Lawless actions against most of the Orthodox people in Estonia continues

LAWLESS ACTIONS AGAINST MOST OF THE ORTHODOX PEOPLE IN ESTONIA CONTINUES

The Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has been denied registration again.

On January 24, 2001, the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate officially presented its Statute to the Estonian Interior Ministry for registration. This had been preceded by long consultations between Metropolitan Cornilius of Tallinn and All Estonia, the Synod and lawyers of the Estonian Orthodox Church and the Estonian Interior Ministry officials. The remarks made by the governmental officials were taken into account in drafting the text of the document.

According to the Estonian Law on Churches and Parishes (Article 14.1), the statutes of religious associations should be registered within 20 working days after the application for registration is submitted. However, it was three months later, on April 18, that the Estonian Interior Minister T. Loodus sent Metropolitan Cornilius a letter unexpectedly making new demands for a revision of the Statute.

The Statute, adopted by the Council of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in June 2000 and submitted to registration in August, had been already amended to comply with the urgent requests of the Estonian Interior Ministry, which turned down its previous version in September. Earlier, the Estonian authorities used various pretexts to deny repeatedly the registration of its Statute to the EOC/Moscow Patriarchate. They did it in spite of the fact that Estonian Prime Minister M. Laar stated that the government of his country would do all that was possible to settle the legal status of the Orthodox parishes under the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate as soon as possible.

In Mr. Loodus’s letter, the recognition of the EOC/MP as the successor of the canonical Church – the organization which has existed in Estonia since the 11th century, was transformed in 1920 into the autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church and afterwards changed its status several times – is illegitimately made conditional on an “appropriate permission” to be given by the leadership of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (EAOC), a church structure under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople registested by the Estonian government in 1993. In addition, procedural demands are made, which, by the Law on Churches, can be made only on newly formed religious associations.

In connection with this new denial of the registration of its Statute, the Synod of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate held a meeting. The position taken by the Synod was set forth in the letter sent by Metropolitan Cornilius of Tallinn and All Estonia to the Estonian Interior Ministry on May 3, 20001.

The letter states that the reason for the actual breakdown in the negotiation to settle the abnormal status of the Estonian Orthodox Church “is not somebody’s mistake or defect in work, nor some new circumstances revealed, but a definite action of influential persons who have taken a destructive attitude”. The Primate of the EOC/MP notes with regret that the decision of the Interior Ministry “provokes another spiral of tension in inter-church and church-state relation”, and also does damage to the political image of Estonia in the eyes of the international community. Metropolitan Cornilius and the Synod are convinced that “those who provoke a conflict by politicizing the situation artificially commit actions that disgrace Estonia”.

“Again you try to force us to be registered as a newly-formed structure”, the letter says, “In our view, some influential persons have manifested in this desire to suppress and humiliate the Church the still persisting dead weight of the totalitarian society”.

Metropolitan Cornilius considers as necessary “a triple meeting of state officials and religious leaders of the two Orthodox structures under different jurisdictions”, proposed in Mr. Loodus’s letter, and suggests appropriate steps for its preparation. However, this meeting of the religious leaders of the two jurisdictions will be relevant and fruitful only if the Church headed by Metropolitan Cornilius “acquires at last the legal status it has been deprived of in violation of both legal and canonical norms”.

“Therefore, the obstacle to the beginning of a constructive settlement of the conflict lies in continued lawless actions against most of the Orthodox people in Estonia”, says the appeal of the head of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Interior Minister. “It is within your competence to remove this stumbling stone from the road. On our part, we have done everything possible. Taking into account your previous recommendations, the Statute of the EOC/MP has been edited and now, in our opinion, it conforms to the legislation of the Republic of Estonia”.

Attached to the letter is a convincing legal substantiation of those articles of the Statute with which the Estonian Interior Ministry had disagreed.

The Moscow Patriarchate regards the persistent reluctance of the Estonian government officials to settle the legal status of the Estonian Orthodox Church as a manifestation of open discrimination against the believers who have preserved canonical ties with their Mother Church.

The actions of the Estonian authorities run contrary to both the laws of the Republic of Estonia and the commonly accepted norms of international law. Officials of a secular state, in which by Constitution all citizens, regardless of their confession, are equal before the law, try to interfere in the canonical problems of jurisdictional affiliation, while giving apparent preference to one of the existing Orthodox organizations.

The structure, which emerged in Estonia in 1993 due to the interference of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, has enjoyed favour and one-sided support from the secular authorities. This is stated without ceremony by its leader who seeks to dictate his conditions for the state registration of the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. These conditions include a change in the name of the Church, in its canonical status, etc.

The letter of the Interior Minister T. Loodus demonstrates that the Estonian government agrees with this attitude, since its recognition of the obvious fact that the Church to be registered is in continuity with the historical Orthodoxy in Estonia is made conditional on the inappropriate “permission” to be given by the EAOC of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. At the same time, the conscious choice of the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox people in the country, who belong to the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, is ignored.

Even the procedural claims made in the Minister’s letter are not in fact valid. The requirement that the signatures of the founders should be notarized applies by the Estonian law only to newly-established religious organizations. The efforts made by governmental officials during seven-year-long negotiations on the legalization of the EOC/MP have been invariably aimed at presenting the Church, which unites one hundred thousand Orthodox Christians in Estonia, as a newly organized religious community, thus depriving it of the opportunity to own lawfully church buildings and other church property in its actual use today.

The pressure from the official authorities will not force the faithful of Estonia to change their choice of religious and canonical affiliation. However, these actions, in the opinion of many public, religious and political leaders both in Russia and Estonia, will inevitably damage the reputation of the Estonian state and make a negative impact on the formation of constructive relations between our nations.

The Moscow Patriarchate will not disregard the systematic violation of the rights of its faithful and, in cooperation with all the healthy public and political forces both in Estonia and Russia, will use every opportunity to find an early and fair solution of the problem. Overcoming this prolonged conflict will be beneficial for both nations. Besides, it is evident that the situation where a considerable part of the population in a European country cannot obtain the legal status for its religious community for a long time is a challenge to the civilized community and cannot but will arouse concern in international organizations.