Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Media review: Patriarch Kirill's interview to Rossiya 1 TV

Expand Messages
  • Bill Samsonoff
    http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=9841 11 September 2012, 17:30 */Media review/: Patriarch Kirill s interview to /Rossiya 1/ TV* *- Your Holiness,
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      11 September 2012, 17:30

      */Media review/: Patriarch Kirill's interview to /Rossiya 1/ TV*

      *- Your Holiness, the Church has encountered a real aggression. In my
      view, it is a manifestation of a broader phenomenon - anomie. Anomie is
      a term introduced by French philosopher and founder of sociology Emile
      Durkheim back in the century before the last. It is a value vacuum, an
      absence of supporting points. Don't you see that our society is standing
      on the verge of this development or has already been plunged in this state?*

      - To say in a few words what happened and still happens with regard to
      aggression against the Church, it is not an accidental development, of
      course. I cannot help thinking that it is a certain exploratory attack
      to see how deep is still people's faith and commitment to Orthodoxy in
      Russia. Indeed, many have long buried the ability of our people, at
      least most of the people, to show self-organization, to protect certain
      values, to defend their stance. I will not cite offensive statements
      made in reference to our people by some persons who claim to be a
      creative class, but it is a scornful view from above. Now the time has
      probably come for it, especially after all of you saw what happened when
      the Sash of the Mother of God was brought to Russia. We all remember
      indeed the reaction to it by millions of people who came to the church.
      The time must have come to check whether our people are really committed
      to the faith. Are they capable of defending it? Are they capable of
      defending anything at all? So, these provocations have happened for
      precisely this purpose.

      Today, I think, all those who organized these provocations have seen for
      themselves that before them is not a faceless mass of a placid and
      amorphous majority but a people who are capable of defending what they
      hold sacred.

      *- But this is aggression not only against the Church. It is aggression
      against any values whatsoever. The Church is not a value for them.
      Victims of the NKVD are not a value. Human life is not a value. History
      is not a value. As a matter of fact, it is an anti-value protest. And
      this is not merely a matter of regret and indignation but it has
      depressed some and infuriated others...*

      - Quite right! But furthermore, it is aggression against our cultural
      core, against our civilization code. The notion of things sacred has
      always been central to the life of the people. Hence the notion of Holy
      Rus' came, not because we had many churches but because sacredness and
      the notion of things sacred was the dominant of life. It is to this
      core, this dominant, that the blow has been delivered.

      At the same time, you are right. The point is a challenge to the value
      dimension of life. You yourself have remembered Durkheim, but he gave
      much attention to the moral state of society. He said that morality is
      both a compulsory minimum and a strict necessity. It is a certain bread
      of life for society, without which society will disintegrate, and he was
      quite right. It cannot be believed - though many insist on it, denying
      the importance of the moral dimension in public relations - that the
      most important thing is law, that it is law that holds people together
      in a community. But what stands behind law? - The threat of punishment.
      We are all together because if we break the standards of communal life,
      we will be punished. But morality is an inner motive of communal life.
      It is a spiritual bond that ties people together. It is really a
      fundamental notion of value without which a human community disintegrates.

      And I would like to say this at this point. Those who reject God
      altogether believe that morality is an attendant thing, a cultural
      phenomenon. Culture changes and with it changes the context in which
      people live; morality changes. But actually it is not so. Look, today
      all the resources seem to have been used to shake the moral foundations
      of the people's life but they have failed. Look what the statistics
      says, with various sociological organizations stating: an absolute
      majority of our people do not accept blasphemy. A portion of those who
      approve of blasphemy constitutes a sociological error. An absolute
      majority of our people stand for law which would restrict the spread of
      sin. What does it imply? It implies that the moral feeling is alive in

      *- Your Holiness, among the points of the aggression is an accusation of
      interpenetration between church and state. How do you respond to such

      - We respond with a single word - it is a myth. A myth created
      deliberately. Indeed, the Church has to be attacked from some
      ideological position and this ideological position has to be created.
      Today a myth is being created about the interpenetration, about the
      clericalization of our life. What for? - For the purpose of showing that
      through this interpenetration the Church claims to control your
      consciousness, your will. It is a certain pseudo-ideology, which is
      coming to replace the communist ideology. And the conclusion is made
      from this: the Church is dangerous from the point of view of freedom;
      she is going to enslave your consciousness.

      Now let us move to 'a blamestorming'. So, the interpenetration, they
      say. But there is the Russian Church's Social Concept. Journalists,
      before spreading this myth, could have merely taken this small book and
      looked what it says about church-state relations. The Church safeguards
      her autonomy. The Church believes that only a free Church can make a
      spiritual influence on people, that any interpenetration, any
      clericalization is utterly dangerous for preaching. We already went
      through all this in the pre-revolutionary time. So, there is not a
      single document or a statement or a word of the Patriarch to lead to the
      conclusion about interpenetration.

      Where has it all come from? - From this: for the last twenty years this
      very Church, which has been accused of passivity and inability to carry
      out mission in the modern world, has achieved very considerable results
      in enlightening our people. Our people are becoming Orthodox. Today we
      see before us in churches, purely visually during Easter service and on
      major feasts, a different people. These are middle-age people, men and
      women, people with children, young people - these are children and
      elderly people; they are our people.

      So, let us say how a believing politician, a member of the Orthodox
      Church, should behave when he enters into dialogue with the Church. Is
      he supposed to distance himself from his beliefs in all possible ways?
      He speaks with the Church as a son of the Church. He enters into
      benevolent dialogue with the Church. Why should we make a conclusion
      about interpenetration from a single fact that the president or prime
      minister worship together with the Patriarch one or twice a year? And
      why should we deprive these people, who are believers, of the right to
      worship, including together with their Patriarch? And this picture alone
      excites unhealthy feelings in those who do not wish to see the
      strengthening of the Church in our society.

      Another picture presented by our opponents to prove the alleged
      interpenetration is the Patriarch at the submarine base at Vilyuchinsk.
      And what of it? Why no conclusions about the interpenetration of Church
      and American state are made when we are shown chaplains in Afghanistan?
      Why no question about interpenetration arises when chaplains work on
      professional basis in active forces of almost all the European
      countries? The Patriarch came on the invitation of marines in order to
      thank them. He came to his flock because most of the marines are
      believers. What sort of interpenetration is it? It is, if you like, a
      pastoral and missionary visit. And they show the picture to people and
      say, 'Look, what a great interpenetration it is'.

      Here is a substitution of notions. It is not interpenetration but
      Christianization of our society that scares our opponents. This is where
      the horns grow from, as they say. It is the fear that Orthodoxy, which
      was almost destroyed in the Soviet time, during the 20 years has managed
      to come back to the life of its people. Not as much as we wish, of
      course, but all this noise may be raised precisely to stop us. I would
      like to say: it will fail.

      *- Late this summer there was your visit to Poland. To what extent has
      it managed to heal the wounds we have inherited from distant history? *

      - First, about the past and the present. Perhaps, there are no other two
      European nations over whom the past would hang so much and who would so
      consciously put salt on the wounds inflicted in the past, poisoning the
      present relations. We know that each side is keeping a thorough record
      of all the transgressions committed by the other side, each trying to
      strike a balance, the remainder being plus for one side while minus for
      the other, that is to say, 'the other side caused me more suffering then
      I did to it'. And I am not sure this approach may be changed however
      much scholars may study the history. What does it mean? Does it mean
      that we should put salt on these historical wounds for ever and ever?
      Should we continuously re-open them? But perhaps we should find some new
      approach to all that happened and happens in our relations? Indeed, the
      two nations have lived together in history. God has willed us to always
      live together. Can't we as neighbours and people who share Christian
      values build a different foundation for our relations?

      So an idea occurred that it should be said to historians should, 'Take
      all the historical problems with you, whereas we wish to open a new page
      in our relations'. But there must be some act of reconciliation. In
      dialogue with the Catholic Church in Poland, which lasted for three
      years, we have agreed that the word 'forgive' will be the key one in
      this act of reconciliation. We ask each other's forgiveness as Christian
      communities, as Christian nations, thus doing the will of our Saviour
      Himself. We wish to show in our bilateral relations our faithfulness to
      Christ, our commitment to the gospel's values, for we ask each other's
      forgiveness in the name of this commitment to the gospels' values.

      And what do you think? When I came to Poland I was struck by the
      enthusiasm with which the Polish people responded to the Joint Message
      of the two Churches to the nations of Russia and Poland. Of course,
      there is always an opposition but in this case it was microscopic. The
      Message was signed by me and Metropolitan Jozef Michalik, president of
      the Conference of Catholic Bishops in Poland, in a symbolical place -
      the royal palace. It is my deep conviction that ideological and
      psychological prerequisites have been created today for turning the
      grave page on which mutual accusations from the past are written so that
      a new page may be open in relations between the two Christian nations
      which face the same challenges brought about by the disruption of
      Christian culture in Europe and the rejection of Christian moral values
      clearly stated in this Message. We have the same stand, defending the
      very morality which we discussed in the context of the words said by the
      far-seeing founder of the sociology.

      *- Your Holiness, November the 4th will mark the 400th anniversary of
      the banishment of Poles from Moscow. It is a national holiday in Russia,
      and it will be widely celebrated. Can you imagine the text of
      congratulations to come from Warsaw?*

      - I can. Now I can because I can also imagine what kind of text will go
      from Moscow to Warsaw on the occasion of the independence and
      territorial integrity of Poland. The point is that if psychological
      problems are lifted, if people come to the state of reconciliation with
      each other, than all these actions are quite possible. I would like to
      draw your attention however to this circumstance: the celebration
      devoted to the victory of the Russian arms does not mean a triumph over
      the adversary. We celebrate our victory, not their defeat, not their
      military failure because a real warrior always holds a worthy opponent
      in respect. Similarly, the celebrations to mark the 400th anniversary of
      our victory and the end of the Time of Troubles do not imply an
      disrespectful attitude to the other side, and I would like to say once
      again: it is in no way involves a triumph over their failures.

      *- Your Holiness, thank you!*

      /September 9, 2012/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.