Showing posts sorted by relevance for query WCC. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

The World Council of Churches must act with courage and expel Kirill, Russian Orthodox Church

Supporters of the effort to oust Kirill from the WCC believe he has disqualified the ecclesial entity he embodies by effectively endorsing Putin's military campaign.

Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, Russia, early Thursday, Jan. 7, 2021. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

March 28, 2022

Rob Schenck

(RNS) — A growing number of global Christian leaders, including Pope Francis, Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and General Secretary Ioan Sauca of the World Council of Churches, has appealed to the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, to use his office to persuade Vladimir Putin to end his war against the Ukrainian people.

However, because Kirill hasn’t followed their counsel, some are going a step further, urging the WCC to expel Kirill’s Moscow-based church body for acting contrary to the WCC mission of fostering Christian unity, peace and justice.

Kirill was initially silent as Putin’s military campaign developed on the Russian side. However, once forces crossed over into Ukraine, Kirill seemed to justify the action blatantly. In a Feb. 27 sermon, he said the move was due to the West imposing secularism on Ukraine, including a requirement for the country to accept “gay pride parades.” He also dubbed the conflict “metaphysical” in nature, arguably turning it into a religious war.

Then, in a March 10 letter responding to the WCC’s Sauca, the Russian Prelate seemed to scold him, writing, “As you know, this conflict did not start today. It is my firm belief that its initiators are not the peoples of Russia and Ukraine, who came from one Kievan baptismal font, are united by common faith, common saints and prayers, and share common historical fate. The origins of the confrontation lie in the relationships between the West and Russia.”

Kirill’s blame-shifting didn’t end with Europe and North America, however. He also faulted Bartholomew of Constantinople for granting Ukrainian Orthodox churches independence from Moscow, calling it a “schism” that has “taken its toll on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

With distress about Kirill growing within the WCC ranks, Sauca, an Orthodox priest and acting general secretary, had written the Prelate on March 2, urging him “to intervene and mediate with the authorities to stop this war, the bloodshed and the suffering, and to make efforts to bring peace through dialogue and negotiations.”

Ioan Sauca, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, on June 24, 2021. Photo by Ivars Kupcis/WCC

After receiving Kirill’s defensive missive in response, the secretary posted a statement appealing for “an immediate end to such indiscriminate attacks, for respect for international humanitarian principles and the God-given human dignity and rights of every human being, and for a ceasefire and negotiations to end this tragic conflict.”

A day later, some 100 U.S. Christian denominational officers, institutional executives, academics and social influencers signed a letter to Kirill. They pled with him to “use your voice and profound influence to call for an end to the hostilities and war in Ukraine and intervene with authorities in your nation to do so.”

While these initial communications with the Moscow Patriarchate were essentially congenial, prominent Czech theologian and ecumenical Protestant spokesman Pavel Černý, who, as a college student, lived through the Soviet invasion of his country in 1968, was much stronger. In an essay released to European and North American Christian publications on March 24, Černý decried Kirill’s mix of silence, implicit justification and tacit endorsement regarding Putin’s bloodletting: “If the WCC cares about peace, it must not allow such behavior among its members,” he demanded. “The ROC should not be permitted to continue as a WCC member until it turns away from this false path of religious nationalism.”

In support of Černý’s call for ROC expulsion, The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, based in Washington, D.C., has launched a recruitment effort for help from the heads of WCC member denominations and the organization’s governing authorities. The institute is asking them to press for a vote at the octennial assembly in September terminating — or at the least, indefinitely suspending — the ROC’s membership. It has also posted a petition online that allows anyone to join the chorus of voices speaking to this massive humanitarian-cum-ecclesial crisis. In part, it reads, “Kirill persists in justifying Putin’s aggression by stylizing the invasion as a religious crusade. The scale of human suffering resulting from the unholy compact between Kirill and Putin requires the World Council of Churches (WCC) to take immediate action.”

The World Council of Churches (WCC) logo. Courtesy image

There are those who might see expulsion of the ROC as inconsistent with another dimension of WCC’s purpose, which is to mediate differences between religious groups. But Kirill’s use of his religious imprimatur to justify the unprovoked brutal military assault on non-combatants — displacing tens of millions, violently separating families, starving whole cities, grievously wounding small children and killing pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly — are not fine points to ponder, negotiate or find compromise on. Such a scale of terror and irreversible injury constitute Bonhoeffer’s “third possibility” of intervention: to “not just bind up the wounds of the victims beneath the wheel, but to seize the wheel itself.” The extreme consequences of the ROC’s actions or inaction require suspension of WCC norms. Proper procedure does not trump controversial action when the latter is in the interest of preserving human life and flourishing.

There are also more than moral reasons to demand the WCC rescind the ROC’s status. First, there is credible evidence Kirill has a long history of clandestine work for various intelligence-gathering agencies, beginning in the Soviet era. Ejecting him may cut off Putin’s inside source on worldwide religious cooperation and internal messaging on the Ukraine war. Second, the ROC is something of a propaganda tool for Putin. Kirill and his Council of Bishops tend to echo official Kremlin pronouncements, applaud its policies, and, as they have done with Putin’s war against Ukraine, sacralize even the worst government conduct by styling it as a spiritual pursuit. Removing the ROC’s access to the WCC platform would weaken one of Putin’s disinformation pipelines. Finally, there is the matter of military morale. Around 90% of Russian soldiers, sailors and airmen identify as Russian Orthodox faithful. Censoring their supreme spiritual shepherd on a global and ecumenical level could significantly reduce his popularity and credibility, demoralizing the warriors who see themselves as divinely deployed.

Supporters of the effort to oust Kirill from the WCC believe he has disqualified the ecclesial entity he embodies by effectively endorsing Putin’s military campaign to annex Ukraine and failing to oppose the attendant mass violence against a peaceful nation. Not only does Putin’s bloody and mostly Christian-on-Christian conflict subvert the WCC’s mission statement, but it stands in stark contradiction to and rejection of Jesus’ high priestly prayer to his heavenly Father, “that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11b).

Given Patriarch Kirill’s aiding and abetting of war crimes perpetrated by Russian forces in Ukraine, the World Council of Churches must act with moral courage, ethical responsibility and spiritual integrity and remove the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church from its membership.

(Rev. Rob Schenck, D.Min. is president of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute in Washington, D.C., administrative bishop of the Methodist Evangelical Church USA and author of “Costly Grace: An Evangelical Minister’s Rediscovery of Faith, Hope, and Love” (HarperCollins 2018). The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Thursday, June 30, 2022

New World Council of Churches head draws criticism over Israel remarks

Jewish leaders voiced frustration with the Rev. Jerry Pillay's comparison of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid in South Africa.

The Rev. Jerry Pillay, the general secretary elect of the World Council of Churches.

Photo by Peter Williams/WCC

June 30, 2022
By Jack Jenkins

(RNS) — Since being elected to lead the World Council of Churches earlier this month, the Rev. Jerry Pillay, former general secretary of the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa, has been rebuffing critics who accuse him of making antisemitic remarks by referring to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as tantamount to apartheid.

Pillay, the dean of the University of Pretoria, is slated to assume leadership of the global ecumenical Christian group at the beginning of next year. As many in the WCC celebrated his June 17 election at a meeting of the group’s central committee, some Jewish leaders expressed outrage that the WCC would elevate someone who has in the past called out Israel in language that many Jews believe crosses a line.

David Michaels, director of United Nations and intercommunal affairs at B’nai B’rith International, a Jewish service organization, described Pillay’s election as “astounding and alarming” and accused him of espousing “simplistic ideological extremism” and having “a problem with Jews — at least those supportive of Zionism.”

Michaels and other critics pointed to a theological paper Pillay published in 2016 titled “Apartheid in the Holy Land: Theological reflections on the Israel and/or Palestine situation from a South African perspective.” The paper concludes that a “comparison between the Israel-Palestine conflict and the South African apartheid experience is, indeed, justifiable.”

Pillay also reportedly gave a speech at a 2014 event organized by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which took place during the denomination’s general assembly. Like the paper, the title of the talk delivered by Pillay was reportedly “Apartheid in the Holy Land.”

Besides Pillay’s invocation of apartheid — the term used to describe the historic, racist subjugation of people of color in South Africa — Michaels also challenged Pillay’s positive references to the controversial “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement directed at Israel.

Michaels accused the WCC itself of being “complicit in a predominant contemporary strain of anti-Semitism,” saying a faction in the WCC has worked to “weaponize” the organization against Israel.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, South Africa’s Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein called on Pillay “to retract his 2016 statements accusing Israel of apartheid and calling for a boycott of the Jewish state.”

Pillay responded in a statement issued by the WCC on June 23, saying: “I support the Jewish people preserving their identity and practicing their religious beliefs and values. I believe that all religions must be respected and people of all faiths — and no faith — must work together to create a world of justice and peace in which we express love, unity and reconciliation.”

The World Council of Churches logo. Image courtesy of WCC

“This stance has been and continues to be that of the World Council of Churches, and it would never elect a leader who practiced or preached antisemitism in any way, shape or form,” the statement said.

“Consequently,” it continued, “the WCC will continue to stand firmly behind United Nations (UN) resolutions on the occupied territories and speak out against all forms of injustice, regardless of where or who they come from.”

Comparisons between South African apartheid and the occupation of the West Bank, long invoked by Palestinian activists, have increased since at least 2007, when former President Jimmy Carter drew criticism for titling a book on Israel “Peace Not Apartheid.” The late Desmond Tutu, a South African archbishop renowned for his work as an anti-apartheid activist, also sparked pushback for invoking the comparison later in his life.

“When you go to the Holy Land and see what’s being done to the Palestinians at checkpoints, for us, it’s the kind of thing we experienced in South Africa,” Tutu told Religion News Service in 2013. “Whether you want to say Israel practices apartheid is immaterial. They are doing things, given their history, you think, ‘Do you remember what happened to you?’”

In January of last year, Israeli human rights group B’Tselem published a report describing the Israeli government as overseeing a nondemocratic “apartheid regime.” Human Rights Watch also used the word in a 2021 report accusing Israel of “apartheid and persecution.” Amnesty International followed in February of this year, releasing a report titled “Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel system of domination and crime against humanity.”

At least one prominent Israeli has made the allusion: In February, former Israeli Attorney General Michael Benyair declared Israel “an apartheid regime.”

Jewish groups in the United States rebuked the stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Rev. J. Herbert Nelson, in February for characterizing the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel as “21st century slavery.” He also referred to “dismantling apartheid” in the same speech.

On Wednesday, the PCUSA’s International Engagement Committee passed a resolution in a 28-3 vote that argues the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians “fulfill(s) the international legal definition of apartheid.”

An array of Israeli officials, Jewish leaders and Jewish organizations has passionately condemned the apartheid characterization, calling the term inaccurate, offensive and dangerous, saying it can encourage antisemitic views.

The Israeli foreign ministry railed against Amnesty’s report even before it was released, calling it “false, biased, and antisemitic.” The Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish group in the U.S., also blasted the report and singled out its use of the label apartheid, calling it “deeply wrong.”

“It is particularly incumbent upon those of us who have condemned the Occupation as a moral travesty, advocated strongly for its end, and who have a lengthy record of advocating for the human rights of the Palestinian people including the right to self-determination, to express our profound disappointment and explicit condemnation of this report,” read the group’s statement.

In January, the Anti-Defamation League, a prominent anti-hate organization dedicated to combating antisemitism, criticized use of the label as “inaccurate, offensive, and often used to delegitimize and denigrate Israel as a whole.” The group further argued invoking apartheid is “counterproductive to resolving issues related to injustices within Israeli society or the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Saturday, September 10, 2022

At World Council of Churches gathering, Russian church keeps its membership

The 11th assembly of the World Council of Churches approved a statement on Thursday (Sept. 8) regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

FILE - Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill conducts the Easter service in the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, Russia, April 24, 2022. Britain has announced a new round of sanctions against Russia. Those targeted include Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who Britain said “repeatedly abused his position to justify” Russia's war on Ukraine. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, Pool, File)

September 9, 2022

Jack Jenkins

(RNS) — After a sometimes tense week that included passionate exchanges, the 11th assembly of the World Council of Churches approved a statement on Thursday (Sept. 8) regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that denounces the war but does not single out the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, who has been widely criticized for supporting the invasion.

The statement condemned “this illegal and unjustifiable war,” and specifically rejected “any misuse of religious language and authority to justify armed aggression and hatred,” while calling on all parties to refrain from military action around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

But the document produced by the assembly, meeting in Karlsruhe, Germany, is unlikely to satisfy critics who in recent months have called for the group’s leadership to strip the Russian church of its membership in the ecumenical body.

Moscow’s patriarch has already been sanctioned by the United Kingdom because of his rhetoric. The European Union also discussed similar sanctions, but they were reportedly abandoned after Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, intervened.

Kirill has spent years outlining what is widely seen as the spiritual foundation for the invasion, inserting a religious justification for reclaiming Russia’s sphere of influence in Ukraine and elsewhere with references to “Holy Rus” or “Russian world.” Earlier this year, hundreds of Orthodox theologians and scholars declared the concept a heresy.

At an opening press conference on Aug. 31, outgoing WCC General Secretary Ioan Sauca, a Romanian Orthodox priest, announced the group’s central committee had rejected efforts by critics to expel the Russian church earlier this year.

“The WCC is a free space for dialogue, and we come together not because we agree with one another but because we disagree,” said Sauca, saying the proposal to expel the Russians was unanimously defeated.

Sauca said he and others had visited Ukraine this year and that observer representatives of Ukraine would be present for the assembly. But in the days that followed, any hope of brokering formal dialogue between the Ukrainians and ROC members during the proceedings appeared to dissipate.

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier addressed the assembly Aug. 31, singling out the Russians in his remarks. He noted that while a number of Russian Orthodox priests have spoken out against the war and faced legal action for it, church leaders have actively supported the Russian government’s military actions.

“The heads of the Russian Orthodox Church are currently leading their members and their entire church down a dangerous and indeed blasphemous path that goes against all that they believe,” said Steinmeier.

FILE – Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill applaud during the unveiling ceremony of a monument to Vladimir the Great on the National Unity Day outside the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Friday, Nov. 4, 2016. President Vladimir Putin has led ceremonies launching a large statue outside the Kremlin to a 10th-century prince of Kiev who is credited with making Orthodox Christianity the official faith of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

“We have to speak out, also here in this room, in this assembly, against this propaganda targeting the freedom and rights of the citizens of another country, this nationalism, which arbitrarily claims that a dictatorship’s imperial dreams of hegemony are God’s will,” the president said.

Acknowledging Russian Orthodox delegates in the room, Steinmeier asked that other assembly attendees “not to spare them the truth about this brutal war and the criticism of the role of their church leaders.”

In his own address on Sept. 2, Archbishop Yevstratiy of Chernihiv and Nizhyn of the independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine accused Russian soldiers of atrocities. Two weeks into the war, he said, troops opened fire on unarmed civilians manning a checkpoint just outside of the village of Yasnohorodka, killing a local parish priest who had raised his cross as he tried to protect civilians.

“Today, Ukrainians are the ones attacked by robbers,” Yevstratiy said in his condemnation, invoking the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan. “Do not pass by our suffering and our pain, as the priest and the Levite of the parable!”

Yevstratiy thanked WCC members for speaking out against Kirill’s support for the war and recommended that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which declared itself independent of Moscow in 2018, be granted full WCC membership.

Tensions flared again days later when the proposed statement on the invasion of Ukraine was introduced to the assembly. Roman Sigov, who identified himself as part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church observer delegation, stepped to the microphone, urging WCC leaders to respond to his group’s submitted comments. (Leaders ultimately accommodated only two minor wording changes in the final document.)

“I cannot express how much it hurts to hear a statement which treats the victim and the aggressor in the same way,” Sigov said. He also accused Russian prelates present of supporting the war and, in one case, sharing videos on social media mocking Ukrainian prisoners.

“Let us hear the voice of Ukrainians when talking about the war in Ukraine,” he said, noting that independent Ukrainian churchmen, unlike Russian Orthodox leaders, lacked official representation at the assembly.

Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill, center, and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, right, at the consecration of the Cathedral of Russian Armed Forces outside Moscow, June 14, 2020. (Oleg Varov, Russian Orthodox Church Press Service via AP)

The Russian Orthodox were also critical of the statement. One Russian delegate, Archimandrite Philaret Bulekov, dismissed it as part of an “information war” and derisively likened it to anti-war statements from McDonald’s and Starbucks, saying it would occupy “the same level of importance.”

He called the German president’s speech “pathetic” and alleged that Steinmeier bore “personal responsibility” for the Ukraine invasion.

After Bulekov finished, a youth observer representing the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Oleksandra Kovalenko, called on members of the Russian delegation to raise their blue voting cards if they opposed the Russian invasion of Ukraine. According to one attendee, no blue cards were raised.

“It is very sad that you compared the blood of Ukrainian people to Starbucks and McDonald’s,” said Kovalenko to applause from many in the chamber.

Pressed by journalists at a closing press conference, members of the WCC central committee acknowledged Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox delegations did not formally meet during the assembly. Metropolitan Nifon of Târgoviște, a Romanian Orthodox priest who is vice moderator of the WCC committee, said members of the two sides may have talked informally and “exchanged some views.” Formal dialogue, he said, remains a goal.

“For people to come to the table, it takes a lot of footwork in the background,” said Agnes Abuom, moderator of the WCC Central Committee representing the Anglican Church of Kenya. “That needs to continue to happen in order that there will be trust, the willingness to come to the table and dialogue.”

Mary Ann Swenson, a United Methodist Bishop from the U.S. and a vice moderator of the central committee, expressed hope for such talks. “We really did do some breaking down of walls in a lot of ways,” she said.

As important at this stage, she said, was making sure others heard the stories of those ravaged by the ongoing war. “I would also say that a significant thing was that other people in all of the other parts of the world got a deeper and better understanding of what people are really living with in that region, to hear some of the struggles from all of the people in that region. That will make a difference in the future.”

Mikhail Gorbachev’s tragic legacy in the Russian Orthodox Church

The Russian leader ended 70 years of repression of the Russian Orthodox Church but opened the way for other faith groups.

Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow in 1991. The former Soviet president died at 91. (AP Photo/Boris Yurchenko, File)

September 7, 2022

John P. Burgess

(RNS) — The legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev, so celebrated in the West, evokes deep ambivalence among Russians and Russian Orthodox believers. After 70 years of persecution and marginalization under the Soviet regime, the Orthodox Church took advantage of Gorbachev’s invitation to reenter public life.

But the last Soviet leader also failed the church in many Orthodox eyes. He reduced religion to a private, individual matter; tragically, he could not see Russian Orthodoxy as the politically privileged religion of both Russia and its Eastern Slavic neighbors. The position that he rejected has now helped Russians justify the invasion of Ukraine.

The Russian Orthodox Church was once the church of Russia and Ukraine. Under Gorbachev, Ukrainian Greek Catholics and adherents of an autocephalous — independent — Ukrainian Orthodox Church came out of the underground, eventually demanding legal status and the return of church properties the Communists had confiscated and given to the Russian church. Gorbachev made the mistake, his Orthodox critics charge, of applying glasnost and perestroika to religious affairs, rather than securing the unity of the nation and its historic church.

Gorbachev did not immediately reverse the government’s anti-religious policies when he came to power in March 1985. After the 1917 October Revolution, the new Soviet rulers razed churches or turned them into factories, gymnasiums, apartment buildings and warehouses. Church bells were not permitted to ring, nor could the martyrs of the gulag be canonized. Candidates for the priesthood had to be vetted by state religious affairs officials and security forces. Most monasteries were closed.

State authorities restricted religious activities to the remaining church buildings — educational endeavors or social ministries were forbidden. Attendance at religious services would often result in difficulties at work or school. At Easter, the police surrounded churches and demanded to see people’s passports. Religion increasingly became a matter best left to the babushki.

The church’s fortunes rose and fell in the following decades. Stalin relaxed anti-religious measures in exchange for the church’s support in the war against the Nazis, but Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin’s successor, pressed an aggressive campaign for atheistic indoctrination. Then, in 1983, in anticipation of Russian Orthodoxy’s celebration of its millennium in 1988, the government returned Moscow’s historic Danilov Monastery to the church.

But by the beginning of the Gorbachev era, fewer than 7,000 Orthodox parishes were in operation, compared with 50,000 in 1917. Only a couple of dozen of small monastic communities persisted, whereas there had once been a thousand.

Although himself a confirmed atheist, Gorbachev believed that Orthodox Christianity could counter the widespread demoralization and atomization of society that had occurred under communism and that Gorbachev was fighting with his perestroika and glasnost policies.

On April 29, 1988, an unprecedented meeting of church and state took place at the Kremlin: Gorbachev spoke for 90 minutes with Patriarch Pimen, acknowledged the Soviet state’s historic “mistakes” toward the church and promised a new era of religious freedom. The preceding months had already seen dramatic changes. Two major monastery complexes had been returned to the church, and the Easter liturgy had been broadcast for the first time on Soviet television.

Now, the rate of change accelerated. In June, Gorbachev’s wife, Raisa, and leading government officials attended the church’s jubilant millennial celebrations. By the end of the year, the church had established 800 new parishes, constructed dozens of church buildings and recovered the church’s most ancient monastic complex, the Monastery of the Caves in Kyiv.

It was a heady time. Orthodox priests began appearing regularly on television. The charismatic Orthodox priest Alexander Men attracted crowds of 15,000 in stadiums for his lectures on the Bible and religious life. Parishes organized Sunday schools and educational institutes. As the state-controlled social security net became increasingly frayed, Orthodox lay brotherhoods and sisterhoods stepped into the breach. Hospitals, orphanages and alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers, once off-limits to believers, flung open their doors, thankful for the church’s charitable work.

Over the objections of many local officials, church leaders now felt free to appeal to Gorbachev to defend their rights. By 1991, the church had more than 10,000 parishes and close to a hundred monasteries. Shortly before the demise of the Soviet Union in December of that year (and the end of his presidency), Gorbachev succeeded in passing a law of religious freedom and conscience that resembled the American model of separating church and state.

One church leader exclaimed: “The church is completely free for the first time in its history. The question is whether we will use this freedom.”

Gorbachev regarded the new law as one of his crowning achievements. The problem for many Orthodox believers was that the church now had competition. Dozens of “sectarian” groups emerged, including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslim “extremists.” Western evangelical missionaries poured into the country, as though Orthodoxy had never been truly Christian. In Ukraine, religious tensions intensified between the “Moscow church” and nationalistic Orthodox believers.

This loss of ecclesiastical empire came as inflation soared, the gross national product crashed, the Yeltsin government gave away state enterprises to oligarchs, and corruption became a way of life. A counterreaction soon set in, in political and religious affairs.

But even as freedom of religion and conscience became more restricted, the church won a privileged place for itself. With Vladimir Putin’s support, the church has grown to 39,000 parishes and 800 monasteries. It claims the affiliation of 70% or more of Russians. Many of them now associate Gorbachev with the efforts of the West to impose its “moral decadence” on the East. These are the Russians who welcome Putin’s “special military operation” to preserve Russia’s cultural and religious unity with Ukraine, where the fate of 12,000 of those parishes hangs in the balance.

After his death on Aug. 30, Russian Jewish, Islamic and evangelical Christian leaders commemorated Gorbachev enthusiastically for having given their adherents freedom to emigrate, undertake pilgrimages and manage their own affairs. Conservative Orthodox commentators had only scorn: “No other leader in Russia’s thousand years voluntarily gave up half of the country,” said one. Another asserted that Gorbachev was “weak and insignificant not only by historical but also by human standards.”

The silence of Patriarch Kirill — who has justified the Ukraine invasion on Russian political and ecclesiastical grounds — has been telling. He has issued no statement, offered no condolences. A year ago, he congratulated Gorbachev on his 90th birthday and acknowledged, even if just matter-of-factly, Gorbachev’s efforts “to improve the situation of believers.” Now, the war has apparently made even ambivalence impossible.

Nevertheless, what happens in Ukraine will determine not only Gorbachev’s legacy in Russia but also the future of its church. Thanks to the atheist Mikhail Gorbachev, Orthodox art, architecture, music, ministry, spiritual life and social service could flourish again. Today, a Western observer can only hope that Kirill and his flock will not betray the remarkable freedom for which Gorbachev fought.

(John P. Burgess is James Henry Snowden Professor of Systematic Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and the author of “Holy Rus’: The Rebirth of Orthodoxy in the New Russia.” The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Monday, February 06, 2023

Russian Patriarch Kirill spied in Switzerland for KGB in 70s: media

Mon, 6 February 2023

The Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, a strong supporter of President Vladimir Putin, worked for Soviet intelligence while living in Switzerland in the 1970s, Swiss newspapers reported, citing declassified archives.

According to the Sonntagszeitung and Le Matin Dimanche weeklies, the Swiss police file on the man who today serves as the spiritual head of the Russian Orthodox Church "confirms that 'Monsignor Kirill', as he is referred to in this document, worked for the KGB."

The two papers said they had gained access to the file in the Swiss national archives.

Kirill, who today is a fervent supporter of Putin's war in Ukraine, lived in Geneva in the early 1970s, officially as a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church at the World Council of Churches (WCC).

Under the code name "Mikhailov", Kirill's mission was to influence the council, already infiltrated by the KGB, the papers said.

The Russian Orthodox Church has refused to comment on Kirill's spying activity in Geneva, while the WCC had maintained it had no information about the case, they said.

But, they reported, the archives showed the Soviet objective was to push the institution to denounce the United States and its allies, and to tone down its criticism of the lack of religious freedoms in the Soviet Union.

The patriarch's nephew Mikhail Gundyaev, who currently represents the Russian church at the WCC in Geneva, however insisted to Le Matin Dimanche that his uncle "was not an agent, although he was subjected to 'strict controls' by the KGB."

And this, he insisted, "did not affect the sincerity of his engagement in ecumenical work with other churches."

Gundyaev also insisted that his uncle had had a special appreciation for Switzerland.

Kirill has visited the wealthy, Alpine nation at least 43 times, the paper reported.

He was among other things passionate about skiing, even reportedly breaking a leg on the Swiss slopes in 2007.

"Between religious diplomacy, espionage and finances, Kirill has continuously been drawn to the Alps and the shores of Lake Geneva," Le Matin Dimanche said.

"I have special feelings for your country," the patriarch himself said in 2019 upon receiving the president of the upper house of the Swiss parliament.

"Of all the countries in the world, it is possibly the one I have visited the most often."

vog/nl/rjm/yad

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

I AM REPOSTING THIS DUE TO THE FACT THE OLD SHIBBOLETH OF ALBERTA SEPARATISM HAS RAISED ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN WITH THE ELECTION OF UCP
UCP IS THE RESULT OF THESE PAST PARTIES MERGING INTO ONE AFTER THE ELECTION OF THE NDP GOVERNMENT IN 2015

Friday, December 30, 2005

Alberta Seperatism Not Quite Stamped Out

Well that didn't take long. Starting with Bouquets of Grey documenting Edmonton East Conservative Campaign Manager Gordon Stamp, a perennial right wing figure here in Redmonton, being an Alberta Seperatiste and saying stupid things in online forums and now he is gone.

And Bouquets got some help from the rest of us in the blogosphere passing on our two bits worth, including yours truly, it got picked up by Paul Wells at Macleans and he forwarded it to Conservative Candidate Peter Goldring and voila Resignation tendered and accepted. Wow faster than you can say Liberal Blog, gotta hand it to Goldring he didn't give Gord his stamp of approval for his off the wall comments. Not like the Liberal spokesman did for Klander.

But true to form some folks think this is censorship and unfair to the Alberta Seperatiste faction of the Blogging Tory's. Such as Candace another Redmontonian whose blog WakingUpOnPlanetX supports Alberta Seperatism is very very upset about this. She equates Alberta Sepratism with the PQ and BQ in Quebec.

So here is a history lesson for Candace, of course its a left wing history lesson, so no apologies for that.

Alberta Seperatism is at its core an anti-semitic, racist, white power movement.
It is not the equivalent of the PQ or Quebec. It is not founded in the radical tradition of prairie populism of the Reil Rebellion contrary to the disingenous statements of Link Byfield. It is based in the right wing of the old Social Credit party and its links to the fascist movement in Canada.

It originates in Alberta not in the dirty thirties but the early 1980's in the last days of the Lougheed government, with the Western Canada Concept (WCC) of rightwhingnut lawyer and defender of fascists Doug Christie. The WCC won a seat in a red neck rural riding, and had an MLA in the Alberta Legislature giving them some political credibility, some, enough for Lougheed to use them as a whipping boy against Ottawa. Which Ralph Klein continues to do today. Any time things got a little outta hand between the Liberals in Ottawa and the Alberta Government the bugaboo of Alberta Seperatism would be raised. Clever ploy that.

The reality is that during the 1980's two major right wing populist parties began in Alberta, both anti-semitic, white power, anti-biligualism, pro religious fundamentalist, pro Celtic Saxon peoples (code for White Power) anti immigrant anti multiculturalism, today add anti-gay. These were the WCC and Elmer Knutsens Confederation of Regions Party. The CRP did not win seats in Alberta but in New Brunswick, as a right wing backlash to that provinces French majority.
Ironic eh.

Members, followers and fellow travelers of these parties, also belonged to farther right groups as well as the Reform Party of Canada when it was formed. By then their rump right wing parties disappeared. Some went on in Alberta to form splinter right wing parties like the revived Social Credit, the Alberta Alliance, the Alberta Seperatist party. But most saw Preston Mannings Reform Party as a big tent right wing party, and joined or promoted it.

The infamous voice of the right in Alberta, and Canada, the Alberta Report promoted Alberta Seperatism and the Reform party in its pages. It also supported right wing religious fundamentalism (either protestant or Catholic or Orthordox), anti abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-feminism, anti-daycare. The Byfield clan who ran the magazine as their personal empire, were also directly politically involved in these campaigns.

Today Alberta Report is no more, run into the ground by the Byfields, not once, not twice but thrice. The final death agony of the magazine is a story to behold, but suffice it to say the monies squirreled away that survived the bankruptcy went to creating a new Alberta Seperatist Foundation, run by Link Byfield and with Stalinist aplomb is called;Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.

It is of course nothing of the sort. It is a front group for right wing lobbying and Alberta Seperatism. Lets us hoist Link by his own petard, by letting him speak for himself as the CCFD. Oh by the way when someone says that they are neither left wing nor right wing, or somehow they want to be politically neutral, they ain't. They are right wing. Thats another clever ruse they use to appear non partisan.

The CITIZENS CENTRE IS NEITHER "RIGHT-WING" NOR "LEFT-WING"

Our mission is to promote responsible government in Canada by advocating honest government, a clear division of power between the federal and provincial governments, and a democratic counterbalance to the increasing power of the courts.

GOALS of the Citizens Centre

To persuade provincial governments to exert their full constitutional leverage in such areas as the Canada Pension Plan, medicare, provincial police, tax collection, gun registration, carbon emissions, urban affairs, environment and grain marketing.

To create demand in Canada for privately-paid medical treatments and regulated private alternatives to the national pension plan, as is found increasingly in all developed countries.

To create pressure for a meaningful reduction in federal fiscal transfers (both direct and indirect), and a permanent reduction in government share of GDP.

* *Ottawa forced its way into the provincial sphere of social and economic development, mainly by abusing its unlimited power to tax and spend, even in areas that are beyond its jurisdiction. Some provinces, notably Alberta and Quebec, resisted. However, Quebec was bought off and Alberta was looted. Alberta's net contribution to federal programs since 1961 is now over $200 billion.

The consequences of allowing Ottawa to negate the original scheme of Confederation have been bad for the whole country, not just Alberta.

It has created costly jurisdictional overlap, political confusion, high taxes, needless eastern dependency and western alienation, and a political culture that no longer understands the principle, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Instead we are constantly told that social entitlements like "free" medicare and unemployment insurance represent the core values of Canadians.

And what is the main political issue that they believe will enhance democracy in Canada? Proportional Representation? Electoral Reform? Parlimentary Reform? Nah......They want Refederation!

To understand what refederation entails, one has to appreciate the fact that Canada is now not only badly governed but also over-governed. Governments at all levels are too big, and they get in each other's way.

For more than a century now, various reform movements have arisen in Canada, particularly in the West, aimed at fixing the problem. They called for more accountability, less interference by Ottawa in local affairs and more equitable economic policies. In short, better government.

But from the time of Louis Riel, through the great Prairie farmers' movements, and up to the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties, the demand for fundamental change has gone largely unanswered. Canada is still dominated by institutions that are out of date, out of step and out of touch.

Marriage Referendum

A fundamental change to the legal meaning of marriage amounts to a constitutional change of great magnitude and importance. Nobody can honestly deny this.

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in December 2003, it affects both levels of government, private and public organizations across Canada, and individual Canadians.

So who should decide the answer?

There are three possible authorities: the courts, Parliament, or the people.

The Citizens Centre believes that the constitution belongs to the people and therefore the people should have the ultimate authority on this issue.

So they want a national referendum on Marriage. And they want to privatize medicare, EI, pension plans, etc. They want a seperate pension fund for Alberta, and its own police. They are following through on Harpers original Firewall Alberta idea. Which once again in their Orwellian speak Link declares is NOT a Firewall nor are they promoting Alberta Seperatism. Talk about convoluted logic.

And the reason? Cause Canada is too liberal for them . No not Liberal, small 'l' liberal, as in libertarian, freedom of choice, freedom of the individual , freedom for gays, immigrants etc.

Now they will talk freedom and freedom of choice but in their Orwellian logic it is exactly the opposite. They want the freedom to be the Christian majority, with their country (seperate Alberta) being a fundamentalist Christian Theocracy at worst, or scratch the surface of Alberta Seperatism, and you find something worse, White Power bigots.

Yep so Candace there you have it. Why Alberta Seperatism is nothing like the Quebec Nationalist movement. It is a modern fascist movement. And if you want to participate in it fine, but lets call a spade a shovel, and you are shoveling B.S. when you promote Alberta Seperatism.

Monday, May 06, 2019

THE PHANTASM OF ALBERTA SEPARATISM RAISES ITS UGLY HEAD WITH UCP

RECENTLY GLOBAL TV INTERVIEWED BARRY COOPER A PROFESSOR EMERITUS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY.

Don’t write off Western anger as ‘alienation’ — it runs a whole lot deeper: Calgary professor
It's not alienation, its abuse towards Western Canada: Cooper | Watch News Videos Online
Barry Cooper from the University of Calgary joins Mercedes Stephenson to discuss why, if the concerns of Alberta separatists aren't addressed, there will be a ...

Barry Cooper: Separation has become a real possibility, thanks to Ottawa’s abuses
The Canada option: Is it still viable for AlbertaSeparation has become a real possibility thanks to the abuses and injustices imposed by Ottawa, writes University of Calgary political science professor Barry Cooper. Updated: December 17, 2018

Dr. Cooper as he is known sometimes, is the highest paid academic in Alberta, his salary dwarves his colleagues at the U of C, because he is the leading light of the Right Wing in Canada, he gets grants and foundation funding.

He was interviewed giving succour to the so called Separatist streak in right wing Alberta politics. Now along with being a founding member of the Calgary School of Right Wing Politics he is also a Pro Oil Climate Change Denier with his foundation the Friends of Science.

Cooper is also an advocate for private schools, charter and vouchers schools developed under the Klein government. This was aimed locally at the Calgary education market more than it was for the rest of the province, where the dominant board the CBE was not quick to adapt to the reform change movement in Education, unlike the Edmonton Public School Board, so the right wing push for Charter schools was big in Calgary.

The so called separatism is also known as Firewall Alberta which Cooper, Flanagan and the Calgary School sold Harper on prior to his becoming PM.

To understand the so called Separatist politics of the right in Canada I thought I would share this with you, some blasts from the past about authentic Alberta History not right wing wishful thinking.

Alberta Separatism Not Quite Stamped Out

It originates in Alberta not in the dirty thirties but the early 1980's in the last days of the Lougheed government, with the Western Canada Concept (WCC) of rightwhingnut lawyer and defender of fascists Doug Christie. The WCC won a seat in a red neck rural riding, and had an MLA in the Alberta Legislature giving them some political credibility, some, enough for Lougheed to use them as a whipping boy against Ottawa. Which Ralph Klein continues to do today. Any time things got a little outta hand between the Liberals in Ottawa and the Alberta Government the bugaboo of Alberta Separatism would be raised. Clever ploy that.The reality is that during the 1980's two major right wing populist parties began in Alberta, both anti-semitic, white power, anti-biligualism, pro religious fundamentalist, pro Celtic Saxon peoples (code for White Power) anti immigrant anti multiculturalism, today add anti-gay. These were the WCC and Elmer Knutsens Confederation of Regions Party. The CRP did not win seats in Alberta but in New Brunswick, as a right wing backlash to that provinces French majority.Ironic eh.

See:

Social Credit And Western Canadian Radicalism

The history of Alberta Alienation and the autonomous farmer worker resistance to Ottawa, the seat of political and economic power of the mercantilist state, dates back to the founding of the province one hundred years ago.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment