of well-known Carlyle Group). There are the presidents of the biggest American universities and well-known lawyers among the leaders of the Foundation.
As to concrete participation of Ford Foundation in the life of Soviet people, let's quote www.fordfound.org/: “From 1950 Ford Foundation began to support projects oriented to the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. From 1950 to 1988 about $ 60 million had been granted to analyze key problems of interrelations between East and West, defending freedom of speech, cultural pluralism and human rights. In 1989 the Board of Trustees of the Foundation took a decision to support directly (!) progressive organizations in the Soviet Union, Poland and Hungary (later in Czechoslovakia) to precipitate the process of democratization and economical reforming of these countries. In 1989-1994 about $ 30 million had been granted to work out these problems”.
According to my calculations, in 2001 Ford Foundation financed 21 Russian Human Rights organizations with a total sum of about 5 million dollars. Moscow “Memorial” received the biggest grant to buy a building for its headquarters in the center of Moscow. “Memorial” was also granted with $ 1,5 million for its investigations. Other organizations were financed with smallest sums:
-         Moscow Helsinki Group – 70.000 dollars
-         Helsinki Human Rights Foundation – 100.000 dollars
-         Perm Center – 140.000 dollars
-         International Human Rights League – 100.000 dollars
-         Human Rights Center “Memorial” (the same, but granted for other purposes) – 400.000 dollars
-         Non-governmental Committee on Human Rights (Krasnoyarsk) – 30.000 dollars
-         Independent Council for Legal Examination – 116.000 dollars.
In 2002 total sum of grants was reduced (from $ 850 million to $ 590 million), but in Russia 17 organizations including the same “Memorial” and International Helsinki federation (IHF) received grants of Ford Foundation.
The activities of MacArthur Foundation are highly intensive in Russia. In January, 2003 this foundation “announced financing of development and reinforcement of regional human rights organizations' network” in 13 cities of Russia. For example, one of these grants ($ 140.000) was intended to finance Perm non-governmental Center for Supporting Youth Democratic Initiatives to provide legal aid to young men “refusing military service for religious and moral reasons”. It's easy to realize that these “moral reasons” not to serve in the army can appear in minds of many young men, espesially if they know that an American philanthropic organization with its annual budget of $ 175 million will plead for them.

FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES' FUNDS

Russian human rights activists receive a powerful backing from those economical and political structures which are interested in creation in Russia favorable conditions to carry out non-controlled by the government financial and currency speculations. In the first place – from traditionally liberal and cosmopolitan transnational Jewish financial capital granting such organizations as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Helsinki Federation and International Human Rights League. Cosmopolitan by nature, Jewish speculative capital is more than others interested in economical and political globalization and creation of international and transgovernmental institutions restricting sovereignty of nations and giving them an opportunity for free circulation of their capitals over the whole world including Russia.
To let the reader understand what money and, accordingly, what scale of “operations to create conditions” is mentioned, we'll cite the materials of the analysis of American press and Internet information: about 20 % of 450 richest people of the world having more than $ 1 billion of personal capital are the speculators who had gained their riches in financial and investment spheres. Their total personal capital is more than 200 billion dollars. As to their finance capital managing by bankers-billionaires, it is estimated at dozens of trillions dollars.
It's necessary to mark Open Society Institute of George Soros, an American billionaire that often tries to look like a “benefactor” and a “philanthropist”. Created by him worldwide (especially in Europe and former Soviet republics) network of organizations has absolutely definite purposes – creation of social and political structures of future “open society”, the dream of George Soros. In Yugoslavia these human rights organizations and so-called “civic groups” had been the centers of forming and consolidation of anti-governmental parties and structures which played the key role in organization of the putsch that lead to overthrow of the government of Slobodan Milosevic, to liquidate the rest of the social state and to integrate Serbia politically into so-called “western community”.
The goals of Soros foundation in Russia were not long ago described by fired (by the words of Soros, for collaboration with B. A. Berezovsky) biologist Alexander Goldfarb, the manager of Russian branch of the Foundation, who had emigrated from the Soviet Union at the end of 70s: “I had been worked with George for almost ten years; I had spent $ 130 million of his money for charitable projects intended to support reforms in Russia and to relieve transformation of a communist dictature into liberal democracy, to transform closed society into open...” (“The end of the belle epoque”, www.grani.ru/). I.e. the goal of charity of the billionaire is not to support Russian science and education (as propagandized by its liberal heralds) but to support civilizational transformations in Russia: creation of western-type “liberal democracy” and non-government-controlled market economy (open society).
Being well educated and understanding the key role of information technologies and science in modern world George Soros bent his finances and every effort to the institutes where future elite of the cosmopolitan “open society” is formed. From $ 56 million invested in Russia in 2000, Soros spent $ 18 million to create and support controlled by him information network; $ 9,5 million was granted the development of “right' educational systems; $ 5 million – to support “liberal” newspapers and TV; $ 4,5 million – to support cultural development etc. ...
The book published in 1990 written by George Soros is named “Opening the Soviet System”. In it Soros stated his political principles and the strategy of creating in “closed”, i.e. “non-western” countries structures that would assist transnational financial corporations in their speculative operations.
The ultimate aim of George Soros is the creation of “the coalition of open societies that will take upon itself the functions of UN and will turn the General Assembly into the true legislative power supporting international law” (quoted from the address of George Soros to the session of the Council for Foreigh Relations of the US Congress, December 10, 1998).

GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS

The most popular among Russian human rights activists “governmental” fund is National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It was established by the President of the USA Ronald Reagan in 1983 with its annual budget of 30 million dollars. NED formulated its mission: “to support establishing and development of democracy worldwide”.
There are 26 members at the Board of Directors of NED: congressmen, businessmen, former politicians. I'll list some of their names: Vin Weber, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of NED, a former congressman, now the Vice-president of Clark and Weinstock Bank; Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Commander-in-Chief of NATO, who had led NATO agression against Yugoslavia; Ralf Gerson, a billionaire, the President of Guardian International Corp.; Frank Carlucci, a former Secretary of Defense, now the President of Carlyle Group (Investment); Morton Abramowitz, a former Reagan's advisor, now the Chairman of International Crisis Center (ICC) and Lee H. Hamilton, a former senator, now a member of the Presidential National Security Council.
The member of the Board of Directors of NED Julie Finley, the founder of US NATO Committee and the Chairman of the Project on Transitional Democracies has been working in NED for many years. This Project, realized under cover of NED, strives for “acceleration of reformation processes” in former socialist countries and “reduction of terms of integration of these countries into EEC and NATO”. Within this Project NED financed Yugoslavian anti-governmental youth organization “Otpor” (in 2001 NED granted “Otpor” with 220 000 $) and regularly conducted seminars and other organizing measures for its members. I would remind you that “Otpor” grour took the main part in preparing and conducting putsch in Serbia (October 5, 2000) that caused the dismissal of Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic.
The purpose of financing Russian “grant-eaters” (the term was offered by Rostov human rights activist E. V. Finkov) (www.rrpoi.narod.ru) was expressed clearly by the leaders of NED: “to help receivers of our grants in their struggle against authoritarian tendencies and for more freedom and openness”. According to this leading instructions in 2000 NED granted 38 Russian non-governmental organizations with total of about 1 300 000 dollars. Just less than a half of this sum, 600 thousand $, was granted to support 16 human rights organizations and publications. For example, to support frankly anti-Russian and pro-American “Express – Khronika” weekly edition (A. P. Podrabinek) NED granted 70 thousand dollars. “Fond Zaschity Glasnosti” (Foundation for Defense of Glasnost”, Sergei Grigoryantz) was granted with 40,7 thousand $ “to publish several books on freedom of the press” in Russia. At the same time only 65 thousand dollars were granted to support Chechen refugees in Ingushetia and Russian migrants in Central Russia.
In 2002 NED granted 33 Russian human rights organization with total sum of about 1,4 million dollars. Among these grants – 36,5 thousand $ for the Center for Development and Human Rights “to estimate the draft laws from the standpoint of human rights defense and to work out the recommendations how to answer effectively to these laws”. It's evident that American congressmen highly attended to problems connected with compulsory military service in Russia.
                                                       

CONCLUSION

By force of “inclusion” of Russian human rights groups into the “net” woven by American (in the main) organizations, there's no reason to be surprized when you hear that many Russian human rights activist considered themselves members of world (it's more correct to say “western”) human rights movement. They conduct a “human rights policy” which doesn't contradict the one of their western “fraternal” organizations and which is shared by leaders of funds financing Russian human rights activists.
Dependence of human rights movement from western funds and institutions that finance it causes subordination of human rights principle to concrete political goals of western powers, in particular, USA. Some Russian human rights activists understand this. A. O. Smirnov (Kosterin), a human rights activist who had already been cited by me before, wrote: “the West invested in our democracy for its own purposes. This investment is long-term but profitable – to remove the Evil Empire from the map of the world, to civilize it for troubleless life, business and policy of the West” (www.hro.org/ngo/research/). For this purpose it's necessary to make it weak-willed, not dangerous and spiritually crushed. This has only one meaning – to destroy it.

Oleg Popov

26 / 01 / 2005

Sacred Sound And Sheer Beauty

September 6, 2007
In 1917, the workers' paradise that was the Soviet Union forcibly removed the monks of the Moscow Sretensky Monastery and converted the 14th-century building into a torture chamber, sending the residents either to prison camp or death for living their lives according to the word of God. Not until 1994 was the place re-established as a religious institution and the present a cappella choir founded.

Concert at Avery Fishery Hall, photo by Michael Rodionov / Pravoslavie.Ru

On the occasion of the reunification of the Orthodox Church within Russia to the greater Russian Orthodox Church, the 41-member choir is touring the world, singing primarily in sacred spaces but also taking some time out for public concerts. On Tuesday evening at Avery Fisher Hall, there was no room left for procrastinators, and the management had to provide seats on the stage to accommodate the overflow crowd.
English was clearly not the first language of most of these listeners, and there were more than a few hirsute men wearing flowing black robes. What they experienced was a thrilling evening of highly disciplined music making. The sacred side was represented by chants that ran the gamut from ancient to modern. «Stichera on the Dormition of Theotokos» was an extended plain-chant, while «Now the Powers of Heaven» was dramatically ethereal, and featured a truly impressive ensemble sound with eloquent crescendos.

Concert at Avery Fishery Hall, photo by Michael Rodionov / Pravoslavie.Ru

«God Is With Us» had a 19th-century feel to it, with dramatic twists and turns like a sacred piece by Rossini or Verdi, while Piotr Dinev's «It Is Truly Meet» harkened back to that timeless, hollow sound that, as a non-Russian, I can only compare to groundings in art, such as the music of the Old Believers in Modest Mussorgsky's «Khovanchina.» Certainly there was a palpable sense of holiness that recalled many generations of martyrs.
But the other side of the same kopeck was revealed in the folk song set. «The Steppe So Wide» was deliciously mysterious, conjuring images of wolves and whiteouts, placing an individual man as but a lonely shadow or prey item. In fact, several of these numbers chilled to the bone.
For sheer beauty, it was difficult to beat «Evening Bells,» a ballad that channeled Rachmaninov with a sweet tenor solo by Andrey Bashkov. For poignancy, there was «Spring Shall Come, But Not for Me,» a Cossack pre-battle song. There were also those martial ditties with strong equestrian backgrounds such as «The Battalion Has Arrived» and songs of such infectious exuberance as the Ukrainian «Oh, to the Hills,» that made whistling seem appropriate. All were led with great skill and marvelous panache by conductor Nikon Zhila. The two most satisfying efforts were in this folk session. «Down the Mother Volga,» with its huge scope and superb blending, filled the cavernous hall with camaraderie and showcased this choir's ability to produce not only one extraordinary sound but also to disclose each and every element of it, from high tenor to incredibly low bass. «The Steppe Is All Around» was also deeply moving, primarily for the operatic solo of Dmitri Beloselsky, who, if not for his higher calling, would make for a terrific Boris next door at the Metropolitan Opera.
Sadly, the evening was marred by literally dozens of cell phone rings, which, rather uncharacteristically, did not become rarer as the night wore on. But for those who came for a taste of home, not even technological rudeness could ruin such a special event.

Fred Kirshnit

The New York Sun

07 / 09 / 2007

And the raven shall scatter your bones …

Tuesday September 11, 2007
It's 6pm at Moscow's Sretensky Monastery and the faithful are arriving for prayer. Inside the church, women wearing headscarves genuflect beneath a vast altar as an orthodox priest in black rectangular headgear waves incense. Hundreds of candles illuminate the ancient frescoes.

Sretensky monastery choir at its home base. Photo by M. Rodionov / Pravoslavie.Ru

Up in the gallery, a group of young men are standing round sheets of music. Several are dressed in seminarians' robes; others wear denim jackets. One has a ponytail. Three have beards. Their average age is about 23. They seem much like any other choir – until they open their mouths. What emerges is a wave of extraordinary sound: rich, gripping, melodic, powerful and utterly unfeigned. It's the sort of sound you might expect had the early apostles suddenly broken off from writing the New Testament and burst into song. Down below, the priest responds in resonant baritone; the glorious exchanges waft heavenwards.
That this choir is so good is not an accident. As the monastery's youthful abbot, Father Tikhon, points out, it is made up of the “best voices in Moscow”, many from elite musical academies, and has a growing international reputation. Earlier this month, the Sretensky choir embarked on a world tour, singing in New York, Boston, Chicago, Washington, Sydney, Melbourne, Geneva and Berlin. The tour climaxes with a London performance on September 30. Reviews have so far been gushing. The 41 singers have mastered “the dense, nasal tone and luminous blend characteristic of Russian choral tradition”, the New York Times noted. It called one hymn, Now the Powers of Heaven, “achingly lovely”, and praised tenor soloist Anton Sergeev for his “dreamy ardour”. The audience, including many gentlemen in clerical robes, “appeared to be ready to listen all night long”.
As well as bolstering the choir's reputation, the tour will introduce western audiences to an unusual range of Russian songs, both secular and religious, including a memorable Cossack meditation on the meaning of death. The programme also includes a few ancient Byzantine and classical liturgical pieces. But most of the performance isn't religious as such, being made up of Russian folk-singing.
“There is a sacred aspect to Russian folk songs – they are often about death and suffering,” Father Tikhon explains, over a pot of tea in his comfortable residence. “One piece, The Black Raven, is a sort of dialogue with death. It's about a Cossack soldier going off to battle knowing he is going to die. He speaks of how a bullet will pierce his chest, how his comrades will leave him, and how his wife will marry his best friend. His bones will be scattered across the steppe by wolves and ravens.”

Bass soloist D. Beloselsky is singing “Brothers, It's Good to Live”

Isn't this rather depressing? “Not at all. It's about victory over death,” Father Tikhon says. “It's not pessimistic. There is no depression involved. It's an extremely realistic view of life and death – if you believe in God.” He adds: “There is a rich tradition in Russia of romances and songs, especially in Soviet times when church music was forbidden. In an atheistic regime, prayerful feelings are sublimated into music.”
The choir's 40-odd singers are all gifted young professionals. Some are seminarians studying to become priests; as well as singing for several hours a day, they listen to lectures by outside professors, take ecclesiastic lessons, and tend the monastery's bucolic gardens. Others are students at the Moscow conservatory and other elite musical academies. One, Fyodor, is a talented composer. All are orthodox believers.
Sitting on a garden bench outside the monastery's white-painted, multi-domed church, choir member Roman Alexandrovich Rodionov says he took up singing at the age of 10. A choirmaster in his hometown of Oryol spotted his talent. “He started teaching me to sing,” Roman, now 19, says. Why does he think the choir is so good? “Well, a lot of singers are graduates of the most famous music schools in Moscow,” he says. “But it's also down to God's help. Before and after every rehearsal we sing a prayer.”
Asked whether they would like to spend an extra day in Paris or an extra day in London, the choir unanimously chose London. Several, it turns out, are fans of Sherlock Holmes. “When I hear the word London, I immediately think of red buses, Big Ben and tea with milk,” Roman says. “When I was at school, I never dreamed I would ever go there.”
In fact, the Sretensky monastery singers are a well-travelled bunch. They have already sung at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris as well as at the Vatican Hall auditorium and in Belgrade. They frequently take part in services in Moscow conducted by Russia's Patriarch, His Holiness Alexei II, at the Dormition cathedral, an exquisite 15th-century church inside the high walls and forbidding towers of the Kremlin.
The tour isn't about selling CDs, although the choir has produced several, but about the reunification of Russia's divided orthodox church. In May, the church inside Russia was reunited with the Russian orthodox church abroad, a ground-breaking event marking the end of nine decades of division triggered by the Bolshevik revolution. (The church inside the country had reluctantly recognised the new communist government; the church abroad never did.) As well as the concerts, the choir will take part in services in orthodox churches around the world celebrating this.
Founded in the 14th century, the Sretensky monastery reflects Russia's entire history: wars and revolutions, fiery prayer and unbridled militant atheism. After the 1917 revolution, the new government installed a pro-communist sect in the buildings. In 1925 it was closed. The monastery's superior, Archbishop Hilarion, was sent off to a gulag where he perished. In the 1930s, officers belonging to Stalin's secret police were billeted here, and numerous executions were carried out in the monastery's leafy grounds. The church got its buildings back in 1991; the choir was formed three years later.
Today, the monastery is an oasis of tranquillity in the centre of brash, capitalist Moscow. Outside, young women wearing designer sunglasses nudge absurdly large black Jeeps through traffic-choked avenues. According to Father Tikhon, though, despite such ostensible Godlessness, the Russian orthodox church is now enjoying a remarkable renaissance in Russia, with 500 churches in Moscow, compared to 40 in the 1980s.
At the church, the last worshippers are crossing themselves and preparing to head home. Another reason the choir is so good, Father Tikhon says, is that they are not interested in worldly success or money. “It's like early Christianity, like apostolic times,” he says. “The most important thing in life is their belief in God. They see the world as it is. But they can live in the world and still retain their Christianity”.

---

The Moscow Sretensky Monastery Choir is at the Cadogan Hall, London, on September 30. Box office: 020-7730 4500.

Luke Harding

The Guardian

13 / 09 / 2007

Round Table Discussions in Moscow—"Give Me Life!"

Moscow July 7, 2010

The round table discussion entitled, "Give Me Life!" which took place on July 6 under the auspices of the Fund for Social-Cultural Initiative (FSCI), was the opening event of Anti-Abortion Week, reports Sedmitza.ru. This multi-level initiative will take place in Russia from July 9 to July 5. It will be the logical continuation of the "Day of Family, Love, and Faithfulness" celebrations.
"Give Me Life!" is aimed at strengthening the family, and preserving family values and traditions. First Lady Svetlana Medvedev, President of the FSCI, opened the round table discussion. "We underestimate the role of family… The Love that a person receives in his family gives him a formation that lasts all his life… In the family are moral and spiritual values passed down, which can save one from serious mistakes," Mrs. Medvedev characterized the leitmotif of the "Day of Family, Love, and Faithfulness." She emphasized that the Give Me Life! event is directed first of all at the young. She gave particular attention to the need for tactful media coverage of themes connected with family, continuation of life, and artificial interruption of pregnancy.
"This needs to be spoken about with maximum delicacy. We cannot judge or forbid. We should enlighten and help," continued Vice President of the FSCI, Tatiana Shumova, when speaking of the event's goals. She noted that eighty-three entities of the Russian Federation will be participating, each of which is planning its own set of events.
At the round table was further discussed the more concrete problem of how to help families and women to withstand difficult life situations, and to preserve the new life that has been conceived.
The Chairperson of the State Duma committee on family, women, and children, Elena Mizulina dedicated her presentation on the particular responsibility of lawmakers. In her words, jurisprudence today "in fact provokes the committing of abortions." Russia's religious traditions, which unanimously condemn abortion as a sin, must be taken into consideration when enacting laws concerning a child's right to life. She described a number of lawmaking projects that her committee has proposed. Among other things, she was referring to measures for the support of pregnant women, large families, and the creation of social conditions which would enable women to preserve their pregnancies. Lawmakers will particularly insist upon this, because according to E. Mizulina's information, seventy percent of the abortions in Russia are committed for social and not health reasons.
"Today we have very, very few children!" Pavel Astakhov, the plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation on matters of children's rights, added with emotion. Because of the serious demographic decline in Russia, he emphasized that they must put great energy into "support for future mothers," and exclude all "aggressive advertisements" for easy abortion. "It is important that women find experienced social workers, psychologist, lawyers, and doctors instead of leaflets advertising abortion," Mr. Astakhov said.
Also discussed was the creation of courses for elementary and high school students. Media and health representatives talked of the need to work out an approach to sex education that would teach the students about the "divine structure of the human organism."
Archpriest Arcady Shatov, the chairman of the Synodal department of Church charity and social work, spoke about the education of the upcoming generation in a spirit of family values as they are understood in a Christian culture. He noted that the main accent should be placed upon the joy of motherhood and fatherhood. "As a rule, all the women who come to confession well understand that abortion is a great sin. I think that it would be worthwhile to explain to children what a miracle and joy it is to participate in the divine act of bringing a new person into life. Knowing this, a person will not commit that sin. We must not only help them to understand the sin, but also to understand the main joy in life—giving of yourself," said Fr. Arcady. As an example of this, Fr. Arcady talked about his own wife, who died twenty years ago and left him four children. She was not a religious person when she entered into marriage, but faith came when she discovered the joy of giving birth. He believes that this path of joy to discovering faith is open to other people as well.
Fr. Arcady also feels that the Church could take part in the development of courses that would teach children about the spiritual side of man, and about marriage as a spiritual unity. Any teaching that treats "man as no more than a biological existence" brings no little harm, he said.
 

Sedmitza.ru

07 / 07 / 2010

Polygamy is Harmful to Society, Scholar Finds

Increased crime, prostitution and anti-social behaviour. Greater inequality between men and women. Less parental investment in children. And, a general driving down of the age of marriage for all women.
These are some of the harms of polygamy (or more correctly, polygyny, since it is almost always men marrying more than once) that are outlined in a 45-page research paper by noted Canadian scholar Joseph Henrich, filed Friday in B.C. Supreme Court.
Henrich is uniquely qualified to look at polygamy's harm. He's a member of the departments of economics, psychology and anthropology at the University of British Columbia and holds the Canada Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Coevolution.
But he'd never really thought about it until this year when Craig Jones approached him. Jones is the lead lawyer in the B.C. government's constitutional reference case, which will be heard in November by B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman.
Now, Henrich's conclusions form part of the intellectual and evidentiary underpinning for the province's argument that even if outlawing polygamy breaches the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and freedom of expression, it's justified.
In addition to Henrich's paper, the government has filed or will be filing affidavits from other specialists in the history of Western polygamy, Islamic law, psychology and medicine.
Fifteen former fundamentalist Mormons have provided video testimony about their experiences growing up in polygamous communities in Canada and the United States.
Among them is Truman Oler. He is the 28-year-old brother of James Oler, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints bishop in Bountiful, and the nephew of Winston Blackmore, the former bishop who now heads a breakaway sect.
But for James Oler and Blackmore, there would be no court case. Both men were charged with polygamy in 2009. But after those charges were stayed, Attorney-General Mike de Jong asked the B.C. Supreme Court to rule on the law's constitutionality.
To illustrate the harm, Henrich provides the court with an example of polygyny's cruel arithmetic.
In a hypothetical society of 20 men and 20 women, 12 men with the highest status marry 12 women. (It's always only the highest-ranking men in polygynous societies that get multiple wives.)
Then, the top five take a second wife and the top two men take a third. Finally, the top guy takes a fourth.
The result is that 58 per cent of the marriages are monogamous.
But — and this is the big deal —it means 40 per cent of the men remain unmarried.
Yes, 40 per cent.
And Henrich's example is conservative. Blackmore has more than 20 wives. FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs, who is in jail in Utah, has more than 80.
And the studies Henrich cites -from historical, frontier-American research to contemporary work done in countries where polygamy is legal -indicate that groups of unmarried men create havoc.
"For males, getting married (monogamously) is a prophylactic against engaging in crime, social disruption and other socially undesirable activities," he writes.
In India and China, where male-biased sex selection has resulted in more men than women, researchers found "bachelor bands that compete ferociously and engage in aggressive, violent and anti-social activities."
China's one-child policy resulted in the number of "surplus" men nearly doubling ... along with the crime rates. In a recent study, researchers there concluded that for every 0.01 increase in sex ratio, property and violent crimes rise by three per cent.
In India, the state of Kerala's murder rate is half that of Uttar Pradesh. The reason? Kerala's male-to-female ratio is 97:100; Uttar Pradesh's is 112:100.
Another social harm that Henrich says is consistent regardless of whether researchers use data from 19th-century Mormon communities or contemporary African societies is that children from polygynous families have considerably lower survival rates. It seems polygynous men, rather than investing in their offspring, use their money to add wives.
"Monogamy seems to direct male motivations in ways that create lower crime rates, greater wealth (GDP) per capita and better outcomes for children," Henrich concludes.
But what's more surprising than his conclusions is his speculation that monogamy is at the root of democracy and equality.
He argues that as the idea of monogamy spread through Europe during the 15th century, king and peasant alike had the same rules and the idea of equality gained a foothold -- at least among men.
With reduced competition for women, men began loosening their tight control over wives and daughters.
And with fewer unmarried men, the pool of soldiers that had previously been harnessed by warring rulers was reduced.
Even though this compelling argument goes far beyond the scope of the trial, it may make it even harder for polygamy's advocates to convince the judge that its practice is benign.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

22 / 07 / 2010

---

Results of the Patriarchal visit to the Ukraine. A press conference.

A press-conference on the results of Patriarch Kirill's visit to the Ukraine was held on July 30, 2010, at the Interfax news agency. The visit took place from July 20 to 28 at the invitation of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its dioceses.
The press-conference was given by Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the Moscow Patriarchate's department for external church relations, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Synodal department for church-state relations, Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, DECR vice-chairman, and Vladimir Legoida, head of the Synodal information department.
Opening the press-conference Metropolitan Hilarion said:
First of all I would compare this visit to the first one made by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill to the the Ukraine because they are very similar in format. Both visits were fairly long but the climate in which the first visit was made was very different from that of the second visit. When His Holiness the Patriarch first came to the Ukraine, his visit was seen as an extraordinary event. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II had visited the Ukraine not long before his death, and before his visit there had been a very long interruption lasting seventeen years… Perhaps it was prompted by some political circumstances, but at any rate one can say that people in the Ukraine became estranged from the Patriarch.
When His Holiness Patriarch Kirill first came to the Ukraine, his visit naturally aroused great interest; at the same time, there was a certain tension on the part of those who are not interested in a stronger presence of the canonical Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. These are first of all schismatic groups and some nationalistic political parties. The political situation in the the Ukraine itself at that time was unstable, and the visit took place in a rather strained atmosphere. Nevertheless, we remember that already at that time the utterly dominating tone of the visit was the enthusiasm with which many of the people welcomed their Patriarch, who had come to visit the Ukraine and to pray together with his flock. Already at that time, His Holiness the Patriarch said that he came to the Ukraine not as a guest, or a foreign citizen, but as the First Hierarch of the largest religious organization in the Ukraine, the First Hierarch of the Church to which most of the Ukrainian population belong.
The recent visit of His Holiness the Patriarch was made in a much more pleasant political atmosphere. First of all, it should be stated that after the election of Victor Yanukovich as president of the Ukraine, a certain political consolidation has been observed in the country. The demagogic tone with which some politicians discussed issues of religious life has been dropped. This positive development in the political sphere could not but have an impact on the general tone of the visit.
When His Holiness the Patriarch came to the Ukraine, he was asked about the purpose of his visit. He answered that there was no purpose. It was a regular Patriarchal visit made by the Patriarch to his canonical territory. His Holiness the Patriarch repeatedly stressed that he was not an ”envoy” of the Russian Federation, but rather an envoy of Holy Rus', and that Holy Rus' is the spiritual and cultural realm that was created over the course of ten centuries. Its cradle and heart is Kiev, in which the key and primary role belongs to the Patriarch as First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church, uniting the peoples of the Russian World.
I believe this good sentiment, which the Patriarch brought to Ukrainian society with his words and prayer, was communicated to all the Ukrainian people, and determined the general atmosphere of the visit.
His Holiness the Patriarch plans to visit The Ukraine on a regular basis. In this sense, I hope his visits will cease to be extraordinary events. They will always attract people's attention and the attention of the mass media but, there must be no unhealthy stir around these visits.
I would like to note that one of the leitmotifs of the Patriarch's stay in the Ukraine was the theme of overcoming the schism. As is known, the schism has existed in the Ukraine for some fifteen years now. It is a persistent wound on the body of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, and His Holiness, in his addresses to various audiences, repeatedly spoke of the destructiveness of the schism, and the need to overcome it as soon as possible. At its session on July 26 in Kiev, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted an Appeal to the Orthodox Christians in the Ukraine who are in the schism, calling them to return to the canonical Church.
The schism has inflicted severe wounds on people. It has gone through people's lives, dividing families. The schism tears people away from the Church, depriving them of an opportunity to partake of the same Chalice with Orthodox Christians, and to visit common holy places. In recent times, we have received reports that many clergy and laity who are in schism are aware of the peril of being in it, and wish to reunite with the canonical Church. The Appeal also states that it is terrible to live in schism, but it is even more terrible to die outside the Church; unfortunately, many people have died in recent years. We say that one should not put off repentance; there is nothing humiliating about it. Repentance is a natural process of returning to the Church for those who fell away from it.
An answer was also given in the Appeal to the question concerning the recognition of Baptism should schismatics return to the canonical Church. The Church herself will decide how to accept them into her fold, and the question concerning the recognition of the Sacraments can be settled only in this perspective. In other words, as long as a person remains in schism, the sacraments administered to him in that schism cannot and must not be recognized, because a schism is not a Church, and the ”sacraments” administered in a schism are devoid of grace and salvific power.  But if his return to the Church is considered, history knows of cases when a Church recognized particular ”sacraments” administered in schismatic communities, including baptism. We are not saying that this recognition will be given; we are saying that the Church herself will decide how such sacraments will be accepted.
I think this Appeal is the states the essence of all that was stated concerning the schism during Patriarch Kirill's visit to the Ukraine. His Holiness attaches a great importance to a speedy healing of the schism. However, his efforts in this respect are met with certain misunderstanding and opposition from the schismatic groups' leaders. Thus, the group led by the false patriarch Philaret has responded to the Patriarchal visit and the Synodal Appeal aggressively, but I think this reaction cannot open a way to dialogue. The road to dialogue can be paved only by a calm pastoral word. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill addressed precisely this kind of word to those who are in the schism.
I believe the visit of His Holiness the Patriarch to the Ukraine was a very significant event. It is not accidental that it received such a broad coverage. His Holiness, not only by his wise words, but also by his whole appearance and inspiration with which he speaks and celebrates, has made a great impression upon an enormous number of people. I hope this visit will contribute to the further consolidation of the Ukrainian nation, to rapprochement between the peoples of Russia and the Ukraine, and to the healing of those wounds which have been inflicted on the Ukrainian Orthodoxy in the last years.
Archpriest Nikolai Balashov was asked whether the Patriarchal and Synodal Appeal could be considered effective if one of the schismatic leaders publicly rejected repentance as the proposed condition.
Father Nikolai answered:
The Appeal of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was not addressed to a religious organization which calls itself ”Patriarchate of Kiev” and which is not recognized by any of the Local Churches. It was actually addressed to people who are outside of unity with the canonical Orthodox Church. Any positive reaction to the Appeal from the leaders of the ”Patriarchate of Kiev” is not to be expected, to my mind.
It is another matter that very many people who are outside the canonical Church have begun to consider their return to the Church during the year since the first visit of His Holiness the Patriarch to the Ukraine. Many petitions of this kind have come. Some parishes in several regions, and a group of parishes in the ”Patriarchate of Kiev,” have already returned to the fold of the Church together with their priests. We know that a number of schismatic leaders also thought and think about their return. Unfortunately, as His Eminence Hilarion already made public during the Patriarch's stay in the Ukraine, the former Metropolitan Andrei Gorak of Lvov from the so-called ”Patriarchate of Kiev” was stopped on the threshold of this step by death. There have also been discussions with several other groups which have separated themselves from the Church.
His Holiness the Patriarch said that we have no special strategy, in a temporal, political sense of this word, for overcoming the schism. He stressed that our strategy is that of prayer; we believe that the schism will be overcome by the will of God and not through political efforts, and that the Church in this sense should be the antipode of schismatic organizations, as she cannot resort to such means as aggressive polemics, insults, or distorted facts. This path is closed for the Church. We will use different means for struggle with the schism, and the truth of God will ultimately triumph.
Journalists asked Father Nikolai if there has been in recent years a growing dynamic of the return from the ”Patriarchate of Kiev” to the canonical Church. He answered:
Yes, there is. It should be stated that many of the schismatic leaders have long wanted to return, but speak very frankly about the fear they feel, including a fear for their physical existence. Recent events have shown that these fears are not at all groundless. I am referring to the strange death of Andrey Gorak, who headed the largest diocese of the so-called ”Patriarchate of Kiev” in Lvov. Feodosy Petsina also died suddenly and under unclear circumstances during the Patriarchal visit. He was one of the leaders of the ”Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” in the same Lvov region.
To develop Father Nikolai's statement, Vladimir Legoida emphasized:
The real situation that has developed today in the so-called ”Patriarchate of Kiev” makes it possible to state with all certainty that the statements made by the officials of this organization do not reflect the real sentiment of believers. We know it and we can confirm it on the basis of petitions we have received, and by the number of people returning from the so-called ”Patriarchate of Kiev” to the canonical Church. True, this process has not become a mass movement as yet, also for reasons mentioned by Father Nikolai.
With your permission I would like to say another thing, which seems to be of importance for those who are not well aware of the nature of Church life and Church canons. Sometimes people draw an analogy with everyday human life, saying: ”You see, there was a family, but its members failed to share one thing or another and the family broke up. Years pass, and one half says to the other: We got worked up. Let's admit our mutual mistakes and come to live together again.” This analogy does not in the least reflect the reality of this situation.
I discussed this on several occasions with Ukrainian journalists and I would like to say once again: if we continue to consider the situation along the lines of this analogy, then the family—the canonical Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—continues to live as it did before. But if we use biblical analogies, then those people who have fallen away from the Church find themselves is the situation of the prodigal son. Regrettably, today's prodigal son tries to impose conditions, and even to accuse the father, instead of repenting, which is the most important step in everyday Christian life. It seems to me that it is very important that this should be understood by all those who are closely observing Church life in the Ukraine.
Then the floor was given to Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin. He said:
In spite of attempts by some people—who are already becoming marginal—to present the Patriarchal visit in the mass media as a political one, the visit was definitely pastoral, as was already stated, and by no means should it to be taken as involving some expansion of Russian interests in the Ukraine.
The day before yesterday, Patriarch Kirill, said these words during the farewell dinner before his departure from Kiev: ”This is my country, this is my people, this is my Church.”
There is no expansionism whatsoever in these words. He is equally the Patriarch for the faithful in Russia, the faithful in the Ukraine, the faithful in Belarus, and the faithful in Kazakhstan. He believes the interests and aspirations of these believers to be equally his own interests and aspirations. Those who rather persistently try to declare their protest are an absolute minority.
When His Holiness the Patriarch prayed on St. Vladimir's Hill, there were thousands of people praying together with him. There was a rally held nearby in which several dozens of people partipated, their faces contorted with malice. I think their mode of behavior, which does not presuppose any dialogue and represents only an attempt to deprive a pastor of contacts with his flock, becomes more and more marginal. This is very good; it shows that the political situation is truly stabilizing, as radicals are losing the support of society in the Ukraine, just as they did earlier in Russia—and this is very gratifying.
When people carried placards saying, ”Away with the Moscow priest!” during the march organized by the ”Patriarchate of Kiev” on July 28, this organization showed once again that it identifies itself very strongly with radical forces. It is not ready for any dialogue; it is ready only for accusations and divisions.
I am afraid that these forces, however good our attitude to some mistaken people may be, do not and cannot have a future in a civilized society. With these rather miserable and ridiculous protests in the background, it was very interesting to see people of different generations and walks of life coming to meet His Holiness the Patriarch, to ask them very interesting questions, and receive answers to each question. People asked about the economic crisis, about the relations of the Orthodox Church with Islam and Catholicism, and about how to educate today's young people in the spirit of high morality. People were really interested in what the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia thinks about the life of contemporary man. Judging by his answers, these questions are very near to him.
I think the direct communication between the Patriarch and the people is an indication of people's love towards the Patriarch. People came to him with joyful faces and enormous interest. They did not come just to stare at a famous person, but to pray and hear his word; and they left very joyful and spiritually satisfied. To my mind, this is the main result of the visit, if viewed from its public side. His Holiness the Patriarch was open to various people. He also met with the scientific community and with the youth, both those in the Church and the secular, with factory workers and with ordinary parishioners, with a small girl who needed aid and to whom he gave a wheelchair…
Our Church is multinational as it unites people with diverse and even opposing political interests. It unites people of various generations and cultures beginning from lovers of Znameny chant to rap singers. It unites citizens of various states, and it will always share people's interests and aspirations even if political and state interests drift apart, even after splits in cultures, generational norms, and social conditions…
We are open to both millionaires and the homeless, to people of different nationalities and walks of life. This is how the Church will always be, because Christ calls it to this!
Journalists asked Father Vsevolod about his opinion as to what extent the weakening of schismatic groups is associated with the change in political power. Father Vsevolod answered:
I believe it is associated first of all with the fact that the society has become wiser. The day before yesterday I was at a grand concert organized by the Day of the Baptism of Rus' organization in the Singing Field. It was a rock-concert. A legendary Moscow group, ”Voskresenie,” performed, followed by the Ukrainian groups ”Boombox” and ”Brothers Karamazov.” There were all kinds of people, but they seemed to represent two generations. Some came to listen to Boombox, while others preferred Voskresenie (Resurrection)—a group known from the 80's. These were people around fifty years of age.
The people of older generation began to ask me: Why do we have church divisions? Why do we have the ”Patriarchate of Kiev,” the Moscow Patriarchate, and other church entities? These people did not clash with me or challenge me, but they already had their own answer: The Church must go beyond nationalities and politics.
Any wise society, having gone through a period of political turbulence, will sooner or later come to understand that the Church should be beyond politics and nationalities. I believe that in the the Ukraine today there are a growing number of people, including those of the so-called ”politicum,” who realize this and refuse to turn the gift of Christ's faith into a small political coin or a rumpled national ruble.
One of the journalists asked Metropolitan Hilarion a question concerning the next visit of Patriarch Kirill to the Ukraine. Metropolitan Hilarion answered:
I think His Holiness the Patriarch will make annual visits to the Ukraine, to stay for a few days in July, to be present on the Day of St. Vladimir in Kiev, and to visit two or three more dioceses of the Ukrainian Church. This year he visited the dioceses of Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk; next year with will visit other dioceses.
Besides, His Holiness will come to the Ukraine for particular events. I suppose the next important event which will serve as an occasion for His Holiness to visit the Ukraine will be the 75^th birthday of His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All the Ukraine, the First Hierarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which His Beatitude will celebrate on November 23.
In April 2011 there will be commemorative events to mark the 25^th anniversary of the Chernobyl tragedy. His Holiness the Patriarch may wish to come to the Ukraine for that.
Another question concerned the possibility for negotiations between Patriarch Kirill and the leader of the ”Patriarchate of Kiev.” His Eminence Hilarion answered:
I do not think we should comment on statements by schismatic leaders, but the readiness for dialogue on our part can be seen first of all in our readiness to hold a calm and unbiased discussion on the situation in the Ukrainian Orthodoxy. The false patriarch Philaret is one of the main perpetrators and perhaps even the main perpetrator of this schism. This man can certainly, if he so wishes, put his structure on the path of dialogue, but the statements he and the ”Synod” of his structure made during the Patriarchal visit show that they are not ready for dialogue. These statements are imbued with an aggressive spirit. This man seems to be concerned most of all with seeing to it that the already existing movement back to the canonical Church should not gather momentum.
Otherwise, why would the so-called ”Synod” state that the transfer to the Moscow Patriarchate is inadmissible, and that ”sacraments” celebrated in the schism ought to be recognized as valid? Moreover, it states that there is no schism in the Ukraine at all, that there is only an autocephalous church whose validity is only temporarily unrecognized, that is, it tries to present its own desires as reality… In fact, it is definitely a schism, a tragic schism.
As for how schismatics should return to the Church and by what means they should be accepted—as I have repeatedly mentioned, we intend it to be a procedure by no means humiliating. As the Appeal of the Holy Synod states, we liken the return from the schism to what the Lord Jesus Christ said in his parable about the lost sheep: If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off (Mt. 18:12-13).
Metropolitan Hilarion also answered the question about the terrorist act in Zaporozhe:
The Church's assessment of this event has been already voiced in the message of condolence that His Holiness Patriarch Kirill has sent to His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All the Ukraine, and to Bishop Joseph of Zaporozhe and Melitopol. It states in particular, ”Anyone who aims at heaven will ultimately hit himself.” I believe this is all that can be said about it. Of course, he hits not only himself, but also other people and all society, but it is very important that such tragic events should not impede the consolidation of the society and cohesion of all the faithful around the one canonical Church.

DECR Communication Service

Edited by Pravoslavie.ru/OrthoChristian.com

04 / 08 / 2010

Justice in Turkey-Interview with Lawyer of Assasinated Journalist Dink

Kezban Hatemi  Lawyer Hatemi: Dink Family Only Seeks Justice, Not ‘Agreement'
Kezban Hatemi, a lawyer representing the Dink family in the trial of the suspects in journalist Hrant Dink's 2007 assassination, has said the only way the Dink family can find consolation is if it sees justice served regarding the case.
”The only thing the Dink family wants is justice, and more specifically to hear the state accept that Hrant's words fall within the scope of freedom of expression and not under Article 301, not a defense by the state saying that Hrant deserved to be murdered,” Hatemi told Today's Zaman for Monday Talk, referring to a controversial official statement submitted to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to defend the prosecution of Dink. There are also signs that the Turkish government is seeking a compromise with the Dink family. ”The best thing for Turkey to do is to withdraw its defense from the ECtHR. There is no other way to get rid of this disgrace. In addition, illegal structures should be disclosed, since Hrant's death accelerated the process of unraveling Ergenekon's makeup,” Hatemi added, referring to the investigation into Ergenekon, a neo-nationalist gang believed to be the extension of a clandestine network of various groups with members in the security forces. Ergenekon stands accused of being behind a number of unsolved murders of journalists, academics, public opinion leaders and writers. The disclosure of the Turkish state's defense statement in Dink's infamous trial for ”insulting Turkishness” has caused embarrassment to the government, which says expanding rights and freedoms is a priority. The official defense, which was presented to the European court in November 2009 and whose content was recently revealed in the media, cited the case of a leader of a neo-Nazi organization in Europe while defending the trial of Dink under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian descent who was shot dead by a teenage assailant in January 2007, had filed a case at the ECtHR seeking the annulment of his conviction for ”insulting Turkishness” under Article 301. Following his assassination, his family filed another complaint at the European court against Turkey, saying that despite the fact that the gendarmerie and police had been informed about threats and murder plans against Dink, they failed to take action to prevent the murder. The two cases were then combined by the ECtHR. Dink's family, friends and human rights organizations complain that light has yet to be shed on the details surrounding his murder, which triggered widespread anger and shock in Turkey. There is a lengthy list of suspicious irregularities in the investigation into Dink's murder, including deleted records and hidden files suggestive of an attempted police cover-up. The Dink family's lawyers have said much of the evidence indicates that the murder could have been prevented. Hatemi answered our questions on recent developments regarding the issue. What was your reaction when you saw the government's defense at the ECtHR regarding Dink? The Foreign Ministry has adopted an attitude that treats Hrant Dink as if he were not a Turkish citizen. Unfortunately, this document shows the undesirable ”red lines” of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. We know how the state acted previously at the ECtHR. Take as an example the headscarf ban case. Such defenses in the European court make us feel that we live in a foreign land in our own country. Even a foreigner would not behave in such a relentless way towards you. I can't find words to describe this defense other than to say that it's disgraceful. First of all, it is a defense that does not befit a state in which the rule of law exists. An appropriate statement should have been along the lines of expressing regret because the state was unable to protect Hrant Dink. And the state should have accepted the case. Who do you think might have prepared this defense? What bureaucrat prepared it should be made public. Also, who ordered this bureaucrat to prepare this defense, this should also be revealed. In short, the defense says that Hrant Dink deserved to be murdered; he got what was coming to him! That's it. It's horrifying that there are bureaucrats who could prepare such a defense in the Foreign Ministry. This defense is neither appropriate for the Foreign Ministry nor for Turkey, which is in the process of democratization. Moreover, this defense presents a conflict to state institutions. How is that? The justice minister said they didn't prepare it and expressed deep regret over the issue. The foreign minister, who signed this defense document before it was sent to the ECtHR, said he was personally very disturbed by the defense being used in court and that it weighed on his soul heavier than many other crises. In addition, this defense puts dynamite under efforts exerted by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been taking positive steps over the past five years to meet the demands of Turkey's minority communities. Another revelation that came with this defense is that there are ultranationalists within the Justice and Development Party [AK Party]. The prime minister said in a speech he gave a few days ago that he has warned his ministers about the possibility of the rug being pulled from underneath them. In that speech, the prime minister for the first time expressed concern that some people within the ministries could not be trusted. What else is very clear here? What else does this defense tell us? This resistance is very much related to Ergenekon. Whatever you call it, the existence of an illegal formation within the state has been accepted by all. But instead of mobilizing the judiciary to eliminate it, excuses are being produced to support its existence. The state's defense at the European court clearly shows that there are illegal and unethical forces, ones that resist change, within the state which use Hrant's case to defy the rule of law. Therefore, it should be made public who wrote this defense. ‘Judiciary the clumsiest institution in democratization process' Now that the court has found Turkey guilty in the Dink case, what options does the government have at this point? Instead of accepting the guilt, the state has reinstated the deep state's arguments in its defense. It's a shame and does not suit a state governed by the rule of law. Turkey should immediately withdraw this defense from the ECtHR. You mentioned the statements of the ministers of justice and foreign affairs. Indeed, the person holding the highest rank in the country, the president, rejected the defense, saying Dink was killed because of the state's failure to protect him. Yes, he did. This defense is almost a carbon copy of the defendants' arguments in the Hrant Dink case. It hurts us and Hrant's family deeply. This defense also obviously hurts the ongoing case here in Turkey. Can the president order the State Audit Institution [DDK] to take up the case to reveal the truth? The Prime Ministry has already done this through a parliamentary investigation commission, but the court ignored its findings despite there being recommendations on who needs to be investigated more. They conducted detailed interviews with family members, lawyers, defendants and witnesses. The commission included names in its report and, as I said, the court ignored that serious report. Some people are obviously being protected. This has been a long-lasting problem of Turkey, especially in the judiciary. But there is nothing to prevent a new investigation on the president's initiative. In the first hearing of the court, I told the judge that the court is responsible for finding the officials who were negligent in their duties and that it should not allow this case to go to the ECtHR. In that sense, I see the [upcoming] referendum [on constitutional amendments] as an opportunity. Is this because one of the articles in the constitutional amendment package will allow individuals to petition the Constitutional Court, thereby leading to a decrease in the number of cases going to the ECtHR? Yes, but the dilemma is which Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court should act within the law in order to evaluate those cases fairly. The foreign minister said an agreement might be reached with the Dink family. What do you think of this idea? The only thing the Dink family wants is justice, and more specifically to hear the state accept that Hrant's words fall within the scope of freedom of expression and not under Article 301, not a defense by the state saying that Hrant deserved to be murdered. The best thing for Turkey to do is to withdraw its defense from the ECtHR. There is no other way to get rid of this disgrace. In addition, illegal structures should be disclosed since Hrant's death accelerated the process of unraveling Ergenekon's makeup. Do you expect any positive changes to the judiciary's point of view after the ECtHR ruling? Unfortunately, the clumsiest institution in the democratization process has been the judiciary. The judiciary should be restructured in line with adopting the principles of universal law and get rid of the ”red lines” of the official ideology. The judiciary should be able to function in line with the rule of law. It should also get rid of its racist and fascist tendencies. ‘Halki Seminary should be opened tomorrow' And the Halki Seminary? It still remains closed. There is nothing to prevent its reopening tomorrow. It would be best to reopen it immediately. When it is opened, Turkey will gain the backing of its 300,000 Orthodox citizens. Do you also tie the issue to the influence of Ergenekon supporters or the deep state over the government? Yes. There is a challenge both against the government and by the government. As a result, every step forward is followed by two steps back with respect to the problem, although the easiest issue to solve in Turkey right now is the opening of the seminary. Every state institution has an element of the deep-state, but the Foreign Ministry is among the worst when it comes to this influence. There are bureaucrats and professors who interpret the demands put forth in the Treaty of Lausanne in a crooked way. Although the treaty talks about parallel obligations, this has been interpreted as ”reciprocity.” This is the mentality. It is not enough that the prime minister desires a solution to the problem. There are nationalist reflexes which turn into ultranationalist reactions within the AK Party as well. These are obstacles in front of a democratic state where the rule of law should reign. *   *   * ‘Deep-state uncomfortable' Another ruling by the ECtHR in June states that the Turkish government should re-register a historic Orthodox orphanage on Bьyьkada to the İstanbul-based Fener Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. What are the developments regarding that issue? In August of last year, the prime minister came together with the religious representatives of minority groups in Turkey to address their demands in a more efficient way. The prime minister ordered his bureaucrats in front of the media to immediately handle the long-lasting issue of property ownership. But the Foreign Ministry was bold enough to tell the prime minister that re-registering the orphanage to the patriarchate carries a ”dangerous potential.” Is this the Foreign Ministry's duty? Is the duty of the Foreign Ministry to prepare a defense for the ECtHR on behalf of the state in the Hrant Dink case? Apparently, there is a need to comb through the bureaucracy to ensure everyone acts in line with their duty and within the limits of the rule of law. And the future of the orphanage's ownership? The ECtHR has ordered that the orphanage be returned to the patriarchate within three months. It is known that the orphanage belongs to the patriarchate. This makes the deep state very uncomfortable, and they put forward several false claims to prove that it does not belong to the patriarchate. The clergy at the patriarchate cannot fully understand the reasons for this and only watch the developments with horror. After the ECtHR ruling, the orphanage will probably be turned into a global environmental center, as the patriarch -- who has been nicknamed the ”green patriarch” -- told the prime minister. But the historic building has been exposed to harsh weather conditions. We expect the state and international organizations to contribute to its restoration.
*   *   * ‘The only thing the Dink family wants is justice, and more specifically to hear the state accept that Hrant's words fall within the scope of freedom of expression and not under Article 301, not a defense by the state saying that Hrant deserved to be murdered. The best thing for Turkey to do is to withdraw its defense from the ECtHR. There is no other way to get rid of this disgrace. In addition, illegal structures should be disclosed since Hrant's death accelerated the process of unraveling Ergenekon's makeup'. *   *   * ‘Even the Constitutional Court did not annul the reform package' What are your views on the constitutional amendment package? If the constitutional amendment package was considered harmful to society, the Constitutional Court -- which looked into the substance despite not being supposed to – would object to it. The most important reason to approve the package is that it would break with the Constitution prepared after the Sept. 12 military coup. But of course the country needs a whole new constitution. The government tried to make a new constitution; the opposition did not allow it, exposing the ruling party to a closure case. So this is the best the government could do under the circumstances. How do you think the non-Muslim minority communities will vote in the upcoming referendum? The minority communities will say ”yes” to the package. They are quite aware of the situation, and they know who respects their rights. *   *   * Kezban Hatemi graduated from İstanbul University's school of law in 1972 and started to practice as an independent attorney registered under the İstanbul Bar Association. In 1995 she joined the Humanity Initiative for Bosnia (Bosna İзin İnsanlık Girişimi) to draw attention to problems in the region. She contributed to efforts to fight against drugs and save street children. Hatemi also works with the Secretariat-General for EU Affairs (ABGS) and the European Commission Turkey Desk on issues of religious freedom and legal issues regarding non-Muslim minorities. She has worked with UNESCO with regard to dialogue among civilizations. She co-authored the report ”The Story of an Alien(ation): Real Estate Ownership Problems of Non-Muslim Foundations and Communities in Turkey,” released in 2009. YONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN   Today's Zaman

 

31 / 08 / 2010