“The Church is called to dialogue with the world through the heart”.
Speech by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations February 19, 2002

“THE CHURCH IS CALLED TO DIALOGUE WITH THE WORLD THROUGH THE HEART”
Speech by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations February 19, 2002

First of all I would like to speak about the institution I direct. Since the Department for External Church Relations is responsible for the entire external work of the Russian Orthodox Church, I believe my account will help to introduce you to various aspects of church life, inter-Christian and interreligious dialogue and church-state and church-society relations.

The Department for External Church Relations was established in 1946. It was a very difficult time as the first contacts had just been made between the Church Authorities and state leaders to begin a new stage in the life of the Russian Church – existence under the control of the authorities in a mono-ideological and atheistic state. Nevertheless, the Church, which had scarcely come out of the underground, began to develop its work as it could to establish relations with the external world.

We understand the Church’s external relations as not only contacts with other countries but also relations with the secular state, governmental institutions, mass media, creative unions and various trade organizations. One of the tasks of the external work of the Russian Orthodox Church is to develop relations between church and society. Of course, in the Soviet period this work of the Church was controlled by the state and was carried out to the extent permitted by the authorities. From the point of view of state strategy, church social work was needed for external propaganda. The purpose was to show to the world that we enjoyed the freedom of conscience and worldview.

Nevertheless, I would have sinned against the truth if I said that in the Soviet time there were no changes whatsoever in church-society relations. Much was done. I believe the church activity at that time prepared to some extent the fundamental changes that took place in the life of our society in the end of the 20th century. Therefore, speaking about church external relations, I would single out in the first place the sphere of church-state relations.

Why there should be such relations at all? Within religious communities a highly prejudiced attitude to the very idea of dialogue with the secular world is sometimes voiced. There is a settled opinion that “the world lies in evil” and evil cannot be overcome, therefore neither the Church nor any other religious community has the potential to oppose the negative tendencies in the life of the modern human civilization. In response to the inability to oppose these tendencies, a desire for self-isolation arises. “Damn it all! Save itself, the little flock!” the proponent of this view would cry out. “Let those who want be saved and those who don’t perish!” This point of view is upheld by some people, including some Orthodox people, and it has a long history.

Suffice it to recall the Old Believers’ schism of the 17th century. This schism consisted not so much in differences concerning the rites – how many fingers makes the sign of the cross or which direction, to or against the sun, should be taken in a procession with the cross around a church. It became clear with time that it was an argument about what place the Church occupies in human life, whether it is called to save only “the little flock”, a narrow circle of like-minded people, or it has a mission towards society, even non-religious, towards the perishing world. We declare that the work of the Church should not be confined to preaching within the religious community. Movement toward the world is an essential and integral part of church life.

Those who work in the field of the Church’s external ministry are often confused with missionaries. However, we are not missionaries in the commonly accepted sense of this word. We meet society and state face to face and seek through common efforts to create conditions necessary for the development of church-state and church-society relations, hence a ground favorable for church preaching.

Along with external church relations within the Russian State, we are engaged in foreign affairs proper. In this sense, our department is sometimes described as Church Foreign Office, though the sphere of interests of the Department for External Church Relations is much broader.

Before the 1917 Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church occupied a special place in the life of the state. It was the only organization that could be described as an instrument of civil society in the Russian Empire, since other public institutions were underdeveloped at that time. The Church always represented a considerable public and spiritual force that influenced the life of the state, society and people. Suffice it to say that in its time the Church was the principal state-forming force. Russia was formed as one state to a considerable degree thanks to the religious factor, because it was the religious component that determined largely the outline of its national self-awareness. To be Russian meant to be Orthodox, while confessing another faith was linked first of all with belonging to a different ethnos, a difference culture.

Especially significant was the role of the Church in times of political and military crises. It is common knowledge that the religious factor played an important role in preserving the national self-awareness of the Russian people during the Tatar-Mongol yoke and in the formation of a united state around Moscow. It was only after Metropolitan Peter transferred the primatial see to Moscow and laid the foundation of the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin that this city became really the political center of the state around which the gathering of Russian lands began.

If we look at the history of the foreign policy of our state, we will see that the Church made a considerable contribution to Russia’s achievements in foreign policy. It should be noted that our Church did not carry out mission overseas. Never did Russian missionaries go to Africa or Latin America. The mission of the Russian Orthodox Church was bound up with the exploration of new lands. When Russia grew eastward, representatives of the Church were in the forefront. Moreover, unlike Western missionaries, they never converted local people to Orthodoxy by force.

In the same way the Russian Church preached Orthodoxy in Alaska. Orthodox missionaries, monks from the Valamo monastery, were the first to come to that land. For a long time, our flock in Alaska consisted or Russian people who carried out economic work under the Russian-American Company. The local population began to embrace Orthodoxy en masse after they realized that Russia would not be able to hold Alaska. Native Aleutians, Koloshes, Nentses began to come to Orthodox priests, asking to baptize them. This is how they explained their decision: “Orthodox Russians will go away and others will come, who will make us Christians by force”.

The Russian Church in its participation in the exploration of new lands was exceptionally tolerant. It contributed to the propagation of the Orthodox faith among natives not only in Siberia and the Far East, which became part of Russia, but also in the Aleutian Islands, China, Korea and especially Japan. Thus, the main reason for which the Russian Orthodox Church appeared outside the Russian state borders was missionary work linked with Russia’s drive to the East.

The presence of the Russian Church in the West was due to a considerable number of Russians visiting Western European countries or living in them. Three waves of emigration from Soviet Russia and the development of political and economic relations with Western countries in our times have contributed to the emergence of large Russian communities outside the Russian State. Russian parishes, monasteries and dioceses have been established in forty countries to take care of our compatriots. Sometimes local people who wish to become Orthodox come to us, but our most important task is work with Russian people. Developing religious contacts with Russian communities outside Russia, we not only seek to give spiritual support to our people who live outside their homeland but also to help preserve our native language and culture in the Russian Diaspora.

Along with parishes and dioceses outside Russia, there is a system of church diplomatic representations. For instance, in Germany there is the Berlin diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church headed by an archbishop. Along with a diocese in Dusseldorf, there is an official representation of the Russian Orthodox Church, the head of which is responsible for relations with state, society and churches in Germany. Such representations are very important as through them contacts are maintained with the world, religious communities and the mass media. The Russian Church cannot exist without its own channels of communication with and influence on the world public.

Moreover, church representations are an important factor in developing good relations between Russia and the countries in which they work. While diplomats carry out intellectual and political dialogue, that is, dialogue on the level of thought, and businessmen on the level of stomach and pocket, the Church is called to conduct dialogue on the level of the heart. Relations between countries cannot be lasting if they are built only on a rational, pragmatic, basis. People in another country should come to love, feel and know Russia. Only relations based on friendship and trust can stand the test of political failures and frozen economic relations. The development of the cultural and spiritual factors in international relations is one of the major tasks faced by our church representations.

In this regard, we continue the cause of our ancestors. In addition to Alaska, Orthodox clergy presented the beauty of Orthodoxy and Russian culture to people in Japan, China and other countries. Today’s church diplomats do all they can to continue this ministry, thus giving considerable support to our Fatherland.

However, one of the most important areas of our work are relations with the Orthodox in other countries. The development of fraternal relations with fifteen Local Orthodox Churches is a priority for our Department. It is impossible to ignore the existence of the Orthodox factor in the formation of a considerable layer in the human culture. Orthodoxy is a whole world, a civilization no less significant than Islamic or Western European. The way in which the world perceives this civilization will determine in many ways the stability and sustainability of a future political order.

Will the Orthodox civilization be adequately represented in the new world order shaping in the course of European and global integration? We ask ourselves the question: Is a culturally multi-polar world possible? Can society in a situation of globalization be based on only one, the Western liberal, civilization model, which we ingenuously describe as “civilization”? Can the whole world be made to this pattern? Can it be a mono-polar world not only in the sense of a single polar of political power – the matter which disturbs our secular diplomats, but also in the sense of the global domination of the Western liberal civilization pattern – the matter which worries the church diplomats?

A mono-polar world is one standing on only one foot. According to the laws of physics, a system cannot be stable without being balanced. A world based on the domination of one civilization model will not be stable and sustainable – this is our conviction. In this situation, we are very much interested in interaction with other Orthodox Churches, so that the voice of the entire Orthodox world, not only that of the Russian Church, may be heard in the dialogue with uniting Europe.

Another area of our work are relations with Islamic organizations. A vision of the future world is impossible without Islamic culture. This great civilization cannot be excluded from the world processes only because it does not fit in the liberal standards on which the new model of the world order is being built. In dialogue with Muslim countries, the religious factor comes to the fore since faith is decisive for the self-identification of the Islamic civilization. But who will conduct dialogue with the Muslims – liberal philosophers or religious figures? This is why we maintain that in the context of world globalization the Christian-Islamic dialogue acquires inter-civilizational importance.

The Russian Orthodox Church was the first to begin a systematic intellectual dialogue with Islamic leaders in Iran. Already at the time when Iran was regarded as a focus of evil, when even customs officers treated with suspicion those with an Iranian visa in their passport, we established relations with this country on the level of religious leaders. At present, there is a standing Iran-Russia commission uniting Christian and Islamic theologians, religious philosophers and thinkers for meetings and exchange of opinions.

It is my conviction that the building of a harmonic multi-polar world sustainable in the situation of globalization is conditioned in many ways by how successfully will relations between the Orthodox and Islamic civilizations develop. Why do I insist on the Orthodox civilization in this context? The point is that both Islam and Orthodoxy belong to the East culturally and historically. We have very many things in common. If you look at the clothes of an Orthodox priest in Moscow and those of a mullah in the streets of Istanbul, you will see almost no difference. This is a simple but very important example as it helps to understand that there is a historical and cultural community between the two religions, which should be used in dialogue with Islam. It is especially relevant in the face of radical Islamic fundamentalism threatening stability in the world and even human survival because nobody can guarantee that fanatics will not get hold of means of mass destruction which were produced en masse during the Cold War.

Unfortunately, the limits of this address do not allow me to speak at length about relations that the Russian Orthodox Church maintains with the Jews and Buddhists. Therefore, I will move directly to the theme of relations with non-Orthodox Christians, namely, the Catholics and Protestants and relations with international Christian organizations. The preservation of Christian moral values in the life of modern society – this is, we believe, the basic goal of inter-Christian dialogue. Many have already come to describe the liberal civilization model, which has shaped in Western Europe and America, as post-Christian civilization. The questions arising are as follows: What is the place of Christian values in the world? Can we give a common Christian response to the challenges hurled at us by modern society?

Theological discussions have gone to the background in inter-Christian contacts today. The experience of interconfessional meetings has shown that it is impossible today to overcome doctrinal differences between Christian denominations since these differences touch upon fundamental issues including confessional self-identification. Any attempt to draw theological positions nearer one another tends to generate wrong interpretations as well as suspicions.

It has become clear in the recent years that theological dialogue is little promising at this stage. I do not believe that we will manage to overcome doctrinal differences with the Protestants in the nearest future. I doubt that in this situation any progress is possible also in the dialogue with the Catholic Church, though the Orthodox have more in common with the Catholics than with the Protestants. The Vatican’s policy towards Russia and Ukraine also has a negative influence on the state of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. It should be recognized therefore that in this situation the most promising area is cooperation between Christians of various confessions in developing a common Christian stand on basic problems of the modern civilization.

So, the domain of the Department for External Church Relations includes relations between the Church and modern secular society in Russia, cooperation with state, relations with the Orthodox world, spiritual and pastoral care of Russians abroad, interaction with non-Christian religions, especially Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, and finally, the complex but very important dialogue with non-Orthodox Christians including the Vatican, major Protestant confessions and international Christian organizations.

QUESTION AFTER THE ADDRESS

– Could you clarify the attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Vatican’s decision to open dioceses in the territory of Russia? Why has this decision provoked such a harsh reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church?

– Historically the Catholic Church in the territory of Russia has been engaged in pastoral care for ethnic minorities who confess Catholicism, namely, Poles, Lithuanians, partly Ukrainians, Germans and the French. Before 1917, there were twelve Catholic dioceses in the territory of the Russian Empire, mostly in Lithuania and Poland, which were part of Russia at that time. As for the territory of the present Russian Federation, it should be noted that Polish, Lithuanian, French and German ethnic minorities were included in two dioceses, those of Mogilev and Tiraspol. The Mogilev diocese was headed by a metropolitan who very often stayed in St. Petersburg. The Bishop of Tiraspol resided in Saratov. Neither the Russian Empire (Orthodoxy was state religion at that time and religious policy was implemented by governmental officials) nor the Orthodox Church had any objections against that structure. For instance, in Smolensk with its population of 150 000, there were some 25 000 Poles. For them a large Catholic church was built in the center of the city. It was like this in every place where a Catholic community used to live.

When in the 1990s the Catholic Church began to revive in Russia, we had no objections whatsoever. Indeed, one should not shut one’s eyes to the fact that there are Poles living in our country, though they are not as many as they used to be before the 1917 Revolution, and that there are some Lithuanians and Germans. If there are Catholics in Russia, it means that normal church life should be organized for them.

I would like to emphasize that though the Soviet power did not encourage dialogue between the Russian Church and the Vatican, we managed, thanks to the efforts of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Novgorod, an outstanding church leader and my predecessor as chairman of the Department, to establish very good relations with the Catholic Church. The 70s of the 20th century was a heyday in the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but in the early 80s the intensity of the dialogue began to recede and in the early 90s it was actually stopped because of the notorious events in Ukraine and Russia.

In the light of good relations with the Vatican, the Moscow Patriarchate favored the idea of the restoration of Catholic structures in Russia. What did happen afterwards? Much to our astonishment we began to notice that the new Catholic structures were not intended for ethnic minorities, who comprise the flock of the Catholic Church in Russia, but for the Russian people. We said to the Catholics: “The Russian Church does not create dioceses and parishes for Italians in Italy or parishes for the French in France. We do not work with your flock. The Orthodox and the Catholics should not weaken each other. There can be no competition in such thing as the preaching of the word of God”. In response we heard that our fears were groundless. But already now dozens of Catholic orders and organizations work with Russian people in Moscow. The Catholic worship service is held mostly in Russian. It means that it is intended for Russians. There are even more glaring cases. For instance, Russian children were brought to Poland under the pretext of rehabilitation after the Chernobyl accident and persuaded to embrace Catholicism there.

These actions of the Catholic side has led to deterioration of our relations and generated a great deal of questions and bewilderments. Indignation is growing among ordinary people to take sometimes the form of rallies and pickets. We as pastors duly respond to the attitude of our flock and seek to protect them from proselytism.

The recent decision of the Vatican has plunged us into profound bewilderment. What has happened, properly speaking? Along with the Orthodox Church in Russia, another Local Catholic Church, to use the Orthodox terminology, has appeared. The Apostolic Administrations were temporary structures intended for ethnic minorities. The Catholics kept assuring us that they had no intentions to convert traditionally Orthodox people, emphasizing the fact of absence of Catholic dioceses and ruling bishops in the territory of Russia. A diocese always presupposes a certain territory in which it is situated. A ruling bishop is installed for a certain territory, and all people in this territory comprise his flock. Thus, having created dioceses, the Catholics declared their claims to the entire people living in the territory of these dioceses. Claiming their right “to preach to all people”, Catholic hierarchs actually confirm what has been said above. At the same time, the question remains open: How this preaching, intended to convert people to Catholicism and carried out therefore at the expense of the witness of the Orthodox Church, can be combined with assurances of friendship, readiness to maintain dialogue and with condemnations of proselytism so abundant in the statements of Catholic hierarchs? Four Catholic dioceses in the territory of Russia are united in one Metropolitanate headed by a hierarch elevated to the rank of metropolitan. The creation of this structure based in Moscow has a pronounced missionary thrust.

In this regard, the Catholic statements on the need to continue dialogue are especially astonishing. Perhaps it happens because self-isolation always provokes a negative reaction and those who propose dialogue appear in a better light. However, the actions of the Catholic side show that this time dialogue has been sacrificed for politics.

The situation developed in this way. Another round of dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican was fixed for the end of February 2000. Cardinal Walter Kasper, who is responsible for inter-church contacts in the Catholic Church, was to come to Russia. On the eve of his visit, a draft decision was prepared in secret to establish Catholic dioceses in Russia. Representatives of our Church were notified of this decision only a few days before it was to be made public. After a harsh reaction that followed from our side, the Catholics suggested that we should meet to discuss the situation. But a discussion should have preceded the decision! What is dialogue for if nothing can be changed?

In one of the TV talks devoted to this problem I said that I could not understand the Vatican’s policy. On one hand, in face of global problems caused by ousting Christian moral values from public life, the Orthodox and the Catholics should help each other and appeal to the world together. However, the Catholic Church, for the sake of momentary interests, removes the very possibility for joint Christian witness before secularized society.

We are aware that the Catholic Church has entered a period described as “the end of a pontificate”. It is a complex and in some sense a dangerous time, because some people from the Pope’s entourage, using his old age, try to push through radical decisions with regard to the Orthodox so that in future everything could be ascribed to the old Pontific and thus minimize the negative consequences of their policy. If it is so, then what we see is a fateful mistake of the Vatican.

– Recently the question of capital punishment has been actively discussed in society. Tell us please, what is the attitude of the Church to this issue? Does it have an opportunity to intervene in making this decision and does it take any action in this regard?

– Our stand on this issue is set forth in the Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. As is known, before the Revolution the Russian Church never came out against the abolishment of capital punishment, but reserved the right to intervene with the authorities in behalf of the condemned. Thanks to the intercession of the Church, the number of death penalties in the 19th century was so few that it is possible to speak about the absence of this kind of punishment in the Russian Empire.

There is no condemnation of capital punishment in Holy Scriptures. In the Old Testament times, the Jews would beat to death those who violated the Law by throwing stones. In the New Testament, though Christ Himself was sentenced to death, He never spoke against this phenomenon. Therefore, we cannot say that the presence of this kind of punishment in society contradicts our faith. At the same time, it should be noted that the abolishment of capital punishment is a result of the civilizational development in which Christianity, which preaches love of the neighbor including a fallen one, has played a tremendous role.

The decision concerning this measure of punishment should be made by society, taking into consideration the degree of criminality, the development of law-enforcement and legal procedure bodies and the people’s attitude to this problem. But even if the capital punishment is not abolished, the Church will continue to do all that depends on it to ensure that this measure of punishment is used as rarely as possible.

– Your Eminence, I will take the liberty of asking a question concerning the concept of co-existence of many cultures and religions. It turns out that you as a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church is not against the existence of many religions. But you know only too well that there is only one true religion which is Orthodoxy. And keeping from missionary work outside Russia, from converting people of other confessions to the Orthodox faith, you actually doom them to eternal agony. What can you say about this?

– You have actually repeated word by word the criticism that some radical groups level against me. Being short of time, I will try to outline my position in a few words. The thesis of a multi-polar world does not in the least make me as Christian and bishop to give up my convictions. I believe that the Lord saves people in the Orthodox Church, and just as any minister I do everything I can to make other people understand it. And if, as a result of our meeting, at least one person comes to favor our Church, I will be sure that I have not come to this auditorium by accident. The preaching of the word of God is the main task of my life.

Speaking so, however, I am well aware that to preach globalization on an Orthodox basis is at least unrealistic today. We are against any cultural or civilizational imperialism, and the greatest danger, we believe, is coming from the two models – Western liberal and radical Islamic projects. The tragedy of September 11 was provoked by a confrontation between these two models of world order. In order to prevent this tragedy from repeating itself, the developing world order should take into account various civilizational models, and the Orthodox civilization should make a considerable contribution to the building of a multi-polar world.

I will repeat: in saying so, I as Orthodox do not for a minute deny that life in accordance with the norms of Orthodox faith is salvific, that is, it gives a human being the fullness of existence which in this earthly life is named happiness and in the other world is called eternal life.

– The opinion has been repeatedly voiced that Orthodoxy in Russia is a state religion. Is it not wrong with regard to other confessions, especially if we consider today’s religious and political situation?

– It is only morbid imagination or the consciousness of those who do not know nor understand the situation that can generate the idea of the state status of the Orthodox Church in today’s Russia, for such a status implies the incorporation of the Church in the state system, as was the case before the Revolution. In this situation the Church is turned into a governmental department and thus loses freedom. Governmental officials receive the right to handle the church affairs, and even today when church and state are separated, there are many of those who wish to impose their opinion on the Church. If the Church became a state church, then the Patriarch would be probably appointed by the President or the Parliament. And if, say, Metropolitan Kirill, speaking at this institute, said something inappropriate, he might be called on the carpet in an appropriate state institution and reprimanded. Do you really think that the Orthodox Church wishes to be caught in such a situation?

“The state Church” is usually referred to by those who are ill disposed to Orthodoxy. They keep silent about the fact that without any official status the Russian Orthodox Church remains a major state-forming force that has formed the culture and traditions of our country. I advise to all the lovers of religious pluralism to look closer at the Kremlin. What will you see there? – Not mosques, not synagogues, not pagodas, but Orthodox cathedrals. In the Vatican there are Catholic churches, in Saudi Arabia – mosques, in Tel Aviv – synagogues, while we have Orthodox churches in the center, and this is not accidental.

We are told that all confessions should be equal. But how can you equalize 73 percent of the population who declare their bonds with the Orthodox Church to a recently-emerged group of sectarians from South Korea or Western Europe? I always underline the difference between the notions of equality and equal rights. In his remarkable book “A Philosophy of Inequality” N. A. Berdyaev shows the artificial nature and internal contradiction of the slogan “Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood”. Just imagine a meadow where every little blade grows as it can. One grows tall and beautiful, while the other short and imperceptible. Such is freedom. But equality is found in an English lawn where all little blades are equally cut flat. Freedom contradicts the notion of equality. Is it possible to compare Bolshoi Theatre to a small team of artistic amateurs? Is it possible to compare ORT TV channel and a small factory’s TV company? But why then the Russian Orthodox Church should be equal to a group of “shakers” who have recently come from South Africa?

The state should defend equality, that is, equality of all people before law. It would be wrong to justify an outstanding soloist of Bolshoi who comes into conflict with a representative of a small artistic team only because he is a great singer. If the Orthodox are given legal rights which subject non-believers or those who confess another religion to discrimination, we will be the first to come out against it. Human dignity, the freedom of human spirit, is not something to play with; the state cannot be turned into a paradise for ones and a prison for others.

The Church has gone through a severe school of persecution. And we say to all: to be Orthodox does not mean to have privileges, but equality and equal rights should not be confused when we speak about the Russian Orthodox Church and other religions and confessions in Russia.

See also:

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate