Tag Archivio per: peace

Will Putin’s unfortunate war against Ukraine have the unexpected “side effect” of leading to the creation of a single autocephalous Church in the country?

/0 Commenti/in /da

by Luigi Sandri*


    For three years there have been two Orthodox Churches in the country: the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church (UOAC), linked to the patriarchate of Constantinople led by Bartholomew, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), linked to Moscow. The Russian patriarchate, led by Kirill, was absolutely opposed to the creation of the former and, after Bartholomew, in January 1919, gave the tomos of autocephaly, officially creating the UOAC, the Russian patriarch and his Synod cut the Eucharistic communion with Constantinople. That is, they proclaimed a schism with it.
    Then, on February 24, the starting date of what the Kremlin calls a “Special Military Operation”, Kirill said: “It is with deep pain in my heart that I feel the suffering of the people, caused by the events that are happening. As patriarch of all Russia and primate of the Church, whose flock is found in Russia, Ukraine and several other countries, I have deep compassion for all who have been affected by misfortune. I urge all parties to the conflict to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties”.

But Onufriy, primate of the UOC, said on the same day: “Defending the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine, we turn to the president of Russia and ask him to stop the fratricidal war immediately. The Ukrainian and Russian peoples arose from the baptismal fonts of the Dnieper and the war between these two peoples is the repetition of the sin of Cain, who killed his brother out of jealousy. Such a war finds no justification either before God or before men”.
    Then an ecclesiologically important event occurred: starting from Sunday 6 March to today – 18 March, as I write – about fifteen metropolitans of the UOC (which is to say about ninety bishops) – in the Sunday celebration of the “divine liturgy”, that is the mass, they deliberately omitted Kirill’s name. Among them, Serafim of Ivano-Frankiv and Kolomyia, Antony of Khmelnitsky and Starokonstantinov, Theodory of Muchacevo, Agapet of Mogilev Podolsky and Chargorod, Eulogy of Sumy, Nicodim of Jitomir, Filarete of Leopoli and Galizia et Novograd-Kirynovsky and Novomirgorod. To understand the significance of this gesture, it is necessary to know that, in Orthodoxy, the memory of one’s patriarch, during the liturgy, is crucial; not doing so, in itself, is an act of schism.
   Dozens of parish priests of the UOC have also done so, but adding a crucial request to Onufriy: that of convening a “local council” (where representatives of both the priesthood and the faithful participate with the bishops) to proclaim the autocephaly of their Church. But in Ukraine there is already the UOAC! Will the Russian invasion that is ravaging Ukraine now cause all the Orthodox Churches in the country to unite into a single autocephalous Church? And who would be the point of reference? Constantinople with which Moscow is in a state of schism? Or what if Moscow finally condemns Putin’s war?
   It should be added that even metropolitans linked to the patriarchate of Moscow, but pastors of Russian Orthodox who live outside the homeland, have begun to publicly contest Kirill. Metropolitan Innokentzy of Vilnius and Lithuania declared: “The position of the Orthodox Church in Lithuania remains unchanged: we strongly condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine and pray to God for its swift end .. Patriarch Kirill and I have political views and different perceptions about current events. His political statements about the war express his personal opinion. We, in Lithuania, do not agree with it “.
    Metropolitan Jean of Dubna, archbishop of the Orthodox Churches of Russian tradition in Western Europe, wrote to Kirill on March 9 from Paris: “On behalf of all of our faithful I turn to Your Holiness to raise your voice as Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church against a monstrous and senseless war, and to intercede with the authorities of the Russian Federation so that this deadly conflict, that until recently seemed impossible between two nations and two peoples united by centuries of history and from their common faith in Christ, end as soon as possible “.
    Jean also disagrees with the anti-gay statements made three days earlier by Kirill, who took against Gay Pride, which wants to make the practice of homosexuality moral, prohibited, he underlined, by the law of God: “Your Holiness, in your homily on Forgiveness Sunday, delivered on March 6 in the patriarchal cathedral of Christ the Saviour, you intimate that you justify this cruel and deadly war of aggression [against Ukraine] as ‘a metaphysical fight‘ in the name ‘of the right to to be on the side of the light, on the side of God’s truth, of what the light of Christ and His Gospel reveals to us‘. With all the respect that is due to you, I must tell you that I cannot subscribe to such a reading of the Gospel”.
     Even within the Russian Church itself, at home, public dissent against the war is beginning to emerge. About 240 Russian priests and deacons, in early March, after describing the ongoing war as “fratricidal”, added: “We weep for the Calvary to which our brothers and sisters in Ukraine have been undeservedly subjected”.

Many heads of autocephalous national Orthodox Churches have asked for the immediate cessation of hostilities: above all Bartholomew, patriarch of Constantinople; the archbishop of Athens, Jeronimos II, and the Albanian primate, Anastasios of Tirana. The most cutting was the Romanian patriarchate, which defined Kirill’s attitude as “cynical” and “dishonourable”.
    There are also signs of strong dissent against Putin from civil society. Thousands of people were arrested in various cities, from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok, for publicly protesting against the war. But perhaps the most sensational fact is the explicit dissent of the Lomonosov University in Moscow, one of the most important in Russia. In a manifesto, dated March 5, and signed by more than seven thousand professors and students, it is stated:

   “We, the students, postgraduates, lecturers, staff and graduates of Russia’s oldest university, Lomonosov Moscow State University, categorically condemn the war our country has started in Ukraine.
Russia and our parents have given us a serious education, the foundation of which lies in the ability to critically evaluate what is happening around us, to weigh arguments, to listen to each other and to commit oneself to truth both scientific and humanistic. We know how to call things by their name and we cannot remain inert.
    The actions carried out by the Russian Federation, actions that its leadership defines as a “special military operation”, are war, and there is no room for euphemisms or excuses in this situation. War is violence, brutality, death, loss of loved ones, helplessness and fear that cannot be justified by any purpose. War is the most brutal act of inhumanity, which, as we have learned within the walls of schools and universities, must never be repeated. The values of the absoluteness of human life, humanism, diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences that we learned in university were trampled and thrown away in an instant when Russia treacherously invaded Ukraine. The lives of millions of Ukrainians have been under constant threat since Russian military forces invaded Ukraine.
    We express our support for the people of Ukraine and categorically condemn the war that Russia has started against the Ukrainians.
    As graduates of the oldest Russian university, we know that the losses suffered in six days of bloody war, mainly human, but also social, economic and cultural, are irreparable. We also know that the war is a humanitarian disaster, but we cannot imagine the depth of the wound that we as the Russian people are inflicting on the Ukrainian people and on ourselves right now.
   We demand that the Russian leadership immediately cease the fire, leave the territory of the sovereign state of Ukraine and put an end to this shameful war.
   We call on all citizens of Russia who care about its future to join the peace movement. We are against the war!“

*”Confronti” Editorial Board

Sources, especially:
http://www.ortodoxie.com, http://www.patriarchia.ru, http://www.mospat.ru

Religious Diplomacy: How to Integrate Religious Engagement into International Relations

/0 Commenti/in /da

by Giancarlo Anello*

Contemporary international law is the law in force today, which began in the aftermath of the Second World War, most notably with the adoption of the UN Charter as the outcome of the S. Francisco Conference on June, 26th 1945. In the Charter, religion is mentioned as a reason of possible discrimination – along with some other elements, like race, sex, language – given that international community is called to assist the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms (articles 13, 55, and 76). Since that time international law has changed, after some events like the spread and collapse of communism, the development of International Organizations, decolonization and the rise of the rights of peoples to self-determination, the international recognition of human rights, the late globalization. Accordingly, religion became the ground of a specific position within the human rights’ discourse. The grounding value of religion has been changing from time to time until the latest interpretation that considers religious freedom as a “special” right. The internationally distinguished Italian scholar Silvio Ferrari has explained the special nature of religious freedom asserting its “triadic” nature: while freedom of conscience or expression are grounded on a bilateral relationship, the relationship between the individual and the State, the right to freedom of religion or belief has a more complex structure as it lies at the triangulation point where the individual, the faith community and the State converge. The relationships between individual, faith community and political power have been different depending on the historical periods. Sometimes the faith community has prevailed and the political power has regulated freedom of religion or belief according to the tenets of a religion, normally the majority religion in the country. Sometimes the political authority has prevailed and has dictated its own discipline of freedom of religion or belief to which the faith communities have had to adapt. Rarely, however, have individuals been able to assert freedom of religion or belief as their own right, with an autonomous foundation independent from the law of the State or faith community. For this reason, it is possible to count more and more provisions of recent international legislations promoting the idea of a major engagement of religious actors into international relations and diplomacy[1].

The action of religious leaders can integrate the area of diplomacy as a traditional area of international law. Recent documents coming from international organizations show the direction for integrating religious engagement into diplomacy. But in terms of strengthening multilateral diplomacy a more comprehensive methodology is required. Some academics are conducting specific researches in this direction. Mention should be made to Mandaville and Silvestri who, after surveying a number of the challenges to integrating religious engagement into statecraft – from a bias of secularism in diplomacy, to religious freedom protections, to institutional constraints – describe a new approach that includes:

  • moving away from a model whereby religion is viewed as being relevant only to certain specialized functions such as the advancement of international religious freedom;
  • departing from approaches to engagement with religious leaders and faith-based organizations that view those entities as having a limited role around a very limited set of policy issues (e.g. peacemaking, development, humanitarian disasters);
  • getting beyond the all-too common practice of using “religion” as a shorthand or euphemism for Islam;
  • recognizing the central importance of religion as a societal force around the world;
  • making the case that awareness of and engagement with religious actors can play a constructive role in advancing even policy issues that, on the face of it, seemingly have little to do with religion, faith, or spiritual matters;
  • and, lastly, while advocating for the importance of religion as a force in world affairs, also avoiding over-stating the importance of religion.

Latter point introduces more specific questions: what are the type of religious actors to engage? Isn’t too risky to open the door of diplomacy to radical group and fundamentalists? Pope Francis addresses them in a section of the mentioned encyclical letter “Fratelli tutti”. The section is dedicated to “social dialogue for a new culture” (FT, Chapters 199 ff.). The Pope explains that such a dialogue must have specific characteristics and methodology, be enriched and illumined by “clear thinking, rational arguments, a variety of perspectives and the contribution of different fields of knowledge and points of view”. But it must also make space for the conviction that “it is possible to arrive at certain fundamental truths always to be upheld”. “Acknowledging the existence of certain enduring values, however demanding it may be to discern them”, he adds, “makes for a robust and solid social ethics” (FT, Chapter 213).
Thus, it is obvious that irreconcilably violent extremists cannot be involved in inter-religious or intra-religious diplomacy but the approach that distinguish only between good and bad religious leaders overlooks the importance of the actors that are in the middle[2]. Many communities and leaders can be interested in entering the dialogue without compulsion, out of sectarian interests or a theological position, but just for improving the conditions of the daily life of their communities. Such players are exactly the actors to engage in the diplomatic processes.

*Professor of “Religious Diplomacy” at the University of Parma

[1] A model is the “Report of United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief”, United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/HRC/28/66, 29 December 2014, https://undocs.org/A/HRC/28/66, p. 22.

[2] R. Scott Appleby, Comprehending religion in Global affairs, in Petito, Daou, and Driessen, supra, p. 74.

References:
• Giancarlo Anello, Believers United. Religions in Dialogue Through the Law, Wolters Kruwer, in press (2022).
• Silvio Ferrari, Freedom of religion or Belied in International Law, in Andrea Benzo (ed.), From Freedom of Worship to Freedom of Religion or Belief. Fostering the Partnership between States, the International Community and Religious Institutions, Proceedings of the Conference Italian Cultural Institute – Cairo, 18 February 2020, Embassy of Italy, Garden City-Cairo, 2020, p. 109-110.
• Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter, Fratelli Tutti, Citta del Vaticano, 3 October 2020, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html
• Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson (eds.), Religion: The Missing Dimension of Statecraft, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1994, p. 20 ff.
• Peter Mandaville and Sara Silvestri, Integrating religious engagement into diplomacy: challenges and opportunities, Issues in Governance Studies, 67, 2015, pp. 1-13.
• Philip Mc Donagh and others, On the Significance of Religion for Global Diplomacy, Routledge, 2021, p. 114 https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/42730