ISSUES: CHRISTIANS AND THE WORLD

As I stated in the BENEDICT thread yesterday where I had thought this item belonged, I was flabbergasted to find out that there is not a single mention of Cardinal Ratzinger, benedict XVI, or the book being introduced, in this lengthy Introduction by Russian Orthodox Arhbishop Hilarion Alfeyev to the Russian-Italin book Europa, patria spirituale, published by the Patriarchate of Moscow, using four of the major discourses on Europe given by Cardinal Ratzinger and Benedict XVI in the past decade.

I continue to be outraged by Hilarion's unexplainably thoughtless omission of the book and author for whom he ostensibly wrote this Introduction. However, it is a very informative document about the Russian Orthodox Church and its vision for Europe. That is why I went on to translate the entire thing, especially since it might not be translated into English at all in the usual media outlets.

I can only conclude that in publishing this book, the Russians meant to ride piggyback on Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's prestige to more widely publicize their point of view about Europe.

Of course, anyone who buys the book will certainly not limit himself to just reading the Introduction and get to the Pope's speeches. Still, I find that the circumstances of this 'Introduction' don't make sense at all! What would it have cost anyone to add a single line that ties in all that Hilarion says to what Benedict XVI has been advocating to Europe and for Europe?


Europe and the intimidations of secularism - Part 1
by Hilarion Alfeyev
Archbishop of Volokolamsk
Translated from
the 12/2/09 issue of



Editor's Note: "The role of the Church in the cultural integration of Europe" is the subject of the roundtable Tuesday evening in Rome at the Ministry for Economic Development, at the presentation of the book Europa, patria spirituale by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

The event takes place within this year's Italian session of the Forum for Dialog of the Italo-Russian civic societies.

The book is a collection of three discourses by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and one by Benedict XVI on the subject of Europe, published in a bilingual Italian-Russian edition by the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow (231 pp). We are publishing the Introduction written by Archbishop Hilarion, president of the Patriarchate's Department for External Relations.


Travelling in Europe, especially in the traditionally Protestant countries, I am always surprised to see not a few churches abandoned by their congregations, and then transformed into pubs, clubs, businesses, or for other profane activities.

There is something profoundly deplorable in this sad spectacle. I come from a country in which for many decades, churches were used for irreligious purposes. So many places of worship were completely destroyed, others converted to 'museums of atheism', and still others adapted to become secular institutions.

This was one of the features of what was called militant atheism that dominated my country for 70 years and whose collapse was fairly recent.

But in Western Europe, what is the reason for similar phenomena? Is it because the space for religion in Western society has been reduced rather considerably in recent decades? How is it that religion has increasingly less space in the public sphere?

Further, why is this contraction of the religious presence in Europe coincident with processes of consolidation at the political, financial, economic and social levels?

I will not try to give an answer to these questions. I will limit myself to some observations on the role of religion in modern Europe, on the possible contribution of Churches and religious communities to the process of European integration and on the ways in which Churches can develop their relationship with the world.

I write both as an official representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, and as a person whose personal experience matured through contact with European culture. Thus, I will state not only the official position of my Church but I will also offer some personal reflections.

Europe is a unique ethnic-cultural phenomenon. Iin a comparatively small territory, different cultures co-exist, each with its own identity, language and plurisecular tradition. In the course of their history, the nations of Europe have been lacerated by contrasts that have often led to armed conflict. In most cases, these acts of aggression have been the result of a collision of political interests between two nations, but the origin has often been of a cultural nature.

Some conflicts also had a religious dimension such as those between
Catholics and Protestants, or between Christians and Muslims. Some inter-confessional and inter-religious rivalries continue to this day - just think of Northern Ireland and Kosovo.

In the era of colonialism, when the world was divided up among the European empires into their respective spheres of influence, the internal contradictions in Europe assumed global weight.

The two world wars of the 20th century, which coincided with the disintegration of the colonial system, were in fact European wars since they were the result of confrontations among the dominant states in Europe.

But these wars affected the whole world. What's more, they revealed the destructive potential in the variegated conglomerate of European nations and cultures.

Right after the Second World War, when Europe lay in ruins, the need for pan-European solidarity became evident, not only for the survival of the continent, but of the entire world. It was necessary to avoid at all costs a third world war which could have annihilated the entire human race.

For this reason, right after 1945, there started to take shape a system of reciprocal support and solidarity, starting the process of integrating the Western European nations with a view to constituting the United States of Europe. The very presence of Big Brother beyond the Iron Curtain impelled the West to work towards integration and unification.

Initially, this process had economic, military and political dimensions only. Nonetheless with time, the demand for a common cultural space, of a single European civilization, became more acute.

Thus, it has also been necessary to develop a new universal ideology which, by reducing ideological and religious tensions among different peoples, would be able to assure peaceful coexistence among various cultures in the network of one single European civilization.

To create an ideology of such broad relevance, it was necessary to reduce all the cultural, ideological and religious traditions of Europe to a common denominator. The role of such a denominator was taken on by 'post-Christian' Western humanism, whose essential principles were formulated in the age of Enlightenment and the 'slogans' of the French Revolution.

The model of a new Europe based on this ideology presupposes the edification of a society that declares itself secularist, in which religion can only have space in the private sphere.

In conformity with this secularized model, religion should be separated from the state as well as from society: it should not have any influence on social development nor take part in political life.

Such a model not only reduces to zero the social dimension of every religion but constitutes a challenge to the missionary vocation of so many religious communities.

For the Christian churches, this model represents an authentic intimidation because it threatens their possibility to preach the Gospel to 'all the nations', to announce Christ to the world.

If the secularized model is unconditionally imposed on Europe without taking into consideration whatsoever the specific role that religion has in society, then it will be pushed into a ghetto, where it is allowed to exist but from where it will be difficult for it to emerge.

The faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church lived in such a ghetto for decades. When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, one of the first decrees they issued was that of separating Church from State and schools from the Church.

The introduction of the first principle, separation of Church and State, had been awaited for some time, because since the start of the 18th century, the Church in Russia had found itself under the control of the State and sought a way to liberate itself.

Nonetheless, separating schools from the Church means that the Church was no longer able to carry out its role in education. Shortly after the revolution, when the Bolsheviks adopted militant atheism, the Church was forbidden to manage any educational institution of its own.

It was not allowed to publish books nor periodicals, or to give religious instruction to children and young people, or to ask adolescents to participate in liturgy as altar boys.

For so many decades, until the 1980s, it was unimaginable to see a priest inside any school, or to see any teacher enter a church, or to see any schoolboy render any service in church. The frontier between the ghetto and the external word was kept under tight control, and any transgressors, whoever they were, were severely punished.

In the Soviet Union, religion was persecuted for 70 years. There were various waves of persecution, and each had its own particular character. In the late 1920s and the 1930s, the persecutions were at their most cruel. A great part of the clergy were put to death. All the monasteries, theological schools, and majority of the churches were closed.

A less brutal period came after the end of the Second World War, when some monasteries and schools were reopened. But in the 1960s, a new wave of severe persecutions began, aimed at the total annihilation of religion which was projected to take place by the 1980s.

But in the mid-1980s, the Church was not only still alive but, in fact, although slowly, was starting to grow. As the Soviet ideological system started to decay, the growth in the Church became more rapid, and the State even started to look at the Church with growing favor. This led therefore to noteworthy changes in the relationship between Church and State.

But one thing did not change: the prohibition on religion emerging from the ghetto to which it had been confined by the atheist regime. The Church continued to be excluded from any possible contact with the life of society which, in turn, was 'protected' by a shield against any possible religious influence.

To be a believer meant to be a pariah: faith was not to be discussed openly; one's religious convictions must be kept hidden; and conversations on spiritual topics were to be avoided.

The processes which are taking place in Europe today are somewhat similar to what took place in the Soviet Union. Militant secularism is just as dangerous to religion as militant atheism was. Both militate towards excluding religion from the public and political sphere, relegating it to a ghetto, restricting its practice to private devotion.

In the rest of Europe, the unwritten rules of political correctness are increasingly applied to religious institutions. In many cases, this implies that believers may no longer express their own religious convictions publicly, since doing so could violate the rights of those who do not share these convictions.

One could add that in the West, the lay press has a largely negative attitude towards Christian churches - their real life does not interest the journalists at all. Usually, their interest lies in any scandals among or within the communities.

The Churches cannot be absolved of their responsibility for these sad episodes, but the life of the Church does not consist of scandals alone, even if this is the kind of news about the Church that the media follow quite assiduously.

The question is this: does the negative information in the media constitute a deliberate way to undermine Christian witness in the world? If that is so, can this be considered part of a much wider policy which aims at the progressive marginalization of Christianity from society until it is finally expelled?

The results of such a policy are quite evident. In some countries, especially those that do not have a Catholic or Orthodox majority, those majestic cathedrals which, until a few decades ago, saw thousands of faithful assembled in prayer, are now half empty.

Theological seminaries are closing down for lack of vocations. Religious communities are aging and not being replenished. Church properties are being sold, and former places of worship are transformed into centers for worldly activities.

Once again, it cannot be denied that in many cases, the Churches themselves are responsible for the situation, but the destructive effect of secularism should not be under-estimated.

Religion is really being expelled from the public sphere and increasingly marginalized in secularized societies. This, notwithstanding the fact that in all the Western world, and particularly in Europe, most people still believe in God. [Particularly in Europe? I really doubt that!]

Many Europeans are asking themselves the same thing: How can we safeguard Christian witness for the world? How can we prevent society from plunging into the abyss of secularism? How can we bring back young people to God? How do we build bridges between the Church and the state, on the one hand, and with society and the mass media on the other?

The Russian Orthodox Church - with its unique experience of surviving the harshest persecutions and fighting militant atheism, re-emerging from the ghetto as soon as the political situation changed, recovering its proper place in society and redefining its own social responsibilities - can help Europe find answers to these questions.

Russia and the other republics of the former Soviet Union, unlike so many countries of Western Europe, are living through a period of religious rebirth. Millions of persons are turning back to God; monasteries and churches are being built everywhere.

The Russian Orthodox Church, which undoubtedly is one of the fastest-growing Churches in the world today, does not suffer any lack of vocations: on the contrary, thousands of young men are entering the theological schools to consecrate their lives to God.
The Russian Orthodox Church is carrying out serious intellectual efforts to comprehend the role of Christianity in a secularized world, to define its relationship with society and with the State, so that the positions of the Church may be clearly proposed regarding the key problems of modernity.

"The Foundations of the Social Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church”', a document adopted by the Council of Bishops in 2000, is the written proof of the fact that the Church approaches these problems in a mature and responsible way, and that it has the intellectual potential to give balanced and understandable answers to these problems.

Once these document is read - the first text of its kind in the entire history of the Orthodox Christianity - everyone will see that it comes from a Church that no longer lives in a ghetto, but one that is at the peak of its powers.

Heavily damaged by militant atheism, this Church was never destroyed. On the contrary, it emerged from the fire of persecution renewed and rejuvenated. Having descended to hell, it has risen from the dead, a Church that has much to say to the world.

The unique situation of the Orthodox Church, its rich experience in Church-State relationships, its rootedness in European culture, and its important role in the edification of a new Europe, are elements acknowledged by the officials of the European Union.
For the Russian Orthodox Church, there cannot be a single ideological model, nor a single system of spiritual and moral values to be imposed indiscriminately on all the European nations.

The Russian Orthodox Church sees a Europe based on authentic pluralism, a Europe in which the diversity of cultural, spiritual and religious traditions should be fully represented. This plurality of traditions should be reflected in every legislative document and respected by every court in its verdicts.

If laws and court sentences are based exclusively on principles rooted in Western secularist humanism - with its specific concepts of peace, tolerance, freedom, justice, respect for human rights, and the like - then they risk not being accepted by a great part of the European population, particularly those who, by belonging to a religious tradition, have a different view of these same principles.

The official position of the Patriarchate of Moscow, reflected in the declaration by its Department for External Church Relations to the Convention on the Future of Europe, is that the Western secularist model does not normally assume any link at all between religious values and the social order, even as in many places outside the Western world, religious factors play a crucial role in the formation of political and social doctrines.

The questions posed by the Russian Orthodox Church are these: If the European Union is called on to be the common home for so many people, how can the liberal humanist secularist model of political structure - a model that originated in Western Europe and North America - have the right to exercise a monopoly?

Should we not perhaps give greater consideration to the growth of religious influence on society, particularly that of Orthodoxy, but even of neo-charismatic groups and Islam?

Is it not time to understand that a society deprived of the possibility of realizing a religious idea as its principal and central element is being deprived of its very future?

The terrifying events of 2001 (9/11) in the United States showed how the collision between two 'global projects' can be so dangerous - one being liberal humanistic, the other radical conservative, with each of them considering no alternative, and both claiming to exercise a monopoly. The total destruction of one side by the other which has sometimes been proposed is not a way out - it would be mutual suicide.

Partisans of the liberal humanist secularist vision should accept a pluralism of ideas and opinions in all Europe. They should recognize the right of different communities to keep their own cultural and spiritual identity, the nucleus of which is often constituted by religion.

These observations of a general character have led the Department for External Ecclesiastical Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow to advance concrete proposals regarding the statements that, in its view, should be inserted into the future definitive Constitution of the European Union.

In particular, it must be recognized that for so many believers, the commandments of God are seen as the source of universal values, whereas non-believers claim these values have different origins. Religious organizations should be treated as representative of a certain sector in society: they should be respected and their freedom safeguarded to have their own view of what fundamental values are.

In the constitutional treaty for Europe, individual freedom should be counterweighted by freedom for cultural and religious communities. In fact, they have the right to protect their integrity and the values on which their existence is based.

The expansion of the European Union eastward, the statement from our Department continues, should not mean the extension as well of standards that are extraneous to the culture and way of life of nations which are joining or about to join the Union.

The totalitarian dictatorship of the recent past should not be replaced by a new dictatorship by pan-European governing mechanisms.

In an expanded EU, every culture and every nation should have the freedom to express its own specificity and should have access to decisional mechanisms.

There should be a clear division of responsibilities and rights of the European Union, on the one hand, and those of the member State on the other.

[Continued in the next post)