Communism

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad has been elected head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He will become the 16th Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

The International Herald Tribune described him as “an articulate critic of declining moral values in the modern world who has been actively involved in the ecumenical movement and [has] called for the Russian Orthodox Church to step up its outreach in secular society … ” Novosti said the 62-year-old Metropolitan “received 508 votes, and the second candidate, Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk – 169 votes. A total of 700 ballots were cast in the vote, with 23 recognized as invalid.” He is expected to be enthroned on Sunday and his term of office is lifelong.

The Moscow Times highlighted Metropolitan Kirill’s ecumenical work, noting that he is “an experienced diplomat who has been the church’s point man in often-difficult negotiations with other churches, prompting speculation that he might take steps to improve ties with the Roman Catholic Church, which have been fraught with rivalry for years.” The paper said Kirill seemed to dampen such hopes in an address just before Tuesday’s vote, complaining about Catholic and other missionaries working in Russia.

“We have noted with bitterness that members of the Catholic clergy and monastic orders are among the newly formed enlighteners of Rus,” he said, Interfax reported.

Kirill also criticized “the assault of aggressive Western secularism against Christianity” and “attempts by some Protestant groups to revise the teachings of Christianity and evangelical morality.”

The Times of London said the Metropolitan he has been “tainted by allegations” that he was a KGB agent, codenamed Mikhailov, under the Communist regime. “He became known as the ‘Tobacco Metropolitan’ in the mid1990s when he was embroiled in a scandal over the import and sale of billions of duty-free cigarettes to raise funds for humanitarian aid. Kirill is a charismatic and popular figure in Russia, with a wide following as the presenter of a weekly television programme on religious affairs. He is regarded as a moderniser and the Church’s most able diplomat, having led its powerful department for external relations since 1989.”

Vladimir Berezansky, Jr., a U.S. lawyer with experience in Russia and former Soviet republics, recalls an interview with Patriarch Alexy II in 1991. Like many Russians at the time, the Patriarch was coping with a “disorienting change” following the fall of the Soviet Empire, Berezansky writes.

At the time, he seemed overcome by the changes taking place around him, and he did not know where to begin.

“For our entire lives, we [clerics] were pariahs, and now we are being called on to do everything: chaplains for the military, ministries to hospitals, orphanages, prisons,” he said.

He even voiced regret about taking the time to travel to the United States. But he had gambled — correctly, as it turned out — that he could do more for his flock by seeking foreign assistance than by staying home to manage the Russian Orthodox Church’s destitution. His plate was full and overflowing, and he seemed keenly aware of the ironies of his situation. The Russian state was returning desecrated, gutted, largely useless ecclesiastical structures to the Orthodox church — a gesture at once desperate, empty and to some degree remorseful.

Berezansky then points to the Patriarch’s rapid rise through the Church hierarchy:

During and after the chaos of World War II, he probably could have emigrated and been numbered among the millions of so-called “Second Wave” exiles from Soviet Russia. But he chose to remain and to serve his church and people in circumstances that could not fail to compromise his own reputation.

“Our choices were cooperation or annihilation,” he told me in 1991.

And like so many other religious and cultural leaders of his generation, he repeatedly expressed regret and remorse for having accepted that Faustian bargain. Even today we continue to learn of the choices of conscience made by the famous names of that generation, including Nobel-winning German writer Günter Grass and Czech novelist Milan Kundera.

Patriarch Alexy’s legacy will undoubtedly include two elements that have been assessed negatively, and one major — indeed, overarching — achievement. In inter-church relations, his refusal to meet Pope John Paul II or his successor, Benedict XVI, was seen as churlish. Whether welcome or not, the patriarch’s position was that specific issues of contention between the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches needed to be ameliorated before any “photo op” could take place. But he consistently referred to Roman Catholicism as a “sister” church.

Read “A Transitional Patriarch” on the Moscow Times site.

Robert Moynihan, writing for Inside the Vatican, has a moving report on the world premiere of a “Requiem Concert” in Russia’s largest church, Christ the Savior, in a commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the execution of Czar Nicholas II and his family on the night of July 17, 1918.

The historical texts and music were by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna, Austria, head of the Russian Church representation to the European Institutions. Alfeyev also participated in the performance, reading Scriptural passages in which the sufferings of Christ seemed to foreshadow the sufferings of Christians in communist Russia. In the article “Requiem for the Romanovs,” Moynihan wrote:

No one can contemplate the bloody murder of four lovely, educated, refined, innocent girls, and their young brother, without a shudder. This sense of horror is multiplied by the sense that the children in some way represented the nation itself. The czar “incarnated” the “essence” of the Russian nation, according to the monarchical thinking of the age, and his children were thus the “future” of the nation. To see them live so vibrantly, and then see their lives snuffed out so brutally, would bring a tear to many Russian, and non-Russian, eyes, and did.

Sound, sight, and moments of silence tonight combined to create a sense of being transported back in time, back to the World War I period, of being “eyewitnesses” to acts of terrific brutality and terrible barbarism. (There were moments in the film footage showing the actual execution of prisoners by pistol shots to the head.)

So this was not simply a musical performance, but a multi-media “tour de force.”

Moynihan says that “in this performance … the Russian Orthodox Church sets forth a powerful, emotionally compelling case for public recognition on Russia of the crimes of the Soviet period.” He quotes a Russian priest, Fr. Vladimir Soloviev:

Russia stands at a crossroads. We are struggling to decide what our national attitude will be toward our communist past. For example, there are some who argue that we should remove Lenin’s body from his mausoleum beneath Red Square, at the center of Russia, and re-name those streets and subway stations in our cities which commemorate communist leaders.

I personally think we should do this. We cannot fully celebrate our great national festivals on Red Square as long as Lenin’s mausoleum stays in Red Square. Let it stay anywhere else, but not in Red Square.

Earlier this month, Fr. Georgy Ryabykh, the acting secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, said Russian authorities should denounce the communist regime, both in word and practice. “For some reason, we are avoiding to give a clear moral estimation of this evil act. But this estimation is needed and should be voiced in public actions and statements. Denouncement of this crime and recognizing the feat committed by the Tsar family would resist any revolutionary intentions in the national mind,” the priest said.