On
4 September 2012, in anticipation of his primatial
visit to Japan, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of
Moscow and All Russia gave an interview to
correspondents of Japan’s major mass
media:
—NHK: This year marks the centenary of the
demise of St. Nicholas of Japan. What are the aims of Your
Holiness’s visit to Japan? How do you, Your
Holiness, assess the life of St. Nicholas of Japan? Do you
think there are any characteristics of today in his life
and what is their meaning, if there are any? Russia and
Japan, unfortunately, have not yet signed a peace treaty.
On the other hand, President Vladimir Putin has great
hopes for the development of Russian-Japanese relations.
Your Holiness, in your opinion, what are the prospects for
Russian-Japanese relations?
—I will begin with the end and state that I am
confident that there are very good prospects for the
bilateral relations. We are neighbours, we live side by
side, many things tie us together, and one of them is the
Orthodox Church. One hundred fifty years ago St. Nicholas
came to Hokkaido to begin his remarkable mission which led
to the establishment of the Japanese Orthodox Church.
I would like to note that at that time relations between
Japan and Russia were rather difficult.
Archbishop
Nicholas’s service fell upon the hard years of the
Russo-Japanese War. It seemed it could not be worse as the
two countries were in a state of war. It was not a paper
war, for they shot at each other. Archbishop Nicholas,
when in Japan, joined the life of the Japanese people.
Nobody saw him as representative of a hostile power. He
was a real ambassador, not just an ambassador of peace but
a real ambassador who showed respect and love for the
Japanese people despite the grave and even very dangerous
political context.
This shows that religious relations between nations have a
great potential. Politicians act in terms of political
pragmatism. Economists and businessmen are guided by the
considerations of gain and profit, while relations on the
religious and cultural level concern human hearts. These
relations are realized on the level of the human heart,
and that is why a real reconciliation between nations can
be ensured only with the active participation of religion.
I attach a great importance to my visit. First, because it
will give me an opportunity to pray together with the
Japanese Orthodox people, to remember a remarkable man, a
saint who dedicated his entire life to Japan, who
identified himself with the Japanese people, who brought
the Orthodox faith to the Japanese people.
In addition, the visit will give me an opportunity to
visit the places which, for us in Russia, are associated
with the life of Archbishop Nicholas. My trip will begin
with Hakodate – I will come to Hokkaido and traverse
Archbishop Nicholas’s path.
I plan to come to Sendai, where the Japanese people took
the blow of the water element. You know that several
Orthodox churches were destroyed. Sendai is the center of
the Eastern Japanese Diocese of the Orthodox Church in
Japan, and I would like once again to express my support
for the Japanese people, to pray together with people,
commemorate the victims and to support those who lost
their relatives and loved ones.
I suppose I will meet with officials in Hokkaido and
Sendai but I also expect to have a meeting with His
Majesty the Emperor of Japan. In 2000, my predecessor had
a meeting with the Emperor of Japan, and that meeting met
with a very positive response around the world, especially
in Russia. I would like to meet this remarkable man who
makes such a great contribution to the establishment of
friendly relations between our two nations.
– In Russia, just as in Japan, the
Constitution separates the Church from the state. At the
same time, obviously the Russian Orthodox Church makes a
considerable influence of the policy of President Vladimir
Putin. Under the Russian Empire, the Church was an
official religion. Later, under the USSR, she experienced
persecution by the atheistic state. With such a
complicated history behind her, how does the Russian
Orthodox Church define her relations with the state at
present? What, in the Church’s opinion, is the
political and social responsibility of the Church as the
largest religious community in Russia?
—The Russian Orthodox Church has a very dramatic
history. Before the 1917 Revolution, under the Empire, she
was included, contrary to her will and actually by force,
in the state apparatus and became its part. The emperor
was the head of the Church, and all the decisions made on
behalf of the Church, were actually made by the state
power. The status of the Church as official, with the
active participation of the state in the church
governance, inflicted a great damage on her. In some
sense, the very fact of the Revolution can be linked with
the fact that at that time the Church had no opportunity
for free communication with her people, for speaking the
truth about the political and economic situation, for
offering people the words of reconciliation and support,
for it was forbidden. It was the tsar who spoke on behalf
of the Church.
After the 1917 Revolution, the Church was almost
eliminated. Scores of thousands of priests, bishops, monks
and nuns and hundreds of thousands of the faithful were
subjected to repression and most of them were shot to
death. Their only guilt was that they did not conform to
the ideological standards established by the state. They
were ideologically hostile to the regime. No religious
community in the world experienced such suffering, as it
was actually genocide, the elimination of Orthodox people
in Russia, in the former Soviet Union.
When Russia, just as Ukraine, Belarus and other countries,
became a free country, we realized that the time came to
build a correct pattern for relations between church and
state. We were well aware that there must be no
interpenetration of the Church and the state or government
ownership of the Church because if the Church loses the
freedom of decision-making, her influence on the life of
society will decrease. We elaborated the basics of
church-state relations which presuppose their autonomy and
mutual non-interference into each other’s affairs.
We as a Church are free to speak for ourselves regardless
of the stand taken by the state. We have similar opinions
on many issues but there are problems on which our
opinions do not fully coincide and sometime do not
coincide at all. Thus, recently I have requested to
introduce into the legislation a number of provisions
concerning the protection of the family and childhood and
concerning abortion, and my requests were not fully heard.
Therefore, when they say that the Church in Russia has
very close relations with the state, they tell a lie;
these relations do not exist.
And what does exist? – Cooperation on a number of
problems both on the federal and local level. We maintain
cooperation in the task of restoration of cultural
monuments, moral education of the younger generation, and
we cooperate in the field of culture. Our cooperation in
the social sphere is especially important today. We also
cooperate in the work with youth, that is, in the areas
which the Church deems possible for inclusion in the
sphere of church-state relations.
We do not set as our task to influence the policy of
statesmen. However, we address ourselves to the people
including the authorities, with our preaching. We bring
certain values to our people, first of all, moral values,
of course. And we insist that the moral principle should
lie in the basis of any policy. A policy without the moral
principle is not beneficial to either those who pursue it
or those who are subject to it. Therefore, if we speak of
the Church’s influence on political life, it is
moral, not political influence.
In its time when the Soviet Union collapsed, there were
many proposals for us to enter politics. At that time, our
society was searching for an alternative to the communist
party, but there was no alternative because there were no
other parties. The Church was asked to take part in
politics, to send her representatives to the parliaments.
Moreover, there were even suggestions that she should
nominate her own candidate for presidency. We rejected all
these proposals, though we were often criticized for it
and accused of abandoning our own people at a difficult
time in history and failing to assume political
responsibility. But we stated that we could not assume any
political responsibility because of our beliefs.
The Church is not a political organization. On the other
hand however, by making moral influence on social and
personal relations, the Church makes an indirect impact on
politics. I think she also influences the social life, and
in some sense she makes an influence on the way the
business should be conducted. There are moral rules for
business elaborated by the Church and we actively
propagate them because we believe that business should be
based on moral principles: in carrying out economic
activity, it is inadmissible to multiply lies or commit
crimes. In other words, the Church does relate to all the
spheres of public life but this relation is not pragmatic.
She does not set it as her aim to obtain some privileges
or to broaden her influence, she rather seeks to bring to
people the word of Christian truth based on the Gospel.
This is our stand.
Our ill-wishers often tell fairy tales – the tales
assimilated in the whole world, as clichés tend to
be easily assimilated indeed. But one should not think by
clichés. Here is a cliché offered to you:
the Church in Russia has merged with the state. So people
tend to repeat: ‘You know, the Church has merged
with the state’, or ‘The Church influences
Putin’. Perhaps the Church influences a person from
the Christian point of view. I do not know because I have
never measured the extent of this influence. God willing,
we want to influence everybody – both statesmen and
ordinary people, so that the moral principle the Church
preaches may be assimilated by the consciousness of our
people.
– Owing to the informatization of the
post-industrial society, the unification of the society is
developing. Social networks are spreading on the basis of
the Internet as citizens seek to become a source of
information. On the other hand, in the global information
society, America, using her power in computer programs,
seeks to broaden her influence to the whole world.
Traditional values systems have encountered a new trial
called ‘the arrival of the information
society’. They have encountered a relativity of the
value system when the distinction between evil and good is
obliterated. How is the Russian Orthodox Church going to
oppose the arrival of the post-industrial information
society? What will be Russian national values in the
information society and will they be able to
survive?
—In speaking about what happens today in the
information space, the principal, may be, danger to the
human personality should be noted, which lies in the loss
of the ability to distinguish between good and evil. What
is going on today has not fallen on us in the last years.
It has been prepared by the social development during, at
least, 200-300 years. But in the 20th century we saw the
development of a notion described by philosophers as
post-modernism. Post-modernism is rejection of the
objective truth. Post-modernism has transferred
responsibility onto the individual. In this approach, it
is the individual that is the beginning and the end in the
effort to elaborate a criterion for distinguishing between
good and evil. The individual himself and nobody else is
believed to define what is right and what is wrong; each
has his own understanding of good and evil. There is
neither objective notion of good, nor objective notion of
morality.
Why have I cited this approach? Because it has led to the
situation where traditional relations, for instance in the
family, are destroyed. Today people treat divorce with
ease. It is believed to be something quite normal. There
is propagation of homosexual relations placed on the same
level as traditional family relations. In general, the
notion of moral purity, moral decency has been lost.
Especially great damage has been done by the so-called
sexual revolution of the 60s, and we see now the
consequences of this ‘revolution’ in the
consciousness of the younger generation.
We are facing a tragedy of the destruction of moral
foundations of society. The society today unites people on
the basis of law alone. One type of behaviour is permitted
by law while the other is not. It is well known that
people are ignorant of laws altogether as they live
according to their conscience and convictions. So, if a
person’s convictions make him live in the way of
all-permissiveness when he himself determines what is good
and what is bad, then we come to what may be called the
atomization of society, that is, a very high level of
people’s alienation from one another. There is no
common platform, a moral platform, for them.
I will cite an example. Your country, just that ours, had
to go through wars. When there is a need to defend
one’s Motherland, what makes people to take arms to
go to sacrifice themselves? Is it the law? No, not at all.
It is the moral feeling. You defend your home, you defend
your people, you defend your loved ones. In extreme
situations, it is the moral state of a society that is
decisive.
Let me cite a tragedy as an example, linked with the
tsunami in Japan. We admire the Japanese people’s
response to this disaster, the high level of their
solidarity and mutual support. But it was not the law that
determined people’s behaviour at that moment, but
their conscience: ‘We should do this way!’
What we encounter in the information space today destroys
the notion of conscience because each has his own
conscience and each is supposed to live in the way he sees
it. A society however is nonviable if it destroys the
moral basis of its own existence.
For this reason we do not want to withdraw and will not
withdraw from the information space. We are aware that we
are a minority in it, that we are a weak part of this
information space, that we do not have as much money as
those who propose a different way of thinking and a
different way of life. But it is our deep conviction that
the Church has to insist on the need to have an absolute
criterion for distinguishing between good and evil, which
stems from the ethical tradition.
After all, the theme of morality cannot be dealt with, in
my view, without the theme of God, and for the following
reason. There are attempts to persuade us that morality is
a derivative of the human evolution, the evolution of the
human society. Then why murder is considered a crime in
Japan, and in Russia and in Africa? Why deception is
considered a crime everywhere? Why a lie is considered a
crime regardless of the historical and cultural context a
liar may live in? All these are crimes because all these
crimes are contrary to the moral nature of the human
being. It means there is a certain absolute criterion of
morality that works everywhere, in each nation and in each
era.
So, the task of the Church and not only the Church today,
the task of culture, the task of all those who are aware
of the danger of what is going on, is to promote the
survival of absolute criteria of distinguishing between
good and evil, the preservation of the moral principle in
people’s life.
I do not see any more important task. I cannot compare
this task to any other, neither to politics nor to
economics, nor to scientific discoveries. The very
survival of humanity will depend on our answer to this
question, because if evil is seen as good, then evil will
destroy the individual and the human community, and the
human civilization. Coming in touch with the modern
information space, we can see these dangers. It is my
profound conviction that the time has come to step up the
joint effort of those who are aware of the existence of
these dangers and ready to struggle for the life of the
human family. I link all my trips abroad, just as trips in
Russia, with the hope to find these people. And it is easy
to find them because they are a majority. Everywhere, be
it in Japan or Russia or Africa or America, they are a
majority because if most people had lost conscience and
the moral principal, the world would have ceased to exist
long ago. For this reason I stand for the solidarity of
all those who realize the need to preserve the moral
principle in the life of the human community.
—Kyodo Tsyshin News Agency: Your trip to the
city of Sendai affected by the Great Eastern Japan
Earthquake last year is planned as a very important event.
However, we would like to learn what message His Holiness
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia will bring not only to
the people of the Miyagi Prefecture but all the Japanese
affected by the earthquake.
—In my view, this tragedy has affected Russian
people in an astonishing way. Many took it as their own,
although the affected people were thousands kilometres
away. At that time, we in the Church decided to raise
funds for aid to the victims. In doing so, we did not want
approach industrial corporations or banks but decided to
appeal to very ordinary people, with many having very low
living standards, and ask them to give something of their
own, something they can give to our Japanese brother and
sisters.
We have raised the amount of a million and a half of
American dollars. Perhaps it is not a large amount but it
is, as we say, a widow’s mite. There is this
Gospel’s image of a woman who made a very little
donation to God but it was all she had. Certainly, our
people did not donate all they had but they gave to Japan
what they could from their small incomes. And when one
does good to another, it is reflected on the state of his
soul and unites people. You did good to him, not he to
you, but he will stay in your memory, he becomes close to
you. Therefore, this action has drawn Russians closer to
Japanese and, sharing the suffering of the Japanese
people, we have become closer to each other.
Immediately after it happened, I made an appeal to our
people, while expressing my condolences to the Japanese
people. Watching your struggling with the element, many in
Russia saw that the Japanese people knew how to respond to
a disaster in solidary, to render mutual aid, to show
discipline, and it was a good example for very many in the
world.
Therefore, the image of Japan, the moral image of the
people, through this suffering, has become vivid to many
and many people on our planet including Russians, which I
can testify to with full conviction.
– The recent visit of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia to Poland is described as another step towards reconciliation between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. How important will the reconciliation between Orthodoxy and Catholicism be for the entire religious world?
– What happened in Poland concerns the contacts
between the Orthodox Christians and the Catholics of
course but in the first place this Joint Message of the
Orthodox and the Catholic Churches is addressed to the
peoples of Poland and Russia. You may know that in Europe
there are no other two nations whose relations in the
present would be so strongly influenced by the past. What
happened in history in relations between Russia and Poland
were many grave things which have affected people’s
state, their consciousness and relations to each other,
with each side seeking to strike a certain balance and to
turn the remainder to their advantage, saying, ‘We
suffered more at the hands of the neighbour and we were
more fair than the neighbour’. This is done both in
Poland and Russia. Since the past has made such a great
influence on the consciousness of our contemporaries, an
idea arose that someone should make the first step towards
true reconciliation, and if this step towards each other
were made together, it would be even better.
We agreed with representatives of the Catholic Church that
we would try to make this step, we would try to say
‘forgive us’ to each other. It is very
difficult to do. If people are convinced that the
historical truth is on their side, then it is very
difficult to say ‘forgive us’ to each other.
At least none of the politicians, nobody from the business
community, nobody from the cultural community have been
able yet to undertake steps to give people an opportunity
to forgive each other.
Our two Churches – the Catholic Church in Poland and
the Russian Orthodox Church – entered into dialogue
three years ago. For three years we were preparing a
document. It was a difficult work but at the same time
very noble as it created a very good atmosphere. We wrote
the text whose essence is this: let historians study
history but the wounds of the past should not bleed in the
present. We should build new relations on the foundation
of forgiveness we ask of each other and give to each
other. Such an appeal may have been made by nobody but the
Church because the Catholic Church in Poland is the
majority Church and the Russian Orthodox Church is the
majority Church. This Message in the first place is about
the future of our nations. We would very much like to see
this Message of reconciliation as a basis for changing
political, economic and cultural relations, to usher a new
era in the relations between the two neighbouring
countries and two nations who have lived side by side for
a thousand years.
As for relations with the Catholic Church, today we share
our positions on many issues including those which disturb
people today, namely, the family, marriage, childbearing,
bioethics, and protection of Christian values in Europe.
Regrettably, Christians are becoming a persecuted and
oppressed minority. There has appeared such a notion as
Christianophobia. The religious life of Christians is
being ousted from public life. This has happened in Europe
and this has happened in other countries, and today we
together advocate the need to preserve Christian values in
the life of the European, and not only European,
community, as well as in the modern culture. We have many
things in common, and we develop them through dialogue. I
do not exclude an opportunity for a meeting at some moment
with the Pope of Rome, but we have to cover some way
before this meeting is made possible.
—Iomuiri Daily: Your Holiness, please allow
me to ask this question. Actively developing economically
and gaining strength politically, Russia has broadened her
influence in the world and increased her cultural
importance. What role does the Russian Orthodox Church
play in this process? How active is her cooperation with
Orthodox Churches in other countries, for
instance, Greece and Serbia? Does she help to restore
churches and holy places in these countries?
—The Russian Church embraces Orthodox
believers who live in the Russian Federation, Ukraine,
Belarus, Moldova, the Baltics – Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania, Kazakhstan and the Central Asian republics of
the former Soviet Union. In addition, we have a very large
diaspora. Although different figures are given, but they
amount to several millions people living around the world.
For all these people we carry out our pastoral
service.
To take the diaspora, we are building churches, opening
schools, participating together with the state in cultural
work to help people study the Russian language. In many
places we help our people to be integrated in the society
in which they live. In doing so, we take this approach: we
are against assimilation, and we are against the situation
in which Russian people living in America, Germany or
elsewhere cease to become Russian people. We are for them
to remain Russians, to be native speakers of Russian and
to be Orthodox. But we also stand for their ability to
work and live in these new societies, for their knowledge
of the laws and readiness to observe them, for their
ability to find jobs and work in their own field. A
medical doctor often cannot work as a doctor, and many
other specialists too are not seen by the local community
as qualified enough. In other words, we seek to take care
of the life of our people in the diaspora.
We do not link all this work directly with an increase in
the role and importance of the Russian Federation in
international relations because again our work is not
political. We are concerned for human souls, human
awareness and culture. We did that even in the difficult
time when we lived in the Soviet Union. We do this today
too may be more effectively in the situation of freedom
and a on a greater scale.
As for our relations with other Orthodox Churches, we have
always maintained them. Even during World War II we
maintained relations with the Orthodox in the East, and
immediately after it was over, Patriarch Alexis I, my
predecessor, made a visit to the Middle East
Patriarchates. During all this time including the Soviet
period, we have maintained cooperation with Local Orthodox
Churches and continue this work today. And when there is a
disaster somewhere we seek to come to aid.
Nowadays the Serbian Church is experiencing much
suffering, especially in Kosovo, because Christian
monuments, churches and monasteries have been destroyed.
The Serbs live there in a hostile surrounding, often at
risk to their lives. Therefore, we seek to support them by
raising funds for the restoration of monuments and
construction of a seminary in Kosovo and a number of other
social projects, such as the one called
‘People’s Soup-Kitchen’, to feed people
in need. We will continue doing it because we are in
solidarity with the Orthodox people who experience
hardships, even if they live far away from Russia.
I would like to say the same about Greece. Greece is a
European country, which until recently was prosperous but
now is experiencing a severe crisis. In spite of the fact
that there are rich people in Greece and middle class
people, many have become poor. The Greek Orthodox Church
feeds these beggars who have lost everything. We have
raised funds to support the Greek Church in giving aid to
the destitute.
—Recently the mass media have often referred to the clericalization of the state. What is your attitude to such statements? In your view, how deep is the mutual influence of the Church and the state power in Russia?
—I have already spoken out on this issue,
speaking about ‘merger’, but I would like to
add that the clericalization of the Russian society is a
myth which is not supported by fact. There are no facts.
If you read about ‘the clericalization’ or
‘the interpenetration’ in the Russian press,
nobody will ever cite any example of this interpenetration
or this clericalization. Clericalization, in the direct
sense of this word, means political influence of the
clergy on the situation in a country, it is the power of
the clergy. There are no examples of the political
influence made by the Patriarch, bishops or the clergy on
the authorities.
There is this thing, however. For the last 20 years, the
Orthodox Church has been successful enough in her mission.
Indeed, we began with the most of people coming from
atheism in the Soviet Union. They did not believe in God.
The portion of believers was very low. For these twenty
years, the situation has radically changed. Today, up to
80% of the population in Russia are baptized; 65% declare
their connection with the Church; over 40% attend church
at least one or twice a year. The number of the faithful
who come to church every week has increased. Instead of
elderly people, who constituted the majority 20 years ago,
today we have many young and middle-age people. Among them
are state officials and ministers, generals and people of
other important professions. And I ask the question: Is it
bad? They have become Orthodox. They have returned to the
faith of the forefathers. And if a minister or even a
president or prime minister comes to church as Orthodox
believer, does it point to clericalization? If the clergy
have an opportunity to discuss together with these people
some vital problems, while sticking to their own
positions, is it an example of clericalization?
Sometimes, in an attempt to point to the clericalization,
we are told, ‘You come to the army and meet with
servicemen in it’. But this happens in many
countries of the world. In the United States, priests
participate in hostilities, not with arms in their hands,
but inspiring their troops. Today chaplains serve in
Afghanistan and other countries and in the United States
itself. The same exists in European countries, while in
the Russian Church, in the Russian Army, there are no
chaplains as yet. We cannot get this matter moving, while
we are accused of being engaged in clericalization.
The same is true for other issues. There is a substitution
of notions: there are successes in the mission of the
Russian Orthodox Church which the society should applaud,
saying, ‘You have really achieved the impossible for
these twenty years’, but instead we are accused of
clericalization. The point is not clericalization but the
increase of spiritual influence upon the life of our
people and society. But it is precisely our task! We are
obliged to do it and we will do it. And I ask you: please
dispel this myth, at least, in Japan.
No comments:
Post a Comment