When Religion Is Used As A Political Tool

Cathedral of the Assumption,

Moscow

Sunday’s New York Times had a very good article on how President Putin is manipulating the rites and rituals of the Russian Orthodox Church to encourage a revival of Russian Nationalism and to further the consolidation of his own power as Russian President, but there is really nothing new in this as the ancient tradition of Orthodoxy, first in the Byzantine Empire and later in the Russian Empire—and even through the years of bitter persecution in the Soviet era—is for the Church to put itself subserviently and totally at the disposal of the State. 
In the years when the Grand Duchy of Moscow transformed itself into an Imperial monarchy under the successive rulers Ivan the Great, Vasily III, and Ivan the Terrible, expanding its power from Moscow over the various defeated Mongol Khanates of central Asia and then expanding its power eastward into the Ukraine, the Tsars gradually asserted total control over the Church.  Christianity had first come to the Rus peoples in the Ukraine in the late 10^th century and spread eastwards into what we today call Russia.  The church was centered in Kiev but in the fourteenth century the Metropolitan Peter of Kiev and all the Rus, the primate or leading bishop of Russia, moved from the Ukraine to Moscow to put himself under the protection of the Grand Princes of Muscovy because of the constant warfare between the Poles and Lithuanians on the North and West and the Tatars of the East and South.  In 1589, Tsar Boris Gudonov persuaded Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople to raise the Moscow See to a Patriarchal See.  Constantinople and its Emperor had fallen in 1453 and Moscow already had its eye on claiming succession to the old empire as “the third Rome,” (Constantinople claiming to have inherited the imperium from Rome when Constantine moved the capital there in the fourth century).    In 1700 Tsar Peter the Great suppressed the Patriarchate because he saw it as a threat to his Imperial power.  Whereas the Grand Dukes who had welcomed the transfer of Church leadership from Kiev to Moscow, and Boris Gudonov who first established the Patriarchate, had seen the patriarchal honors as strengthening their own political power, Peter the Great wanted the Church to understand that there was one Power in Russia, and it was the Tsar.  Moreover, in leaving Moscow behind and establishing his new capital at his city of Saint Petersburg on the Baltic, Peter did not want anyone so powerful as a Patriarch in the old capital lest Moscow and its citizens think that they could go off on their own, independent of the Tsar.  The Tsars still traveled down to Moscow and its Kremlin for their coronations but power now resided on the Baltic. 
The tradition of the subordination of the Patriarch to the Imperial Power was inherited from the Constantinople where the Patriarchs traditionally had little to say and were made and broken at Imperial will.  The concept was that the Emperor, not the Patriarch, was the Lord’s anointed and Vicar of Christ.   Icons depicted Christ dressed in imperial robes to bring home this point.  The Holy Roman Emperors in the West had tried to assert this same sort of control over the Church and it led to the Investiture controversy of the 11^th century, epitomized in the struggle between the Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII.  Popes and emperors would struggle over control throughout the 12^th century and into the 13^th and it was only with the collapse of the Hohenstaufen dynasty with the execution of Conradin of Swabia in 1268 that the Catholic Church was able to shake off the threat of Caeseropapism.  In fact there would be certain situations in the West where the Church would fall under the power of the Crown—the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella is one example that comes to mind—but the lack of an effective Empire in the West (the operative word being “effective”) was one factor in preserving the independence of the Church.  The Russian Church was not so blessed. 
One of the first acts of the Russian Orthodox Church after the fall of the Tsars in the February Revolution of 1917 was to reconstitute the Patriarchate that Peter the Great had abolished.  Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow was elevated to the restored office.  Unfortunately for Saint Tikhon this was a disastrous time to lead the Church as the very month in which the Patriarchate was restored the Bolsheviks seized control of the government, and their anti-religious policies cause a persecution of believers in the new Soviet State.  Tikhon himself was charged with a variety of crimes, but because the new government was not yet secure and was afraid of the influence he might exercise among the Russian people (and his reputation abroad) he was not imprisoned but confined to the Donskoy monastery where he died in 1925.  Several years before his death he had been compelled to sign a statement that he “was not opposed to the Soviet Government.”  He had spoken out against the murder of the Imperial Family and tried to speak on behalf of the peasants during the famine of 1921 but was effectively blocked by the Soviet Regime from any real opposition to the government and its repressive policies.  Saint Tikhon may have been unable to make his voice heard over the Revolution, but he was a brave man who said and did what he could. 
The Soviet Government abolished the Patriarchate with Tikhon’s death in 1925.  Tikhon was succeeded, not as Patriarch but as “Metropolitan of Moscow” by Peter of Krutitsy.  (“Metropolitan” is the title Orthodox Christians use for what we call an Archbishop.)  To his credit he resisted Soviet control and was consequently first exiled, then imprisoned, then—on October 10 1937—martyred. 
Hieromartyr Saint Peter of Krutitsy was succeeded by a Metropolitan more amenable to the Stalin Regime, Metropolitan Sergius.  Sergius was somewhat complicit in the exile, imprisonment, and death of Peter of Krutitsy—not that he took any direct part but stepping in to take over when Peter was arrested he not only usurped Peter’s authority but made no protest at the hieromartyr’s fate.  The 1930s were a time when there was a great destruction of the art and treasures of the Church and a persecution of bishops, clergy, and faithful by the Stalin Regime.  In 1931 the magnificent cathedral of Christ the Savior in the Kremlin was dynamited to be replaced by a projected “Palace of the Soviets.” The palace was never built and revised plans put a huge outdoor swimming pool on the site. (The Cathedral was rebuilt after the fall of Communism.)   Sergius was able not only to avoid arrest himself, but to be able to establish a certain amount of collaboration with the regime in which the Church was supposedly “protected” while in fact he was protected but ordinary Russian faithful were suffering greatly.  The outbreak of World War II and the German invasion of Russia did change the scene drastically and Stalin needed the support of the Church.  Stalin met with a delegation of bishops and forged an agreement with the Church.   Stories circulate that when German troops arrived on the outskirts of Moscow in 1941, Stalin authorized that the Divine Liturgy secretly be sung in the Kremlin’s then closed Assumption Cathedral to ask God’s help in the crisis.  During the War the Orthodox Church was given legal status and there was a lessening of persecution.  Stalin restored the Patriarchate and Sergius assumed the title.  He died within the year.
Sergius was succeeded as Patriarch by Alexi I.  Alexi had been one of the bishops who met with Stalin in 1943 to win some measure of relief for the Church during World War II.  Alexi’s election to the Patriarchate was approved by Stalin and the two seem to have had a sufficiently amiable working relationship in return for the Church’s loyalty during the War.  This situation deteriorated when Nikita Khrushchev came to power in 1953 and by 1958 the persecution of the Church was renewed.  Alexi was always compliant with the regime, however, so that the Church could at least survive—on whatever limited scale the Soviets would permit—if not flourish. During this time the clergy and monasteries were infiltrated with government priests and monks who spied on bishops, clergy, and monastics and reported any suspect of anti-government behavior, including the catechesis of people under the age of 18.  During the patriarchate of Alexi I, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was forcibly separated from the Roman Communion and subordinated to the Moscow Patriarchate as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. 
Alexi I was succeeded by Pimen I who was the most open collaborator with the Soviet Regime.  He was little more than a shameless tool of the Government, but in doing so he won a slowly increasing measure of relief for the Church.  Pimen sponsored or participated in numerous “peace conferences” hosted by the Church to show European and North American Christians that the Church had great freedom in the Soviet State and that the Soviet Union was anxious to live in peace with the other nations of the world.  It was all propaganda as the Soviet power was crumbling both in Russia and abroad while in fact the Church was still under great restrictions.  Pimen’s death in 1990 more or less coincides with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  His successor, Alexi II, was elected without overt government interference.  When there was an attempt to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet Leader and the man responsible for the transition from the Soviet Union to a post-Marxist Russia, Alexi sprang into action, calling for Gorbachev’s release from imprisonment by the plotters and demanding Gorbachev be given access to radio and television.  Alexi II also had a very good relationship with Boris  Yeltsin in building a new Russia.  Alexi and his successor, Patriarch Kirill have done much to revive the “soul” of Russia and rebuild the cultural ties between Orthodoxy and the Russian People and Culture.  Overall this sort of spiritual revival—which has met with significant but limited success—is a noble ideal and parallels Benedict XVI’s less successful attempts to awaken the soul of Western Europe, but it does run the danger of the Church and its faith being manipulated for political purposes.  And that was what led to the overthrow of the Church in Russia by the Soviets ninety years ago.

Not All Bedfellows Are Strange

Russian Orthodox Patriarch

Kiril I, supporter of the regime

in Syria

Syria’s struggle for democracy has been very much in the news, particularly since the Houla Massacre where Syrian Army and Militia have been alleged to have execution-style massacred 108 civilians including 34 women and 49 children.  The massacre seems, in part, to reflect the Shia-Sunni antagonism that tears apart much of the Islamic world.  Syrians have been demanding an end to the regime of Bashar Hafez al-Assad.  Bashar al-Assad has been in power in Syria since the year 2000 when he succeeded his father  Hafez al-Assad who had ruled Syria for 29 years.  The party under which this father-son combination has served are the Ba’ath party—a party tied to the same party that ruled Iraq during the Sadam Hussein years. 

It would seem to most of us that this is another sinister regime that should be overthrown and replaced by a democracy and Americans are highly suspicious of Russia’s motivations for blocking any effective international cooperation in getting rid of the current regime.  Putin’s administration undoubtedly has a variety of reasons for wanting to shore up the al-Assad regime, but one of them is that the Russian Orthodox Church is supportive of al-Assad.  Putin, for a variety of political motives, has worked very closely with the Russian Church and the Moscow Patriarchate has always functioned as an agency of the State—even during the Communist era where the Church was very much subject to government control and used by the government for political ends.  Putin does not want to alienate the Church but finds support for his regime in collaboration with it.

Why would the Russian Church support the al-Assad regime?   Well, again, the situation is very complex and the motives are mixed.  The Moscow Patriarchate has always been anxious to be seen as the protector of Christian minorities in the Arab world as part of the Patriarchate's plan to achieve primacy in the Orthodox world.   But it is not all self-serving.  The plight of Christians in the Near East and North Africa has deteriorated terribly during the “Arab Spring.”  The Christian communities of Iraq and Egypt are undergoing particularity virulent persecutions.  (See blog entries for Dec 24, 26, 2011, March 20, 21, 23, 2012)  for more information on the plight of Christians in the Arab world, let me recommend to you the Catholic Near East Welfare Association (paste this into your browser: http://www.cnewa.org/home.aspx?ID=26&pagetypeID=12&sitecode=HQ )   

The Reform of Papal Elections, Part 2

A medieval manuscript from Krakow shows

a pope surrounded by members of his court, or

in Latin, his Curia

In our last posting we looked at the evolution of the papal election process from the second century up through the tenth.  Rome, like other local Churches, elected their bishops—the clergy (priests and deacons) voting, first presenting the candidate to the faithful for their approval and then presenting the bishop-elect to the surrounding bishops for consecration.  Those neighboring bishops could refuse consecration to the bishop-elect if they had serious question about his orthodoxy, his morals, or other suitability issues.  As we have seen in a number of postings, the system ceased working well in Rome by the ninth century when the “faithful” turned into mobs controlled by Rome’s leading families who were vying to place their candidates on the papal throne in order to control the wealth and the power of the Church for their own family benefit.  This led to a succession of notably bad Roman bishops in the ninth and tenth centuries.  There were exceptions—Nicholas I (858-867), Adrian III (884-885), Theodore II (897), John IX (898-900) and Benedict IV (900-903), but by and large this was a time of tremendous scandals in the papacy.  (check out entries for January 15^th, June 5^th, 6^th, 9^th, August 5^th among others) with stories of papal adultery, gay popes, murders to become pope, conspiracies and even the exhumation and  posthumous trial of a dead pope.   The Ottonian Emperors cleaned it up, but only by usurping the traditional privilege of papal election and appointing their candidates.  At first this was done with the façade of election, but then—as we saw in the reign of Henry III—it became mere appointment (see entry of August 13^th).  Imperial appointment actually gave the Church a number of excellent popes but it also created a dangerous precedent.  In the first place it clearly subordinated the Church to the political power.  Had this not been corrected the Catholic Church would have found itself in the same position that first the Greek Church and then the Russian Church found itself in with regard to the Byzantine Emperors and Russian Tsars respectively.  The popes would have ended up meaning no more than mere chaplains to the Emperors and the Emperors would have been the heads of the Church.  Indeed, as we shall see in a future post, Henry VIII would make the claim that since “the Crown of England is and ought by right to be a Crown Imperial” that he, the wearer of that crown, was by right head of the Church in his “imperial” realm.  But that is for later.  No sooner had the Emperors cleaned up the papacy than that very reformed papacy knew it had to break the imperial power over the Church.  That would lead to the investiture conflict, but before we go there let’s stay focused to the matter of papal elections.  Nicholas II in the papal bull, In Nomine Domini, moved to establish a definite protocol of election.  In the first place the Emperor was given no right of nomination.  The process began with the Cardinal Bishops as Nicholas empowered the seven Cardinal Bishops to select a candidate to be presented to the Cardinal Priests and Cardinal Deacons for their “election.”  This candidate would then be presented to the Roman people for their acclamation.  Only then did the Emperor have voice, having a right of confirmation; but the process was so structured that power remained with the Cardinals and their choice; there was no practical way for the Emperor to overturn the fait accompli.  By the end of the eleventh century, the separate roles of the Cardinal Bishops on the one hand and the Cardinal Deacons and Priests on the other melded so that all Cardinals participated equally in the election.  This was almost inevitable given the relatively small size of the Sacred College—rarely as many as thirty and often only a dozen or so. Remember too that at this stage of history, the Cardinal Bishops, Priests, and Deacons were all actual bishops, pastors and deacons of the Diocese of Rome who (normally) lived there and were key in administering the local Church.  They were not the international assortment they are now. 
     The Emperors were not happy with losing their right of nomination and, in fact, it was only in 1122 at the Council of Worms that they conceded the loss of that right.  As late as 1903 in the election that produced Pope Saint Pius X the Emperor (by then of Austria—the Holy Roman Empire having been terminated in 1806 when Francis I of Austria abdicated the throne of the Holy Roman Empire (where he had been Francis II) following defeat by Napoleon and loss of territories to France) Franz-Josef vetoed the impending election of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla.  Pius abolished the imperial right of veto as one of the first acts of his pontificate.  We will look more at this problem of Imperial interference in papal elections in our next posting.  For now, let’s go back to the election process.
     The right of the Roman people to “acclaim” the election persisted well into the Middle Ages but it gradually ceased to have any determinative role in determining the legitimacy of the papal selection.  The fact that in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries any number of papal elections were held outside Rome whether at Perugia, Viterbo, Naples, or Avignon and that automatically excluded the Roman crowd from participation.   Nevertheless, remember that when the papacy returned to Rome after the Avignon “Babylonian Captivity” in 1378 it was still deemed necessary to present a candidate acceptable to the Roman Populace.  By a century later that would no longer be any concern and the Roman populace was openly hostile to various popes in the sixteenth century. 
     The custom of the conclave began in the thirteenth century when, on occasion, prolonged meetings of the Cardinals failed to produce a candidate due to internal divisions among the electors.  Sometimes the papal office was left empty for over a year!  Upon the death of Innocent III in 1216 the city of Perugia—where the election was being held—blockaded the cardinals into the bishop’s palace until they came up with a pope.  After the death of Celestine IV in 1241, civil officials in Rome did the same to the cardinal electors when after 19 months they had not made a choice.  Clement IV died in 1268 and two years and ten months passed before the Cardinals came up with a pope.  The citizens of Viterbo not only barricaded the cardinals inside but first tore the roof from the building and then permitted only bread and water to be passed to the electors within.  The pope elected at that conclave, Gregory X, established the norm that the Cardinals would be secluded under relatively austere conditions until an election was forthcoming.  It didn’t always work but that is for future postings. 
    The key point we want to observe is that the Church broke the imperial hold on the selection of popes.  This was an important step in freeing the papacy from political power.  At times, it would find itself again beneath the thumb of some emperor or king but for the most part, the pope has played at least as an equal to the political forces in the world around him.  the next task would be to free the bishops from imperial and royal control.