www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Who Needs the Church?

It seems we have a veritable Peter the Great pontificating about the virtues of Western religious 'mishmash' pluralism. (The presence of the Eastern Catholics in Russia is another matter altogether)

If there's anything Russia and the remnants of the bloc need now, given their decrepid states and this time of post communist chaos, it's the restoration of their monarchies and the revival of the Orthodox Churches there without tolerance in these correctly termed Orthodox countries to religious openness or presence of any kind (with the exception of Catholics, and the religions traditionally present in those countries). It is this kind of sanctimonious pigswill from the "separation of church and state" crowd that is causing problems in countries like Ethiopia (with its Prot invasion and Rastafarian cancer), Russia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and other places thanks to the marvels of social engineering. It is a country's historical identity that keeps it existing in something other than its name. To break away from that makes the nation that still holds on to its name a facade or comical redicule of its identity, what made it, and what characterized it.

Sorry for the strong tone, but this kind of thing infuriates me. We had some bozos in the Lebanese government, the nefarious modern State being the tool that seems to always be adept at destroying a country, try to introduce civil marriage to destroy "at'taifiyeh" or sectarianism. I am sick of these secular leftists decimating these countries while in their death throes. It resembles abortion to me--these countries are trying to undergo a rebirth and emerge again out of war, communism, or what have you, but others would gladly beat their brains out and install their godless order and establish it on the remains and skeletons of dead countries.

Give me one generation, as the bastard Lenin said. Well, in those countries where it is still not impossible to resurrect what once was, a little more deterrance and a little more time as a new generation with nothing to identify with but Western anti-culture matures, will render any hope of restoration null.

In IC XC
Samer
__________________________________________________

[Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2002. Page 15

Who Needs the Church?

By Boris Kagarlitsky

The children were in a state of excitement. The teachers at their
kindergarten had just told them that the next day a priest would pay
them a visit and they would get to kiss the cross. For the children,
it was a bit of fun -- something akin to Ded Moroz's New Year's visit.

I, however, did not share the children's enthusiasm. I don't have
anything against religious education as such, but it should to be
done with parental consent.


Having called the director of the kindergarten, I discovered that
parental consent was required but only for kissing the cross, i.e.
all the children were to listen to the priest, and then part of the
group would be dispatched to kiss the cross and the rest would sit
and watch.

But why should the children have to listen to the priest's sermon at
all? After all, the church is supposed to be separate from the state.

The director countered that children ought to have some knowlege of
religion. The argument makes sense, but why only an Orthodox priest?
Why not, in that case, invite a mullah, a rabbi, a shaman even? We
live in an Orthodox country, was the firm answer I was given and that
was the end of the discussion.

The idea that we live in an "Orthodox country" has been repeated so
many times that it is lodged in our consciousness. Few stop to
consider that it fundamentally contradicts the constitution.

Indeed, the Orthodox Church has, with the authorities' nod,
effectively conferred upon itself the right to make official
pronouncements regarding the "spiritual tutelage of the nation."

In 1993, during the standoff between President Boris Yeltsn and the
Supreme Soviet, the patriarch promised to put a curse on anyone who
intiated bloodshed. Yeltsin bombarded the Supreme Soviet but this in
no way cast a shadow on his relations with the patriarch. When
Yeltsin transferred his presidential powers to Vladimir Putin, he
asked the patriarch to give his blessing.

The church hierarchy also blessed the army when it was sent down to
Chechnya and couldn't find a single word of censure regarding human
rights violations that were being perpetrated there. Individual
priests did protest but they were dissident voices, so to speak.

Within the Orthodox Church there is not a single faction that is
critical of the status quo. In the Catholic Church, for example,
different political views are represented, from the progressive
liberals of the Communione e Liberazione, to the far-left Liberation
Theologians. The Orthodox hierarchy over the centuries has developed
an organization which allows it to effectively silence critical
thinking within. And it is little interested in the democratization
of society.

On holidays, state officials line up at the altar en masse, awkwardly
cross themselves, etc., although to all appearances they have
absolutely no intention of actually atoning for their sins.

Bandits exhibit even greater religious fervor and their donations
have become an important source of income for many church
communities. However, I have yet to hear of a case where religious
zeal made a bandit turn to the straight and narrow.

The church does not seem to remonstrate with its criminal
parishioners or refuse money from dubious sources. Thus, criminals
acquire a reputation for being good citizens and the church gets
funds that are needed for rebuilding churches that fell into
disrepair during Soviet rule.

Money earned by numerous commercial companies set up under the aegis
of the church may also have been spent to this end. In the 1990s all
sorts of tax and customs breaks were granted, as a result of which
businessmen linked to the Orthodox Church became leaders in importing
tobacco and alcohol into the country.

At the end of the 1990s, this topic cropped up in the press on a
number of occasions but failed to provoke controversy either in the
upper echelons of the church or among the flock. This says more about
how people view the Orthodox Church than any opinion surveys.

In countries where society is deeply religious and the church enjoys
genuine authority, any reports of corruption in church circles
elicits shocked reactions.

Here, on the contrary, such reports elicit little interest at all.
When the Orthodox Church criticized the television show "Za Steklom,"
it had absolutely no impact on the program's rating. Believers do not
have much need of the church in order to find the true path to God.

The authorities, on the other hand, do need the church in order to
resolve their own problems of an entirely earthly nature.


Boris Kagarlitsky is a sociologist based in Moscow.]

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: SamB ]

Dear Friend,

As a sociologist myself, I would have to agree with . . . you.

One thing Boris fails to note is the extent to which atheism became, quite literally, the religion of the Soviet Union in its heyday.

And I mean that literally. Lenin, Marx and others became icons, replete with visits to the "relics" of Lenin.

Ritual acts abounded, including mandatory yearly participation in an actual panakhyda for Fr. Kostelnyk, a Ukrainian Catholic priest apparently forced into initiating the Synod of 1946 and then soon after assassinated, as the soviet press reported, by a "Greek Catholic fanatic" (with KGB credentials).

Borissyo also fails to mention the great sociological impact of religion within a formally atheist society under communism.

Distant, secondary relationships dominated the social scene, but it was in the Church where people had an opportunity to get close with one another and even experienced an intimacy that was absent from their wider society.

It is true that the current Russian government is using the Church to bless its initiatives. All governments do that, including the U.S. government.

As for blessing the soldiers going to Chechnya, St Nicholas Kassatkin blessed the Japanese soldiers going to battle his own nation, for which he received a high civil medal from Tsar Nicholas Romanov himself.

Perhaps the Orthodox Church of Russia is reticent about criticizing the government.

A sociologist worth his "sil" should take into consideration the fact that such a Church might be a little bit afraid of a government that has just recently given its freedom back after 70 years of nastiness . . .

But the Orthodox Church does defend its own people and gives them words of hope when they need them the most.

The Churches are full, people have returned to the sacraments and more are doing so each and every year.

People like Borissyo don't like that because it irks their agnostic flesh.

They also don't like that because Orthodoxy and monarchism, as you correctly state, go hand in hand - why I truthfully don't know, but I'm not complaining .

American models of democracy and free speech don't necessarily work everywhere.

Slavs like good, strong leadership that has historically been given them by the Tsars. The current situation in Russia is such that a good figure-head, like a Tsar, wouldn't be all bad just now.

History is something that everyone remembers and is nostalgic about, whether or not it was as one thinks it was.

Tsars and Patriarchs recall that history. Sociologically, it makes great sense that they play an increasingly greater role in a society that was shaped by them initially and needs the memory of "days gone by" to stir up hope that things can be as they once were, prior to communism.

I wouldn't listen to sociologists, if I were you . . . woops! Enough said . . .

Alex

Without a doubt, the current Russian regime fails at the following standards:

The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others.

The right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community.

The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.

The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government. Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.

If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

Remember that one can be a Chrisitian and not be a monarchist. Indeed, one can be quite a political conservative and not be a monarchist-or a monarchist who wishes that there be no arbitraty abuses of power i.e. Edmund Burke.

Cheers,

Michael

I'd be in favour of monarchism if I was the monarch.

Actually, I'd like to see the Maharajahs in India come back as more than just cultural ornaments myself...

I guess it just depends on where I am-here I probably come off as more republican, but in other places definately not.

MK

Sorry for that outburst.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

Dear Michael,

It's O.K. . . .

God bless America and all your colleagues in the Grand Republic!

Alex

Dear Michael,

As Alex said, that's ok. I'm sorry if my remarks crossed you the wrong way. Politics are the bread and butter of Easterners, at least where I come from, and our passions run very high. Our fortress mentality, as unpleasant as it may be, is understandable given the situations in many of our countries. Our understanding of patriotism and love of country is not the concept as understood in the West, Europe, or by Americans. I believe ours is much greater and profound by far because it rests on history, ethnicity, blood, and very importantly, a history of persecution. Our allegiance is not owed to states (the concept of citizenship is absolute 'balderdash' at least in my view), it's owed to the land that our ancestors have lived on for centuries and our traditions. We do not tolerate the dismantling of our cultures by what we perceive to be a Western cultural insurgence and the imposition of its political dogmas upon us.

Along with Alex, my salutations are extended to all of you across the border. If you need any arms for all the Johnny rebels in the Confederate South fighting to secede, I'll give you folks the best discount, and free araq.

Again, my apologies. What I submitted was a political and cultural (not quite cultured in expressions, but nontheless.....) opinion. It does not represent the entire Eastern Catholic sentiment.

In IC XC
Samer

Dear Samer and Michael,

Not to be too, too off topic but . . . what are y'all doin' for Mardi Gras?

Can Catholics celebrate Mardi Gras in a non-sinful way?

Is that even possible? And, if so, would one want to try?

Just luv those beads and all that other stuff!

I'm wearing a pair right now as I'm writing to you. Another pair is draped over my table light.

FYI, in the French Quarter of New Orleans there is an old bank that continued to print French ten dollar notes even after the Louisiana Purchase.

Of course, the word "Dix" was in the corner or French for "ten."

A number of Americans didn't know what this "Dix" was and soon they started to call Louisiana "the land of Dixie."

And this is the origin of the song, "I wish I were in Dixie . . ."

When General Robert E. Lee had this song sung to him durin' the Civil War (nothing "civil" about it), he remarked that, as a Southerner, he had never heard the song before, and didn't know what it was all about!

Anytime you need some useless information, you know where to come callin', y'hear?

Alex

Alex, your bite sized chunks of 'useless information' should be patented, wrapped in chocolate, and shipped to retailers worldwide. For Valentine's, try Alexi's Kisses, delicious chocolaty tidbits of pocketed Ukranian wisdom laced with a hint of garlic--of course you can follow the example of Robert Campeau and buy up Hershey's. Just make sure he doesn't decide to relive the 80's and go on an acquisition spree after you.

How interesting for you to mention Mardi Gras and the Lousiana Purchase in one breath. The folks in Lousiana let loose with such spirit all year long, "...with a few days off for Lent", of course.

http://archive.showmenews.com/2002/Feb/20020202Comm003.asp

In IC XC
Samer

Dear Samer,

Yes, I had the grace, er, I mean privilege, to be in New Orleans TWICE last year, before and after Mardi Gras.

There was no real difference, it was as if Mardi Gras didn't go away. As well it didn't . . .

I gave my wife a special St Valentine's Day kiss just when we first met.

She had lots of boyfriends.

I wanted to be a "head above the rest."

So I sent her some rather expensive Valentine's Day chocolates (no garlic, I didn't want it to be a dead giveaway).

Well, she started phoning up all her "acquaintances" to see who did it. I was, truth be told, last on her list.

She just called me, already red-faced from all the calls she had made, and thanked me for the wonderful box of Valentine's Day chocolates.

I simply said, "You're welcome."

She never mentioned the fact that the box was delivered without an inkling as to who sent it.

We went on from there. But St Valentine's Day was the beginning of a wonderful friendship.

She's still my best friend, in addition to being my wife.

Sniff . . .

Alex

Alex, you bring up Mardi Gras beads...I meant to tell you that one of my friends got me some beads from there, complete with a clown on it as a sort of pendant. The clown holds a scroll saying "Mardi Gras Forever!"

Since some time ago you gave me jurisdiction over New Orleans, I'm gonna wear it next week as a pectoral cross of sorts...

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, I'm glad you brought that matter up!

Next week is your canonical patronal day and I would like to wish you "Many Years!"

Remember to wear your hierarchical colours, purple, gold and green.

You can renew your episcopal vows, again by kissing your mouse three times and kneeling before the screen as you pledge yourself to service.

But the "indulgence" of having a good time on the "Glorious 12th" of February will suffice and I hereby grant it to you directly.

Alex

The song in question was written up north during the 1850s. In Ohio, I think, as part of a musical production. It was not well known in the South until the war was underway.

But, it was one of Abraham Lincoln's favorites. Mr.Lincoln requested that it be played on several occasions, most notably upon his travel to Richmond the week before he was murdered.

Another historic note: Gen. Lee surrendered on Palm Sunday, and President Lincoln was shot on Great Friday.

Have a Blessed Day

John

Pilgrim and Odd Duck