Butler University Digital Commons @ Butler University

Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences

1997 Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights Paul Valliere Butler University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers Part of the Christianity Commons

Recommended Citation "Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights," Religious Diversity and Human Rights, ed. Irene Bloom, J. Paul Martin and Wayne L. Proudfoot (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), pp. 278-312.

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Russian (

II pany ofOrthodox believers who accept the as rheir own. But even sympathetic ob: Church would agree rhar the church !has be ical terms, and more subservienr co rhe sta RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY in modem times. In recem years the con AND HUMAN RIGHTS example of the Roman Catholic Church 0 lish itself as a kind ofsurrogate civil socier the zone of Sovier hegemony. To explain the relarive passivity of the observers have poimed co special charactG ers to the legacy of the tsarisr srare church the church by the Sovier scare in the 1920S imporram, alrhough the last deserves ate, PAUL VALLIERE obvious cause of the social and polirical v day Russia. In 1914 the Russian Orthodox Church' the world after the Roman Catholic Chu churches. Ie supporred 68 dioceses, over deacons and psalmiStS, almost 100,000 ml monasreries, 57 theological seminaries, an This essay describes the sitUation and orienration of the Russian Orthodox The vast majoriry of the Russian empil Church with respect co human tights. Along the broad spectrnm of rights I Ukrainians, and Belarusians as well as sig focus mainly on the civil righrs of individuals and nonstate associarions rarher ples were baptized members of the Orthoe than the subsistence rights and rightS to social services mat figure so promi­ This huge church was also an insriru nently in socialisr meories of rights. By this I do not mean co suggest mat me reform movemenr had begun in the early rights wimwhich socialists are concerned are ofsecondary importance. It is sim­ acquired new strength after the February I ply a question ofaccepting me demands of my subject. Ever since me disestab­ of rhe Patriarchate of Moscow in Noveml lishment and disenfranchisemenr of me Russian Onhodox Church as a result two cenruries was rhe signal accomplishmc of me Russian Revolution the rights wim which the church has been concerned disestablishmenr of rhe church by decree 0 are the rights of individual believers and of the church as an institution. These 1918, the dislocations of the civil war and I concerns were stimulated nor by theology or ideology bur by the harsh facts of chy and clergy in rhe early 1920S left the life in the Soviet petiod: widespread persecution of religious believers and the rime Patriarch Tilmon died in 1925. The r vittual absence of civil rights respecting teligion. TIle extem to which prerevo­ allow the church [Q hold a national co lurionary Russian Onhodoxy may have helped to prepare the ground on which deceased parriarch furthet weakened the i Soviet socialism was built is an issue that exceeds the scope of mis essay. alty to the Sovier state in 1927 by me loCI Whether the Russian Orthodox Church is concerned abour human tights Merropolitan Sergii, brought rhe churchl at all has been a matter ofdebate. The view that me church is little more than a schism in rhe Orthodox community. W1 a tOol in the hands of whatevet state governs Russia at a given rime is wide­ consumed in the general holocaust of spread in the West and may not be much affected by the qualification that Orthodox Church was one of rhe weakes "Russian Orthodox Church," in this essay, means not JUSt the hietatchs who no head, no diocesan administration, fev represem the church on the national or inrernationallevel but the whole com- very few functioning patishes, Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 279

pany ofOtthodox believers who accept the church ofthe Patriarch ofMoscow as their own. But even sympathetic observers of the Russian Orthodox Chutch would agree that the church has been more passive in social and polit­ ical terms, and more subservient to the state than many churches in the West )RTHODOXY in modern times. In recent yeats the COntrast has been highlighted by the AN RIGHTS example of the Roman Catholic Church ofPoland, which managed to estab­ lish itself as a kind ofsurrogate civil society in a Communist state well inside the zone ofSoviet hegemony. To explain the relative passivity of the Russian Orthodox Church some observers have pointed ro special characteristics of Eastern Orthodoxy, oth­ ers ro the legacy of the tsarist state church, still others to the btutalization of the church by the Soviet state in the 1920S and 1930S. Each of these faCtors is RE important, although the last deserves attention first because it is the most obvious cause of the social and political weakness of the church in presenr­ day Russia. In 1914 the Russian Orthodox Church was the largest Christian church in the world after the Roman Catholic Church and the largest of all national churches. It supporred 68 dioceses, over 50,000 priests, more than 60,000 deacons and psalmiSts, almost 100,000 monks and nuns in more than 1,000 monasteties, 57 theological seminaries, and 4 graduate schools of theology. I and orientation of the Russian Orthodox The vast majority of the Russian empire's 100,000,000 Great Russians, hrs. Along the broad spectrum of rights I Uktainians, and Belarusians as well as significant numbers of minority peo­ ndividuals and nonstate associations rather ples wete baptized members of the Orthodox Church. 1m ro social services that figure so promi- This huge church was also an institution struggling to renew itself. A By this I do not mean to suggest that the reform movement had begun in the early yeats of the twentieth century and rned ate ofsecondary importance. It is sim­ acquired new strengrh after the February Revolution of1917. The restoration mds ofmy subject. Ever since the disestab­ of the Patriarchate of Moscow in November 1917 afrer a lapse of more than :the Russian Orthodox Church as a tesuIr two centuties was the signal accomplishmenr of the movement. However, the with which the church has been concerned disestablishment of rhe church by decree of rhe Sovier government in January and of the church as an institution. These 1918, rhe dislocations of rhe civil war and the violent repression of rhe hierar­ ology or ideology but by the harsh faCts of chyand clergy in rhe early 1920S left the church in a stare of disttess by the I persecution of religious believers and the time Parriarch Tikhon died in 1925. The refusal of the Sovier governmenr to ing religion. The extent ro which prerevo­ allow the church to hold a national council to elect a successor to the lve helped to prepare the ground on which deceased patriarch furrher weakened the instirution. The declaration of loy­ that exceeds the scope of this essay. alty to the Soviet state in 1927 by the locum tenens of the patriarchal office, Church is concerned about human rights Metropolitan Sergii, brought the church no secular benefits and precipitated le view that the chutch is litde more than a schism in the Orthodox community. What remained of the institution was e governs Russia at a given rime is wide­ consumed in the genetal holocaUSt of the 1930S. By 1939 the Russian : much affected by the qualification that Orthodox Church was one of the weakest churches in Christendom. It had s essay, means nor JUSt the hierarchs who no head, no diocesan administtation, few ptiests or bishops at liberty, and Ot international level but the whole com- very few functioning parishes. 280 Paul Valliere Russian (

The revival of the Russian Orthodox Church began during World War II. Like Protestantism, however, Eastern Orth It was a spontaneous phenomenon at the local level as well as the result of ChriStianity is a religion of grace, not lao the warrime government policy of fostering traditional Russian patriotism. counter-secular legalism of Roman Catho: Metropolitan Sergii was elected pattiarch by a small meeting of bishops in concepmality less promising for the cultiva 1943, and after Sergii's death in 1945 Metropolitan Aleksii of Leningrad was Western Christian ttaditions. chosen to teplace him. Diocesan adminisrration was rescoted, and a few the­ Yet it would be wrong CO deny the possil ological schools and monasteries were reconstimted. The rescored church in Eastern Orthodoxy. Like all great faith was not comparable in size, much less in power, to the prerevolutionary concepts of human dignity which can at II church.2 Nevertheless, the posrwar simation represented a dramatic change sarily generate, the idea of human tights. F fot the better. historic challenges people often find new n Unforrunately the church's gains proved vulnerable co the caprices of while some of the most important ideals Communist policymakers. In the early 1960s the Khrushchev government individuals from viewing themselves as til launched a new antireligious campaign that led ro the closing of about half the munity, and discourage the community fr patishes reopened during the war. After Khrushchev's fall in 1964 the govern­ the state. these ideals did not prevent a livel: ment disconrinued the campaign but did not resrore what had been wrested developing in the very untraditional circur from the church. In this sense the campaign was a vicrory for the state. The Orthodox view of the relation of th Howevet, it produced an unintended and unprecedented side effect; the been profoundly shaped by the ideal ofwhc Orrhodox rights movement. vation in Christ comes about through in The Orthodox rights movement is a natural focal point for the discussion community, the church or "body of Christ of Russian Otthodoxy and human rights. However, co appreciate the sigifi­ inition through its liturgy, dogmas, and cal cance of the movement one must consider the ecclesiastical and civil contexts mystical wholeness which these forms ate in which it arose. The ecclesiastical context was shaped by Eastern Orthodox "the church" means the whole company tradition. The civil context was shaped by Soviet law. whole of humankind and reconcile it wid word for this wholeness is sobornost'. It COl "Conciliarity" and "catholicity" are speci, ORTHODOX TRADITION AND HUMAN RIGHTS the term. Sobor also means "cathedral," wI ture of sobornos( One imagines a crowd of Historically Eastern Orthodox tradition has been less disposed to defending of life gathered for liturgy under the do human rights than Roman Catholic or classical Protestant traditions. ihe unfolds, the choral music, the colorful icoI Roman Catholic Church, while often antagonistic ro individual liberty, has incense and wax and the hieratic vestment always defended its rights as an international ecclesiastical polity standing clergy conspire to induce a powerful sense above secular polities and having cerrain claims on them. The church's claims sating whole. Indeed, the Orthodox litu serve co limit the power of the state ovet persons in Roman Catholic coun­ sobornost'; it actualizes it. tries. Protestantism. while lacking the international structure and legalist Orthodox thinkers are careful to disting genius of the Roman Catholic Church, provides a hospitable ground for the egalitarianism. They see the church as a CI cultivation of rightS by according individual conscience a central tole in the unique contriburion to make to the whol religious value system. The configuration of values in Eastern Orthodoxy close to sobornost' in the Otthodox hier;! shares something with both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but not example, in the group porrraits of traditiQI those aspects that most prompt an intetest in rights. Like Roman Cathol­ typically accords ro each individual some d icism, Eastern Orchodoxy propounds a highly corporate and sacramental view fure, exptession, posture, or function. 5 ihe of salvation and so does not encourage individualism on religious grounds. the laity ample opportunity to ditecr their: Russian Orrhodoxy and Human Rights 1.81

)dox Chutch began during World War II. Like Protestantism, however, Eastern Orthodoxy never tires ofpreaching that I at the local level as well as the result of Christiani ty is a religion of grace, not law, for which reason it rejects the . fostering traditional Russian patriotism. coumer-secular legalism of Roman Catholicism.3 The result is a theological ltriarch by a small meeting of bishops in conceptuality less promising fOt the CUltivation of rights rhan one finds in the ~5 Metropolitan Aleksii of Leningrad was Westetn Christian tradirions. Iministration was restored, and a few the­ Yet it would be wrong to deny the possibility ofa rights orien tation arising ""ere reconstituted. The restored church in Eastetn Orthodoxy. Like all great faith tradirions, Orthodoxy comprises 1 less in power, to the prerevolutionary concepts of human dignity which can at least sUppOrt, if they do not neces­ situation represented a dramatic change sarily generate, the idea of human rights. Furthermore, under the pressure of historic challenges people often find new meaning in traditional ideals. Thus, I1S ptoved vulnerable to the caprices of while some of the most important ideals of Orthodoxy tend to discourage ~arly 1960s the Kbrushchev government individuals from viewing themselves as rights-bearers over against the com­ gn that led to the closing ofabout halfthe munity, and discourage the community from viewing itself as distinct from .frer Khrushchev's fall in 1964 the govern­ the state, these ideals did not prevent a lively Orthodox rights movemem from lt did not restore what had been wrested developing in the very untraditional circumstances of the Soviet Union. ~ campaign was a victory for the state. The Orthodox view of the telation of the individual to the community has :led and unprecedented side effect; the been profoundly shaped by the ideal ofwholeness. In the Orthodox vision sal­ vadon in Christ comes about through incorporation intO his sactamental is a natural focal point for the discussion community, the church or "body ofChrisr." The church achieves public def­ rights. Howevet, to appreciate the sigifi­ inition through its liturgy, dogmas, and canons; but its essential quality is rhe I1sider the ecclesiastical and civil COntextS mystical wholeness which these forms are meant ro embody. For Orrhodoxy ;ontext was shaped by Eastern Orrhodox "the church" means the whole company of saints seeking to embrace the ed by Soviet law. whole of humankind and reconcile it with the whole cosmos.4 The Russian word for this wholeness is sobornost'. It comes from a root meaning "gather." "Conciliarity" and "catholici ty" are specialized ecclesiastical translations of fAN RrGHTS the term. Sobol' also means "cathedral," which suggests perhaps the best pic­ ture ofsobornost'. One imagines a crowd of worshipers of all ages and srations :ion has been less disposed to defending of life gathered for liturgy under the dome of a cathedral. As the liturgy : or classical Protestant traditions. The unfolds, the choral music, the colorful icons of saints and angels. the smell of n antagonistic to individual liberty, has incense and wax and the hieratic vestments, postures, and processions of the ~rnational ecclesiastical polity standing clergy conspire to induce a powerful sense of incorporation into a great, pul­ ain claims on them. The church's claims sating whole. Indeed, the Orthodox liturgy offers more than a picture of over persons in Roman Catholic coun­ sobornost'; it actualizes it. :he international structure and legaliSt Orthodox thinkers are careful to distinguish sobornost' from collectivism or ;h, provides a hospitable ground for the egalitarianism. They see [he church as a community of persons, each with a iividual conscience a central role in the unique contribution to make to the whole. Lichnost', "personhood," stands ration of values in Eastern Orthodoxy close to sobornost' in [he Orthodox hierarchy of values. It is reflected, for ::::atholicism and Protesrantism, but not example, in the group portraits of traditional iconography in which the artist nterest in rights. like Roman Cathol­ typically accotds to each individual some distinguishing feature of dress, coif­ a highly corporate and sacramental view fure, expression, posture, or function. 5 The structure ofthe liturgy, roo, offers .ge individualism on religious grounds. the laity ample opportunity to direct their attention to individual needs, con­ 282 Paul Valliere Russian ( cems, and sources ofinspirarion. Srill, in classical Orthodoxy rhe individual is nor thar of rhe prophetic emissary, milirar nor regarded as the telos of the communiry. The idea of lichnost' suggesrs per­ bur rhat of rhe monk. The monk is a kind sonalism bur nor individualism. To rhe Orrhodox mind rhe whole appears individualism is inspired by rhe call ro leave grearer, more esrimable, more secure than rhe parts.G The rendency of ideal played a fareful role in the srrucru Orthodox thinkers is to synrhesize, nor analyze; w integrate, not isolate. This Orthodoxy the parish cletgy are mostly m is especially true of modern Orthodox thinkers, who have had w defend the monks. While this arrangement has its ad\ Orthodox er1lOs againsr material and spiritual threats from the Wesr. 7 Most not been the divisive issue in Orthoda Russian Orthodox thinkers in modern rimes, such as Khomiakov, l(jreevsky, Catholicism), ir has unquesrionably limi Dosroevsky, Leonriev, Fyodorov, and Solzhenirsyn, have held a community mobilize in defense ofthe secular rights of d based on sobornost' and lichnost', wholeness and personhood, ro be ethicaHy too enmeshed in rhe economic and familial superior to a community based on rhe social contract and individual righrs. lenge it in rhe name of the nexr. Hand in hand wirh this view went a "tradirion ofrhe censure oflaw" in Russia, The hierarchy, on the orher hand, while I an ami-legal prej udice which inevitably impeded the development ofmodern the government of rhe chutch in "this" wod conceprions of human righrs.8 this responsibility in posirive retms. Pracrie If the ideal of wholeness discouraged individuals from viewing themselves expense of the church, so to speak, Orthoe aparr from rhe community, ir also made the Orthodox Church slow to dis­ oppression by secular authorities as a rest < ringuish itself from the state. The polirical dependency of the churches in the Commenting on this informal "cooperati< Orthodox Easr conrrasts sharply with the partern of chutch-State relarions Vladimir Zelinsky rightly observes that "in rhat developed in the West. Since rhe Reform Papacy of the eleventh century the will as such but precisely a zealous pief} the Roman Catholic Church has defined itself juridically as a countersrate or less submissiveness."9 supersrate distincr from secular sovereignties. While Rome was by no means Along with a weak parish clergy went a always successful in enforcing irs claims, the ideal wok root. Also, r11e need to Russia the Orthodox parish was a sleepy, unl arbirtare between ecclesiasrical and secular sovereignties was one of the chief much a part of irs environmenr. Religious , morivarions for rhe development of law in the West, including rhe language cally identical. The local priest usually inhe and methodology of rights. Among rhe theological disciplines canon law wife's buher. The concepr of the patish as a

played a particuJarly dynamic role. In the Orthodox Easr, by contrast, the par­ sionary mobilization rarely arose, and the (I tern of church-Stare relarions wok shape much earlier, in the fourth and fifth tary association did nor arise at all. These ide centuries, and embodied rhe ideal of harmony (sympho7lia) rather than dual­ period, too, although for the opposite reason ism. Church and srate were seen not as competing jurisdictions but as twO were wo shatply divorced. Because gathering aspecrs, sacramental and lay, ofan organic whole. The ideal left litrle room for prohibited, people who prayed wgether had I concepts of conflict or propheric rension between church and srare. Canon talk together. Also, since open churches were law was a conservative discipline. shipers usually did not ger w know each od To be sure, there were conflicts between church and stare in rhe Chtistian Orthodox parish became an impersonal ane East, including fierce confrontations such as the Iconoclastic controversy in fervent piety which no observer could fail w eighth-century Byzanrium and the Schism (Rasko/) in seventeenth-centuty The ideal of national religious establishm Muscovy. But these episodes did nor inspire creative new concepts ofchurch­ sivity of rhe Orthodox Church roward the stare relations. The chief effect of the Russian Schism, for example, was ro establishment dulled the church's awareness weaken the established church and cause it w accept an even more subservient cap rive of the srate sysrem. The Russian Revc role in the Russian state system on the eve of modern rimes. ment bur nor rhe culrural and ecclesiastical The ascerical ideal also presents an obstacle ro a righrs orientarion in day mosr Russian Orrhodox clergy and laiC) Orthodoxy. The mosr esreemed form of religious virruosity in Orthodoxy is church. Russian Orthodox people do nor thin Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 283

till, in classical Orthodoxy the individual is not that of the prophetic emissary, militant reformer, crusader, or preacher, nmunity. The idea of lichnost' suggests per­ but that of the monk. The monk is a kind of religious individualist, but his 10 the Orthodox mind the whole appears individualism is inspired by the call ro leave the world, not transform it. This ecure than the parrs. 6 The tendency of ideal played a fateful role in the structuring of the Orthodox clergy. In > not analyze; ro integrate, not isolate. This Orthodoxy the parish clergy are mostly married men, bur bishops must be dox thinkers, who have had ro defend the monks. While mis arrangement has its advantages (e.g., clerical celibacy has nd spiritual threats from the West'? Most nor been the divisive issue in Orthodoxy rhat it has been in Roman iern times, such as Khomiakov, Kireevsky, Catholicism), ir has unquestionably limited the capacity of rhe clergy to nd Solzhenitsyn, have held a community mobilize in defense of the secular rights ofthe church. Parish priests have been 'holeness and personhood, ro be ethically too enmeshed in the economic and familial nerworks of "this" world ro chal­ me social contraCt and individual rights. lenge it in the name of the next. "tradition ofthe censure oflaw" in Russia, The hierarchy, on the orher hand, while bearing the chief responsibility for ably impeded the development of modern the government of the church in "this" world, has all roo often failed ro value this responsibility in positive rerms. Practicing ascetical renunciation at the aged individuals from viewing themselves expense of the church, so ro speak, Orthodox hierarchs have often accepted made the Orthodox Chutch slow to dis­ oppression by secular authorities as a test of parience rather than of power. olirical dependency of the churches in the Commenting on rhis informal "cooperation of tradition and oppression," ,ith the parrern of church-state relations Vladimir Zelinsky righcly observes that "in Orthodoxy it is not weakness of le Reform Papacy of me eleventh century the will as such but precisely a zealous piety thar demands a spirit of bound­ :fined itself juridically as a counterState or less submissiveness."9 ereignties. While Rome was by no means Along with a weak parish clergy went a weak parish srructure. In tsarist ims, rhe ideal rook root. Also, rhe need ro Russia rhe Orthodox parish was a sleepy, unpropheric place because it was roo secular sovereignties was one of the chief much a part of irs environment. Religious and social community were basi­ Flaw in the West, including the language cally identical. The local priest usually inherited his position from his or his 19 the theological disciplines canon law wife's father. The concept of the parish as a unit of social, political, or mis­ n rhe Orthodox East, by COntrast, the pat­ sionary mobilization rarely arose, and rhe concept of the church as a volun­ hape much earlier, in the fourth and fifth tary association did not arise at all. These ideas were absent during the Soviet ,f harmony (symphonia) rather than dual­ period, roo, although for the opposite reason; religious and social community Jt as competing jurisdictions bur as two were too sharply divorced. Because gatherings of believers outside liturgy were 'ganic whole. The ideal left little room for prohibited, people who prayed together had little opportunity ro work or even nsion between church and state. Canon talk together. Also, since open churches were few, tar apart, and crowded, wor­ shipers usually did not get to know each other or their clergy very well. The erween chutch and state in the Christian Orthodox parish became an impersonal and diffuse community despite the s such as rhe Iconoclastic Controversy in fervent piety which no observer could fail ro note. 10 Schism (Raskol) in seventeenth-century The ideal of national religious establishment also contributed to the pas­ inspire creative new concepts of chuTch­ sivity of the Orthodox Church toward the state. In tsarist Russia religious he Russian Schism, for example, was to establishment dulled rhe church's awareness of the extent to which it was a lUse it ro accept an even more subservient captive of the srare system. The Russian Revolution swepr away the establish­ le eve of modern times. ment bur nor the cultural and ecclesiastical mentality underlying it. 10 this ; an obstacle to a righrs orien ration in day most Russian Orthodox clergy and laity cherish the ideal of a national n of religious virtuosity in Orthodoxy is church. Russian Orthodox people do not think of rheir church as one denom­ 284 PauL VaLLiere Russian I

ination Q[ sect among othets but as the Chmch of Russia. a chmch whose des­ ambiguous, resource for the Soviet huma! tiny is tied to that of the Russian people. II This view disposes the O[[hodox discussion of hiscoric rights later. community co be more patiem with the Russian people and theit state than religious groups that see themselves as a prophetic minority. The cominuing hold of an establishmemarian, amisectarian memality SOVIET LAw ON RELIGION helps co explain some of the episodes of accommodation co the state in the Soviet period beginning with Metropolitan Sergii's declaration of loyalty in On Occober I, [990, the Supreme Soviet 0 1927. Fathet Joh n Meyendorff has wri[[en abom this comroversial event: of the USSR adopted a new law on r, Conscience and Religious Organizatior The goal of Metropolitan Sergii was TO preserve not himself, but the church. with Supreme Soviet of the Russian tepublic (J all its liturgical order, buildings and central administrative organs. He consciously oflegislarion, the Law on Fteedom ofRei refused co limit his thinking to "the salvation of the minority. not the majority," as overturned previous Soviet legislation on rc was done by Bishop Damaskin and others who went "underground." In his view of Russian Orthodoxy and human tights the Church-wirh its essential apostolic succession in the episcopate and its (some­ musr examine the earlier legislation. times burdensome) heritage of divine services, theology and canons-could not Soviet law on religion embodied two c exist for long as a secr. The historical example of the Russian Old Believers had vidual believers had rights; chutches ar confirmed this. 12 Second, the right of believets co ptactice d of rituaL Such an imerpretation of the chutch's accommodation co the state is more These principles stood our clearly in rh satisfying than one focusing on political terrOr, moral cowardice, or the infJ­ teligion. the decree of the Soviet of People rration of the hierarchy by state agents, for it takes the Orthodox value system Church from the State and the Schools fj imo accoum. Metropolitan Sergli was speaking about Orthodoxy, not other The dectee revoked ali civil restricrions c churches, when he asserted that "only impractical dreamers can rhink that and mandated rhar "in all official docume! such an immense community as our Orthodox Church, with all its organiza­ gious affl1iation or nonaffiliation shall be tions, may peacefully exist in this country while hiding itself from the gov­ right co "confess any religion or profess no ernment." 13 One may question the wisdom ofMerropolitan Sergii's policy on gious rires ... as long as it does nor disturl tactical grounds, for it brought the church no real gains. Bur one can scarcely rights of citizens of rhe Soviet Republic," fault the Orthodox Church for trying co remain itself. religious instruction privately." At the same time, the ideal of a national church can make a positive con­ Religious associations, however, wete de tribution co the consciousness of rights in a country co rhe extent that it fos­ privileges connected with religious establ ters a sense of legitimacy on the part of the religious community. The sense oaths, sancrification of public ceremonies of legitimacy is typically long-lasting. To pUt it another way. if rhe negative births. The decree barted teligious associa side of Orthodox patience is passiviry in the face of oppression, the posirive nizing schools, and going co law. It stated side is endurance. Despite decades of Communist propaganda and repres­ religious associacions "do not have the rig!

sion, countless Russians petsist in the conviCtion thar the Onhodox Church The only concession concetned access I has a righ rful place in their land and a self-evident claim co itS alienated "Buildings and objects intended especiall} monuments. These people may not express theit view in legalistic terms. over, by special decision of the local or cel Moreover, the tights at stake are not generalizable: we might call them "his­ of charge for use co responsible teligious roric rights" rather than "human rights." Nevertheless, the view that appeared in the article nationalizing the Orthodoxy has rights in the Russian land is a key facrot in the behavior of (Article (3) it clearly meant ro distinguish the Orthodox Church in present-day Russia and was also an important, if the article left the granring ofuse of srare { Russian Orrhodoxy and Human Righrs 285

the Church of Russia, a church whose des­ ambiguous, resource for rhe Soviet human righrs movemenr. I re£urn to rhe leople. 11 This view disposes rhe Orrhodox discussion of histOric righrs larer. :h rhe Russian people and rheir srare rhan ; as a propheric minoriry. ablishmenrarian, anrisecrarian mentaliry SOV1ET LAw ON RELIGION des of accommodarion ro the srare in rhe

:opoliran Sergii's declararion of loyalty in On October I, 1990, rhe Supreme Soviet of the Congress of People's Depuries ~rinen aboUT rhis comroversial evem: of rhe USSR adopred a new law on religion, rhe Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations. Larer in the same momh rhe to preserve nOt himself, but the church, with Supreme Sovier of the Russian republic (RSFSR) passed a comparable piece entral administrative organs. He consciollsly of legislarion, rhe Law on Freedom of Religion. 14 These fWO laws complerely Jvation of the minority, not the majority," as ovenumed previous Sovier legislarion on religion. To understand the situation ,chers who went "underground." In his view of Russian Onhodoxy and human rights in the Soviet period, however, one ic succession in the episcopate and its (some­ must examine rhe earlier legislation. : services, theology and canons-could not Soviet law on religion embodied fWO cardinal principles. First, only indi­ I example of the Russian Old Believers had vidual believers had rights; churches and religious associarions did nor. Second, the right of believers to pracrice their religion was limited to the area of ritual. Irch's accommodation ro the state is more These principles srood out clearly in the first piece of Soviet legislation on tical terror, moral cowardice, Ot the infil­ religion, the decree of the Sovier of People's Commissars on Separation of the ltS, for it takes the Orthodox value system Church from the State and the Schools from rhe Church of January X9t8.15 'as speaking about Orthodoxy, not Other The decree revoked all civil restricrions connected with religious affdiarion nly impracrical dreamers can think thar and mandated thar "in all official documents every memion of a citizen's reli­ Onhodox Church, with all irs organiza­ gious affiliation or nonaffiliarion shall be removed." It granted cirizens rhe Dunrry while hiding itself from the gov­ right to "confess any religion or profess none at all," "free performance of reli­ l'isdom of Metropolitan Sergii's policy on gious rires ... as long as it does nor dismrb public order or infringe upon the hurch no real ga..ins. Bur one can scarcely rights of citizens of the Soviet Republic," and the right "ro receive and give g [Q remain itsel£ religious insuuction privarely." ational church can make a positive con­ Religious associations, however, were denied vinually all righ tS, not just the hts in a counuy ro rhe exrem rhat it fos­ privileges connected with religious establishment such as adminisrration of t of the religious community. The sense oaths, sanctification of public ceremonies, and registrarion of marriages and g. To pUt it anOther way, if the negative births. The decree barred religious associations from holding properry, orga­ y in the face of oppression, the positive nizing schools, and going to law. It stated categorically that ecclesiasrical and of Communist propaganda and repres­ religious associations "do not have the rights of a legal entiry." e convicrion rhar rhe Orrhodox Church The only concession concerned access ro property designed for rimal use: ild a self-evidem claim ro irs alienared "Buildings and objecrs inrended especially for religious rites shall be handed [ express rheir view in legalisric rerms. over, by special decision of rhe local or cenrral governmental authorities, free generalizable: we mighr call rhem "his­ of charge for use to responsible religious associations." Since this provision righrs." Neverrheless, the view rhar appeared in rhe arricle narionalizing the properry of religious associations I land is a key factor in the behavior of (Article 13) it clearly meanr ro distinguish use from ownership. Moreover, as y Russia and was also an imporranr, if the article leEr rhe gran ring of use of STare property ro rhe "special decision" of 286 Paul Valliere Russian I the state authorities, it could scarcely be interpreted [Q imply a firm right ro tion of policy. The change of ditection d such use. Finally, the use ofstare properry by believers was granted specifically duced a contradicrory situation. The Rus for the performance of rituals. Social service, missionary work, political and even encouraged ro reconstitute itsel action, religious publishing, and orher rypes of religious activiry outside the canons. On the local level this meant the rirual sphere were nor menrioned at all. clerical rector at its head. The regulations It is inreresring to note that rhe decree of the Soviet of People's Commissars (i.e., Narional) Council of [he Russian ( made no mention of atheism. The righr ro profess no religion covers the case acknowledged the dvadtsatka but stipllia of atheism but extends also to agnosticism, free-thinking, and deism. head i[.19 The "religious association" of192 Furthermore, the decree did not accord special privileges to nonbelievers or not with the sanction of Soviet law. systems of nonbelief. Yet atheism played an integral role in the formation and The contradiction lasted until the Kill evolution of the Soviet Union as an ideological state, and eventually it fouod rhe religious settlement of the war years. ] a privileged place in Soviet fundamental Jaw. The constitution of 1977, con­ the Russian Orthodox Church approved tinuing in rhe rradition of its predecessor (1936), granted a kind of establish­ chairmanship and membership of parish ( menr to arheism in so far as it accorded the leading role in Soviet sociery ro from parish government.20 The bishops ( "the Communist Parry atmed with Marxist-Leninist doctrine" (Article 6).16 It well as relieving priem of burdensome seCl also gtanted an advantage to atheists in the marter of propagating their faith: fot pastotal work. In facr the hierarchs wer "Freedom of conscience is guaranteed to citizens of the USSR, that is, the a strict interptetation of the dvadtsatka 01 right to confess any teligion or to confess none at all, ro perform religious cults 1971, the fusr national council of the chur or ro conduct atheistic propaganda" {Article 52).17 In othet words, atheists had the arrangements of 1961, nor did the am a constitutional right to spread their wotd; believers did not. Associations in 1975 change it in any f The most detailed piece of legislation on religion in the Soviet period was Gorbachev reforms of the mid-198os was the Law on Religious Associations of1929.18 The law introduced the distinc­ that Soviet law on religion needed ro be cl tive mechanism for the regulation of teligion in the Sovier Union, the dvadt­ satka, or "group of !Wenry." The decree ofJanuary 1918 provided that build­ ings and cult objects could be handed over for use ro "tesponsible religious THE ORTHODOX RIGHTS MOVEMENT associations." The problem for the state was how to implement this policy without appeating to extend tecognition or privileges to actual ecclesiasrical The Orthodox tights movement was pan instirutions, such as conciliar bodies, the patriarch, bishops, assemblies of ment and developed along parallel lines. clergy or patish councils. The Law on Religious Associations came up with a ment dates from the Consticution Day dl solution: the authotities at the ciry or district level would lend state property Square on Decembet 15, 1965, by intelli! (Q groups of nor fewer than !Wenry believets who accepted formal registration wtitets Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuly Daniel. as a religious association and responsibiliry for the property temporarily for the accused. The protesters believed tI entrusted to them. The dvadtsatka was an ad hoc group, nor a corporate body. be!Ween the lener of Soviet law and its The rights oflegal entiry and the right ofassembly without the permission of "RespeCt the Soviet Constitution!" was th the local authoriries were denied ro it. Needless to say, the dvadtsatka did nor On the same day the Orthodox righrs correspond to the canonical inStitutions ofany chutch. Strictly speaking, with ter ro N. V Podgotny, chairman of the Pre the introduction of the dvadtsatka the Russian Orthodox parish as well as all USSR, written by rhe Moscow ptiests GI ecclesiastical institutions beyond rhe parish level ceased to exist as entities The priests ptesented a detailed brief alleg enjoying recognition or protection under public law. gion by the state authorities. Two days ea As long as state policy aimed at the destruction of the church me Law on Patriarch Neksii I arguing their case in thl Religious Associations corresponded ro realiry and assisted the implementa- both letters to the entire Russian Orthodo Russian Orrhodoxy and Human Rights 287

ly be interpreted ro imply a firm tighr to tion of policy. The change of direction during the war years, however, pro­ 'perty by believers was granted specifically duced a conrradictoty siwation. The Russian Orrhodox Church, permirred ,cial service, missionary work, political and even encouraged ro reconsriwte itself, naturally followed its tradirional her types of religious activity omside the canons. On rhe local level rhis meanr rhe reconsriwrion of the patish wim a all. cletical rector ar its head. The regulations on parish life adopred by the Local :cree of the Sovier of People's Commissars (i.e., Narional) Council of the Russian Orrhodox Church in January 1945 ight ro profess no religion covers the case acknowledged the dvadtsatka bur stipulared that the clerical rector should gnosticism, free-thinking, and deism. head ir. 19 The "religious association" of1929 became a "parish society," rho ugh cord special privileges to nonbelievers or not wirh the sanction of Soviet law. . lyed an inregral role in rhe formation and The comradiction lasred umil rhe Khrushchev persecution, which undid ideological stare, and evemually it found the teligious setrlement of the war years. In July 1961 a council of bishops of ~mallaw. The consriturion of 1977, con­ me Russian Orrhodox Church approved me elimination of me clergy from ;essor (1936), gramed a kind of establish­ chairmanship and membership of parish councils, effecrively removing mem rded the leading role in Soviet society ro from parish governmenr.20 The bishops claimed to be remedying abuses as ~arxist-Leninisr doctrine" (Article 6).16 Ir well as relieving priests ofburdensome secular duties ro allow them more time

; in the marrer of propagaring their faith: for pasroral work. In fact rhe hierarchs were bowing (0 state pressure ro resrore :ed to cirizens of the USSR, rhar is, the a strict interptetarion of the dvadtsatka of 1929. The All-Russian Council of lfess none at all, [0 perform religious culrs 1971, me first national council of the church held after 1945, did not abrogate :Arricle 52).17 In other words, atheists had the arrangements of 1961, nor did the anlendmems [0 me Law on Religious word; believers did nor. Associations in 1975 change it in any fundamental way.2! Nor until the tion on religion in the Soviet period was Gorbachev reforms of the mid-198os was there a him in any official source f1929.18 The law imroduced the distinc­ that Soviet law on religion needed [0 be changed. . religion in the Soviet Union, rhe dvadt­ :ree of January 1918 provided that build­ ed over fOt use to "responsible teligious THE ORTHODOX RIGHTS MOVEMENT stare was how to implemem rhis policy ition or privileges to actual ecclesiastical The Orthodox rights movemem was part of the Soviet human rights move­ :s, the patriarch, bishops, assemblies of ment and developed along parallel lines. 22 The Soviet human rights move­ n Religious Associations came up with a ment dates ftom the Constitlltion Day demonsuation in Moscow's Pushkin r district level would lend state property Square on Decembet 15, 1965, by intelligentsia protesting the arrest of rhe dievers who accepted formal registration writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuly Daniel. The key demand was a public trial msibility fot the property temporarily for me accused. The protesters believed that publicity would expose me gap LS an ad hoc group, not a corporate body. between the letter of Soviet law and its adminiStration by the authorities. It ofassembly withom the petmission of "Respect the Soviet Constiwtion!" was the slogan of the day.23 :. Needless ro say, the dvadtsatka did not On the same day me Orrhodox rights movement surfaced in an open let­ lOS ofany church. Srricdy speaking, with ter ro N. V Podgorny, chairman of the Ptesidium of the Supteme Soviet of me e Russian Orrhodox parish as well as all USSR, written by the Moscow priests Gleb Yakunin and Nikolai Eshliman. e parish level ceased to exist as emities The priests ptesented a detailed btief alleging violations of Soviet law on reli­ lder public law. gion by me state authorities. Two days earlier the ptiests had sem a lerret ro le destruction of me chutch me Law on Patriarch Aleksii I atguing meir case in theological terms. They sem copies of ro teality and assisred the implemema- both lerrets to the entire Russian Ormodox hierarchy.24 While there had been 288 Paul Valliere Russian other protests by Orthodox clergy and lairy in 1965 regarding rhe state of in which rhey put forward the idea of aJ affairs produced by the Khrushchev persecution, the witness of Yakunin and gious rights, in essence the idea that the Eshliman was especially important because of its connection with the wider to serve a year later. 30 Soviet human rights movement. During the repressions of the late 19 The number ofclergy and lairy involved in the Orthodox rights movement rights movement suffered the same fate was small. It was a movement of heroic individuals, as was the Soviet human ment. The attack on the leadership of tI rights movement generally. As for the hierarchs, they made a practice of dis­ arrest of many of itS founding members il ciplining activist clergy and keeping their distance from dissident laity.25 ing Yury Orlov, Anatoly Shcharansky an Yakunin and Eshliman, for example, were removed from their parishes and Ginzburg. The repression of the Christian banned from exercising priestly office (although nor defrocked) following the invasion of Afghanistan and the exile < open letters of 1965. (December 1979-January 1980). Fath, There were numerous links between rhe Orthodox acrivists and the wider November 1979, and most of rhe other Ie, human righrs movement. The first human rights organization in the Soviet months. In 1980 Yakunin was sentenced r< Union, the Initiative Group for rhe Defense of Human Rights in rhe USSR, years of internal exile. formed in 1969, counted the Orthodox lay hisrorian Anaroly Levitin-Krasnov The association of the Orthodox righ among irs founders. The Committee for Human Righrs in rhe USSR, formed righrs movement was nOt JUSt pragmatic I in 1970 by Valery Chalidze and others, rook a lively interest in religious rightS ology. The distinguishing characterisric of cases. 26 Orthodox publicists contributed frequently ro the samizdat literature in contrasr to other dissident tendencies ( in which the Soviet dissident intelligentsia conducted irs debares. 27 The grear­ mount concern wirh law and the culrivati esr publicisr of the period, the Orthodox layman Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, ery. In the words of Pavel Litvinov the m< publicly embraced rhe Orthodox rights movement in his "Lenten Letter" to Patriarch Pi men in 1972. The leuer appeared in rhe Wesrern press shortly after not only a rebirth of goodness and mercy. bl Solzhenirsyn's first major interview wirh Western reporters in many years in society. For rhe firsr time rhe incelligencsia rf March 1972.28 The interview marked the beginning of the explosive period of in spire of all its imperFections, is a fundamcn Solzhenitsyn's acrivism, culminating in the publication of The Gulag dignity as citizens, on paper deFends human Archipelago in December 1973 and his expulsion from the Sovier Union rhe discovered a powerful lever ofsocial transFocn following February. attencion of rhe Soviet bureaucracy as well as The Moscow Helsinki Warch Group, which announced its program in the lack ofconFormity berween rhe conduct ( May 1976, found its Orthodox counterparr in the Chrisrian Committee for Soviet legislation, and also to rhe many inre the Defense of the Rights of Religious Believers in the USSR, although human rights which the Soviet Union has ral Orthodox Christians were also to be found in the leadership of rhe Helsinki execution as ro its own international reputatj Group. The Christian Committee, founded in December 1976 by Father 29 Gleb Yakunin and orhers, was a watch group specializing in religious cases. The same attention [Q law was typical Irs interdenominarional concern wirh the rights of all believers, not jusr Yakunin and Eshliman's bter ro Podgorr Orthodox, reflected the extent to which rhe Orthodox rights movement had the earliesr examples of the new legal cons been shaped by the general human righrs movement. The Chrisrian rer protesred the policies of the Council fe Committee also followed rhe lead of the Helsinki Group in promoting the of the Council of Ministers of the USSI internarionalization of the struggle for human rights on rhe basis of the supervision of rhe Orthodox Church.32 T Helsinki accords of1975. In October of that year Father Yakunin and the lay policies violated borh the principles and I church hisrorian Lev Regelson addressed an open letter to rhe delegates of gion. In the introduction to the letter, f the Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches meeting in Nairobi council for condu(."ting most of its busine Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 289

Y' and laity in 1965 regarding the state of in which they pUt forward the idea of an interchurch effort to defend reli­ v persecution, the witness ofYakunin and gious rights, in essence the idea that the Christian Committee was formed . because of its connection with the wider to serve a year later.30 During the repressions of the late 1970S and early 1980s the Orthodox nvolved in the Onhodox rights movement rights movement suffered the same fate as the general human rights move­ :coic individuals, as was the Soviet human ment. The attack on the leadership of the Helsinki Group began with the the hierarchs, they made a practice of dis­ arrest of many of its founding members in February and March 1977, includ­ ing their diStance from dissident laity.25 ing Yury Orlov, Anatoly Shcharansky and the Orthodox layman Aleksandr Ie, wete removed from their parishes and Ginzburg. The repression ofthe Christian Committee began on the eve of the ice (although not defrocked) following the invasion of AfghaniStan and the exile of Andrei Sakharov from Moscow (December 1979-January 1980). Father Gleb Yakunin was arrested in veen the Orthodox activists and the wider November 1979, and most of the other leaders were detained in the following . human rights organization in the Soviet months. In 1980 Yakunin was sentenced to five years in prison followed by five : Defense of Human Rights in the USSR, years of internal exile. dox lay historian Anaroly Levitin-Krasnov The association of the Orthodox rights aCtivists with the general human :e for Human Rights in the USSR, fOtmed rights movemeut was not JUSt ptagmatic but extended to values and method­ ers, took a lively interest in teligious rights ology. The distinguishing characteristic ofthe Soviet human rights movement )uted frequently to the samizdat litera~ure in contrast to orher dissident tendencies (especially nationalism) was its para­ ~entsia conducted its debates.27 The great­ mount concern with law and the cultivation of respect for law in Soviet soci­ "thodox layman Aleksandr Solzhenirsyn, ety. In the words of Pave! Lirvinov the movement represented 19hts movement in his "Lenten Letter" to ilppeared in the Western ptess shordy after nor only a rebirol of goodness and merc)', bur rhe birrh of a sense of law in Sovier with Western reporters in many years in sociery. For rhe firsr rime rhe inrelligenrsia recognized rhar the Soviet constiTUrion, d the beginning of the explosive period of in spire of all irs imperfections, is a fundamental law which in irs lener prorecrs rheir ring in the publication of The Gulag digniry as cirizens, on paper defends human righrs. The hnman rights movement his expulsion from the Soviet Union the discovered a powerful lever ofsocial rransformacion, namely law, when ir turned Ole

anen rion of the Sovier bureaucrac)' as well as ofsociery and Ole resr of rhe world [Q ;roup, which announced its program in rhe lack of conformiry beTWeen Ole conducr of rhe regime and the constirution and nterpart in the Christian Committee for Sovier legislarion, and also ro [he many inrernarional convenrions and rrearies on

gious Believers in the USSR, although human rights which rhe Soviet Union has rarified nor so much wirh a view [Q cheir 'e found in the leadership of the He'1sinki execution as ro its own international repurarion.)l :, founded in December 1976 by Father ch group specializing in religious cases. 29 The same attention to law was typical of the Orthodox rights movement. .vith the rights of all believers, no t just Yakunin and Eshliman's letter to Podgorny is a good example, indeed one of hich the Orthodox rights movement had the earliest examples of the new legal consciousness cited by Lirvinov. The let­ nan rights movement. The Christian ter protested the policies of the Council for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs of the Helsinki Group in promotililg the of rhe Council of Ministers of the USSR, the state agency responsible for Ie for human rights on the basis of the supervision of the Orthodox Church.32 The priests charged that the council's :r of that year Fathet Yakunin and the lay policies violated both the principles and the particulars of Soviet law on reli­ .ressed an open letter to the delegates of gion. In the introduction to the letter, for example, the priests faulted the :ouncil of Churches meeting in Nairobi council fot conducting most of its business otaUy. "The very method of using 290 Paul valliere Russian I unofficial oral decrees, which the leaders and representarives of the Soviet for The Otthodox rights activists reptesenr, Russian Orthodox Church Affairs chose as a means ofsysremaric interference as to rhe state. They did not question the It in the internal life of the Orthodox Church, is a violation of the principles of as some Russian Orthodox splinter group the Law. "33 In rhe body of the letrer the authors discussed eight cypes of vio­ rhe policy of peaceful accommodation wi. lations of Soviet law on religion: registration of clergy as a means of interfer­ rion rhe church's acquiescence in policies I ing with their placement, mass closing of churches and monasteries and ille­ one-sided relationship of dependence p galliquidarion of religious societies, registration of baprisms and Other sacra­ church, and rhey challenged the ParriarcJ mental acts, restriction of ritual practices, violation of rhe principle offreedom aggressive role in contesring such policies. of conscience with respecr to children, interference in the financial life of Again, Fathers Yakunin and Eshliman s church communiries, limiration of the number of members of a religious soci­ Patriarch Aleksii I in 1965, incorporating r ety to the group of twency, and limitations on the sraffing ofclerical positions. Podgorny, lent theological and ecclesiastic The argumentation in all of rhese cases was deliberately legalis ric. The spirit the lettet was prophetic rather thaI priesrs rook rheir stand on rhe decree on Separarion of the Church from the against pracrices in the earthly, everyday ch State and the Schools from the Church, the Law on Religious Associarions, scendenr reaJicy of the church. and other relevant legislarion. In many particulars rheir arguments were quite The lerter consisted of rhree parts. In th( compelling. Ir was difficult ro deny, for example, that the registration of bap­ a theological as well as a legal principle was G tisms by local governmenral authorities amounted to official documentarion righrs. Ciring the words of Jesus, "Rendel of religious affiliation, specifically excluded by rhe dectee on Separation of the Caesar's, and UntO God the rhings that at< Church from the Stare and rhe Schools from the Church. The priests also argued rhat these words "PUt an end to rh made a good case when they argued that the cusromary limitarion of the dominion over man," which is why "for t responsible membership of religious associarions to twency individuals was docrrine proclaimed the infinite value ofhu nor warranted by rhe Law on Religious Associarions, which required only that pan of the letter the authors discussed a J associarions be composed of "not fewer" than twenty citizens. The authors Podgorny: the pterogatives of the parish pr exposed anorher unwarranted inference when they argued that legal liquida­ Orthodox canon law the authors argued tf tion of a prayer house by local authorities should not automatically signify the bishops in 1961 to remove priests from th( dissolution of the teligious association that occupied it. grandy uncanonical state of affairs at the Ie From the beginning the Soviet human rights movement wrestled with the and offended the dignity of the ptiestly om tension between respect for Soviet law and the need to change it. In the area of the Jetrer pur it poignantly: "the hireling is religious rights this tension was especially severe because ofthe paucicy of rights the last pan of the letrer the authors review accorded to religion in the first place. In theit letter to Podgorny, Yakunin and the Orthodox Church in Russian history an< Eshliman held firmly to the theme of respecting and enfotcing existing Soviet patriarch to lead the chutch our of its bond law. As the tights movement gained momemum, however, its critique became sary ar the price of his own security. "The more radical. The internationalization of the snuggle for rights after the John the Forerunner, the friend of the Bridel Helsinki accords of 1975 also tended to sharpen criticism of Soviet realicy. In the puriry ofthe bride."36 More particularly: 1977, when a nationwide discussion of rhe draft of rhe new consriturion was a widely represenrarive national council of taking place, the Christian Committee ventured ro raise the issue of the pref­ which would meer ro tesrore the canonical r 34 erential rreatment of atheism in the constiturion in a letter to Brezhnev. Patriarch Aleksii I did llOt take up the d To be sure, there was no comradicrion between pteaching respecr for law dissident priests. The next national council tl and attempting to change it at the same time. The new legal consciousness and met for the purpose ofelecting his succe: embraced both causes. Almost no one in the Sovier human rights movemem mems of 1961. The new patriarch, Pi men, advocated working for change by violent, exrralegal means. howevet. In his "Lemen Letter" of 1972, A Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 291

lers and represen rarives of the Soviet for The Orthodox righrs acrivists represented a challenge to rhe church as well )se as a means ofsystematic interference as ro the state. They did not quesrion the legirimacy of the Patriarchal church, hurch, is a violation of the principles of as some Russian Onhodox splinter groups did. They did not even question :he aUthors discussed eight rypes ofvio­ the policy of peaceful accommodation with rhe Soviet srare. They did ques­ .tration of clergy as a means of interfer­ tion the church's acquiescence in policies rhat rurned accommodation into a g of churches and monasreries and ilk­ one-sided relationship of dependence prejudicial to the integrity of rhe egisrrarion of baprisms and other saeta­ church, and they challenged the Patriarch and the bishops ro playa more :es, violation ofthe principle offreedom aggressive role in conteSting such policies. en, interference in the financial life of Again, Farhers Yakunin and Eshliman srated the case besr. Their lerter to ~ number of members ofa religious soci­ Patriarch Aleksii I in 1965, incorporaring the legal case made in rhe lerter to :ions on rhe sraffing ofclerical positions. Podgorny, lent theological and ecclesiastical perspective to their cririque. In e cases was deliberarely legalistic.. The spitir rhe letter was prophetic rather than legalisric. The priests cried out on Separation of the Church from the against practices in the eanhly, everyday church which contradicted the tran­ 'ch, the Law on Religious Associations, scendent realiry of the church. y particulars theit arguments were quire The letter consisted of three parts. In the firsr the aurhors pointed our that Jr example, thar rhe tegistration of bap­ a theological as well as a legal principle was at srake in the violation ofreligious ,es amounted ro official documentation rights. Citing rhe words of Jesus, "Render untO Caesar the things that are :uded by the decree on Separation of rhe Caesar's, and unto God rhe things that are God's" (Matk 12:17), the priests lois from the Church. The priests also atgued that these words "put an end to rhe claims of a pagan state to toral I that [he customary limitation of the dominion over man," which is why "for the firsr time in history Chtisrian associations to rwenry individuals was dOCtrine proclaimed the infinite value ofhuman personaliry."35 In the second s Assooiations, which tequired only that part of the leerer the authors discussed a matter not raised in the letter to wer" than rwenry citizens. The authors Podgorny: the prerogatives of the parish priest. With copious citarions from ce when they argued that legaV liquida­ Orthodox ca.non law the authots argued tbar rhe decision of the council of ties should not automatically signify rhe bishops in 1961 to remove priesrs from the parish councils produced a fla­ 1 that occupied it. grantly uncanonical state of affairs at rhe local level of Orthodox church life nan rights movement wrestled with the and offended the digniry of rhe priestly office. An epigraph ro this section of and the need to change it. In the area of the letrer put it poignantly: "the hireling is not a shepherd" Uohn lO:n). In lly severe because ofthe pauciry ofrights rhe Ia..~t pan of the letter rbe authors reviewed rhe glories and tribulations of In their letter to Podgorny, Yakunin and the Orthodox Church in Russian history and concluded wirh an appeal ro the respecting and enforcing existing Soviet parriarch to lead the church our of its bondage to secular authoriry, if neces­ lomentum, however, its critique became sary at rhe price of his own securiry. "The patriarch is appointed to be like on of the struggle for rights after the John rhe Forerunner, the friend of rhe Bridegroom, who lays down his life for [0 sharpen criticism of Soviet realiry. In the puriry of rhe bride."36 More particularly they called on Aleksii to summon If rhe draft of the new constirurion was a widely representative national council of the Russian Orthodox Church e venrured to raise the issue of rhe pref­ which would meer to restore the canonical norms of church life. IOstitution in a lerter to Brezhnev.34 Patriarch Aleksii I did not rake up rhe challenge addressed to him by the :rion berween preaching respect for law dissident priests. The next narional council took place after his death, in 1971, lme rime. The new legal consciousness and met for the purpose of electing his successor. It did not undo the arrange­ ~ in rhe Soviet human rights movement menrs of 1961. The new patriarch, Pimen, soon faced a similar challenge, enr, extralegal means. however. In his "Lenten Lener" of 1972, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn cited the 292 Patti Valliere Russian I examples ofYakunin and Eshliman seven years earlier and implored Pimen to rhrough secrer (rhough canonical) ordin: rake rhe iniriarive in rhe suuggle ro free rhe church from bondage even ar the underground clergy wouLd minisrer ro price of personal martyrdom. "Do nor ler us suppose, do nor make us rhink Orthodox Christians whose needs wer that for the archpasrors of the Russian Church earthly power is higher rhan restricted Moscow Pauiarchate. If the Pa heavenly power, earthly responsibility more fearsome than responsibility setting up such a network, as it almost sun before God."37 ing to a sister Orthodox church, such as Nor all Orrhodox rights activists approved of rhe cacric of challenging rhe for assistance.40 The pracricality of such patriarch and bishops ro confront the srare aurhorities ar any price. One ofthe contexr of the human righrs struggle, hov responses elicired by Solzhenitsyn's "Lenten Letter" provided evidence of Yakunin had lost confidence in his own IT divided opinion. Ir came from the pen of Father Sergei Zheludkov, a priest in Yakunin's pessimism toward the Mosc( rhe ciry of Pskov with a long record of involvement in rhe struggle for wem so far as to assert thar "if the freedol Orthodox rights and close ries ro the dissidem intelligentsia. He rook excep­ were suddenly granred in our countr tion ro Solzhenirsyn's all-or-nothing approach, arguing rhar it would lead ro Patriarchate would be incapable of pn martyrdom and an underground church. He held that the legal church "can­ Ironically, rhe one servant of the patriarch nor be an island of freedom in our strictly and homogeneousLy organized soci­ favorable judgment, Father Dmitry Dud ety run from a single Center." He approved of rhe hierarchy's policy "some­ munity a few months larer with a nation~ how [0 sign intO the system and for the time being [0 make use of the oppor­ in rhe human righrs suuggle of the 1970s. tunities permined by ir. "38 Bur in spite of disagreements over rhe hierarchy's ing uicks on Yakunin. aCtual or porential role in the srruggle for righrs, mosr Orthodox dissidents And so it was, though more benignly t agre,ed rhat the patriarchal church was rhe Russian Orthodox Church on imagined in the dark days of 1979-80. Fe whose behalf rhey were fighring. This consensus in itself resrified ro a consid­ via dolorosa of prison, exile, or capitulatil erable degree ofgood will [Oward the church on rhe parr of the acrivisrs. Their church-scate relations and in rhe Soviet ~ rolerance demonstrared Christian parience and love. It also refleCted a recog­ produced a mote favorable environment f nition that rhe real anragonisr of the human rights movement was not the than ar any time since the Bolshevik revo Orthodox Church bur the Soviet stare. eration of rhe Orthodox Church's vindi Russian land enhanced rhe visibility of ch rhe accession to power of a group of rel 1980-1988: THE MILLENNIUM ARRIVES Gorbachev in 1985 opened rhe way ro a r: in all spheres of Sovier life. In many ways rhe outlook for human rights in the Sovier Union seemed The improvement of the church's histo bleaker in 1980 rhan it did in 1965. The repressions of the late 1970S closed accession to power. In the lare 1970S and down the Soviet human rights movemem and confirmed the doubrs ofmany rerm strategy of loyalty to rhe state beg concerning rhe prospecrs for changing rhe Sovier sysrem by legal means. before, ar leasr for the central church insri Orthodox activists experienced these doubrs as acutely as rheir secular col­ studenrs doubled between 1971 and 198I.4~ leagues. Legalism seemed to have led ro a dead end. The way was open for Patriarchate increased its staffand manage reconceiving rhe struggle for Orthodox righrs along mote radical lines, such in cemral Moscow to accommodare work as an underground ch urch or an alliance wirh righr-wing Russian narionalism. A large consrrucrion projecr was aurhori Yakunin, as ever rhe leading Otthodox dissident, announced his break with buildings and grounds of the Danilov Mo the legalisr approach in a report on "The Present Siruarion of rhe Russian named for Sr. Daniil, a medieval grand pi Orthodox Church and the Prospecrs of a Religious Renewal in Russia," dared est monasrery. The restoration of the facil 39 Augusr 15. 1979. In ir he advocared the crearion of a "caracomb church" presence to rhe capiral for the firsr rime in I Russian Ormodoxy and Human Rights 293 l seven yeats earlier and implored Pimen co through secret (though canonical) ordinations of bishops and priests. The

)free the church from bondage even at the underground clergy would minister (0 the far-flung masses of Russian not let us suppose, do nor make us think Onhodox Christians whose needs were nor being met by the severely isian Church earrhly power is higher than resrricred Moscow Parriarchate. If the Patriarchate refused to collaborate in bility more fearsome than responsibility setting up such a nelWork, as it almost surely would, Yakunin advocated cum­ ing to a sister Orthodox church, such as me Orthodox Church in Ametica, s approved of the ractic of challenging the fOt assistance.40 The practicality of such an approach was debarable. In the le state authorities at any price. One ofthe context of me human rights struggle, however, me impOrtant poim was that l'S "Lenten Lerrer" provided evidence of Yakunin had lOSt confidence in his own movement. Jen of Father Sergei Zheludkov, a priest in Yakunin's pessimism roward the Moscow Patriarchare was unrelieved. He :ord of involvement in the srruggle for wenr so far as to assert mat "if the freedom to conduct religious propaganda le dissidenr imelligentsia. He took excep­ were suddenly granted in our counrry, the members of the Moscow g approach, arguing that it would lead to Patriarchate would be incapable of profiting from this opportunity.,,41 lurch. He held that the legal church "can­ Ironically, rhe one servant of the patriarchal church on whom Yakunin passed Cticrly and homogeneously organized soci­ favorable judgment, Famer Dmitry Dudko, scandalized the dissident com­ approved of the hierarchy's policy "some­ munity a few monms later with a nationally tdevised recantation of his role the time being to make use of the oppor­ in the human rights struggle of rhe 1970s.42 It seemed as if history were play­ pite of disagreemems over the hierarchy's ing tricks on Yakunin. ;gle for rights, mosr Orthodox dissidents And so it was, though more benignly than he or his colleagues could have I was the Russian Onhodox Church on imagined in the dark days of 1979-80. For even as me dissidents walked me lis consensus in itself tesrified to a consid­ via dolorosa of prison, exile, or capitulation, changes were in the making in e church on the parr of the acrivists. Their church-state relations and in the Soviet state itself which by the mid-1980s atience and love. Ir also refleCted a recog­ produced a more favorable environment for human rights in the Soviet lands be human rights movement was not the rhan at any time since the Bolshevik revolution. On the one hand, an accel­ ne. eration of the Orthodox Church's vindication of its historic rights in the Russian land enhanced the visibility of the church in Soviet society. Second, the accession to power of a group of reform Communists led by Mikhail ~ES Gorbachev in 1985 opened me way to a rapid advancemem of human rights in all spheres of Sovier life. nan rights in the Soviet Union seemed The improvemem of me church's historic rights began before Gorbachev's The repressions of me late 1970S closed accession to power. In the late 1970S and early 1980s the Parriarchate's long­ mem and confirmed the doubts of many term srrategy of loyalty to the state began to payoff more palpably than ging the Soviet system by legal means. before, at least for the cenrral church institutions. The number of theological ;e doubts as acutely as their secular col­ srudents doubled between 1971 and 1981.43 The Publishing Department of me :d ro a dead end. The way was open for Parriarchate increased its Staffand managed ro get a new building consrructed :lox rights along more radical lines, such in central Moscow ro accommodate work on an expanded range ofprojects.44 nce wirh righr-wing Russian nationalism. A large construction project was authorized in 1983 with rhe return of the )dox dissidem, announced his break with buildings and grounds of the Danilov Monastety to the church. The Danilov, I "The Present Situarion of the Russian named for St. Daniil, a medieval grand prince of Moscow, was rhe city's old­ of a Religious Renewal in Russia," dated est monastery. The reStoration of the facility broughr an Orthodox monastic ~d the creation of a "catacomb church" ptesence to the capital for the first time in decades as well as providing a highly 294 PauL VaLLiere Russian C

visible residence for the pauiarch and a sear for the Holy Synod and some able w ordinary citizens, and establishing tf other units of the Patriarchare. That the immediate somce of these ideas The church in the provinces did nm benefIt to the same extent as the cen­ Soviet human rights movement was toO p tral institUtions, ahhough there were some improvemenrs. There was a mod­ had won its case, albeit posthumously. est increase in the building and reopening of churches in some pans of the In the spting of 1988, vitrually on the e counrry starting in the late 1970s.45 At about the same time deanery and reform process took a great leap forwan diocesan conventions of clergy, indispensable to the rebuilding of the declared its inrenrion to create a new nar! Orthodox Church on the provincial level, began to be held again after a lapse People's Deputies. Elections to this body 'h of almost three decades.46 the first time in June. Similar parliaments v The gains fOt the Orthodox Church in me early 1980s, while small com­ level. A substantial body of human rights I pared w the expansion at the end of the decade, were exceptional in [WO on freedom of religion mentioned above, 'h respects. First, they exceeded earlier gains by an appreciable margin. Second, plishments of the new parliamentary instit they occurred during a time of unprecedented lassitude and decline in the Before 1988 the Communist reformers 1 Soviet Union as whole. Indeed, the Orthodox Church was about the only gion. Their silence left the religiously orien instirution in the counrry w show any vigor in the late 1970S and early 1980s. about the reform process. In May 1987 a g To explain this phenomenon one should probably reckon with a number of clergy and laymen tied to the Orthodox r facwrs ranging from the hand of Providence ro the machinations of atheist matter w a head in open letters to Ch. bureaucrats. The timing of the concessions to the church, for example, makes Pimen.48 They called on Gorbachev to ex", it tempting to suspect that they were inrended as a reward ro plianr hieratchs religious sphere by granring believers me r at a time when harsh punishment was being meted Out to Orrhodox rights gious literarute, to be heard in me mass m activists. But the gwwth in the church's strength could also be seen as an tion oflegislation affecting religious life, tC example of the countercyclical capaciry of religion to show vitality when sec­ service-in short, to participate openly ane ular power structutes fall inro decline. the nine called fOt a consistent policy: "We In any case, the Orthodox hierarchy won real gains, not just cosmetic restructuring that lies ahead. But the ptOC improvemenrs, during the petiod. The bishops showed particular skill in their our country is essentially indivisible. The manipulation ofa date ofgreat symbolic importance in Russian history: 1988, be left OUt of it." the miJ lennial anniversary of the baptism of the people of Kiev under Prince To the patriarch the nine declared that Vladimir in 988. In the struggle for historic rights, historic occasions playa freedom to be any easiet to achieve in th key role. By declaring their inrenrion to celebrate the millennium in a gtand large: "Immobilized, mute and timid for i way the Orthodox hierarchy was able to wage a more or less open campaign learn all ovet again how to walk and talk." to enhance the visibility of the church in Soviet sociery. In this effort the "not to let slip the unique histOrical oppc church probably benefIted not a little from the suPPOrt it enjoyed among our Homeland and our Mother Church." some of the more nationalistic members of the Soviet establishmenr. Despite the lack ofofficial statements, ~ Bll[ the decisive change that allowed the Moscow Spring of 1988 to happen conditions of religious life was already un occurred nm in the church but in the ruling elite of the Soviet state. Coming sidenrs, including Father Yakunin, were to power in 1985, MikhaiJ Gorbachev and his associates promptly set about Yakunin's sacerdotal functions were restol implementing an ambitious reform agenda: first gLasnost', Ot freedom of assigned to a parish in the Moscow area.49 expression; then perestroika, or the restructuring of social, politicaJ, and eco­ tutions was openly discussed by official s nomic institutions. In terms of rights issues the most promising aspeCt of the parents preseming child ten for baptism, : reform effort was the idea of "a state based on law" (pravovoe gOJll.darstvo) and asked to show their domestic passpOtt beD the caHs for upgrading the legal profession, making legal services more avail- rite was no longer subject to civil registra' Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights :1.95

rrd a seat for the Holy Synod and some able to ordinary citizens, and establishing the independence oflegal counsel.47 That the immediate source of these ideas was the "legalist" thinking of the lOt benefit to the same extem as the cen­ Soviet human righrs movemem was toO plain to be missed. The movemem ,some improvemems. There was a mod­ had won its case, albeit posthumously. )ening of churches in some parts of the In the spring of 1988, virtually on the eve of the church millennium, the 5 At abom the same time deanery and reform process took a great leap forward when Gorbachev's government rdispensable to the rebuilding of the declared itS intention to create a new national parliament, the Congress of level, began to be held again mer a lapse People's Deputies. Elections to this body were held in March 1989; it met for the first time in June. Similar parliamems were later created on the republican rch in the early 1980s, while small com­ level. A substantial body of human rights legislation, including the 1990 laws )f the decade, were exceptional in two on freedom of religion mentioned above, was one of the most notable accom­ ;ains by an appreciable matgin. Second, plishments of the new parliamemary insritutions. recedemed lassitude and decline in rhe Before 1988 the Communist reformers made no public sratements on reli­ Orthodox Church was abour the only gion. Their silence lefr the teligiously otiemed public in a state of uncertainty y vigor in the late 1970S and early 1980s. about the reform process. In May 1987 a group of nine prominent Orthodox mid probably reckon with a number of clergy and laymen ried to the Orthodox righrs movement tried to bring the )vidence to the machinations of atheist mattet to a head in open letters to Chairman Gorbachev and Patriarch ;sions to the church, fOt example, makes Pimen.48 They called on Gorbachev to exrend glasnost and perestroika ro the intended as a reward to pliam hierarchs religious sphere by granting believers the right to publish scriptures and reli­ as being meted om to Orthodox rights gious literatute, to be heard in the mass media, to participate in rhe prepara­ rch's srrengrh could also be seen as an tion oflegislation affecting religious life, to engage in philanthropy and social ty of religion to show vitality when sec­ service-in short, to participate openly and equally in Soviet society. In effect the nine called for a consistem policy: "We wish to believe in the reality of the chy won real gains, not JUSt cosmetic restructuring that lies ahead. But the process of democratization going on in : bishops showed particulat skill in their our country is essemially indivisible. The Russian Orthodox Church cannot lic importance in Russian histoty: 1988, be left out of it." ism of the people of Kiev under Prince To the patriarch the nine declared that they did not expect the tenewal of lisroric tighrs, historic occasions playa freedom to be any easier to achieve in the church than in Soviet society at to celebrate the millennium in a grand large: "Immobilized, mme and timid for so many years, [rhe church] has to to wage a more or less open campaign learn allover again how to walk and talk." The group imploted rhe patriarch eh in Sovier society. In this effon the "nor to let slip the unique histOrical opportunity which the Lord is sending e from the sUppOrt ir enjoyed among our Homeland and our MOther Church." ~rs of the Soviet establishmenr. Despite the lack ofofficial sratements, however, a gteat libetalization of the :I the Moscow Spring of1988 to happen conditions of religious life was already underway by mid-I987. Religious dis­ ruling elire of the Sovier state. Coming sidents, including Father Yakunin, were released from exile or deten rion. and his associares promptly set abom Yakunin's sacerdOtal functions were restored by the Patriarchate, and he was agenda: first gLasnost', or freedom of assigned to a parish in the Moscow area. 49 A program to upgrade Jewish insti­ tructuring of social, political, and eco­ tutions was openly discussed by official spokesmen. 5o Adult baptisands and ssues the most promising aspeCt of the parems preseming children for baptism, ar least in Moscow, were no longer !Sed on law" (pravovoe gosudarstvo) and asked to show their domesric passpOrt before receiving the sacramem, i.e., the sion, making legal services more avail- rite was no longer subjecr to civil registrarion. 51 As we have noted, this prac­ 296 PauL VaLLiere Russian' tice was long singled Out by critics as an affront to religious conscience and a poignant in that it was a major ideologica flagrant violation ofSoviet law. Another sign ofimprovement was the series of envision religion as having any son offun.J three international scholatly conferences on Russian Orthodox history and Most importantly, Gorbachev announced tradition commemorating the millennium of the baptism of Russia. 52 The on freedom of conscience is being devisel conferences marked the first time that the ch urch was allowed to sponsor organizations as well as othets will be ref!. international meetings on a subject other than ecumenism or world peace. was now official. The second and third conferences in the series featured participation by dis­ When the church observed its miUenn tinguished Soviet scholars from secular institutions as well as clergy and the­ a spirit of confidence and independenc ologians. The open collaboration between secular and ecclesiastical scholars church council composed of the hierarch was another "first" for the postwar period. sentatives. The gathering was only the th As for rhe legal statUs of religion, there was evidence that new legislation Orthodox Church in the Soviet period (t was being prepared at the highest levels. In the January 1986 issue of the was the first to be held fOt a purpose 0 JournaL a/the Moscow Patriarchate thete appeared a mysterious last page enti· deceased patriarch. cled "Our Legal Advice: The RightS and Obligations of Religious Societies."53 In the atea ofrights the most imponan l In actualiry the page did not relay "advice" from any ecclesiastical source but tion of a fundamental Statute fOt the R ptesented eight dtaft paragraphs of a secular law code employing the termi­ firmly on Orthodox canon law and the al nology, but departing from the substance, of the Law on Religious Associa­ statute formally ended the bondage of th tions of 1929. The draft explicitly recognized religious associations as legal the Law on Religious Associations of 1925 entities with the right to make COntractS and act as plaintiff or defendant in a cit of 196r. It went much further than the court of law. It granted religious associations the right to purchase (nor merely tures of aurhoriry and decision-making ir take on loan) and hold tirle to various kinds of property including titual tions ar the diocesan, episcopal, and nad objects, means of transport. and buildings. The right of religious organiza­ church's newly won sovereignry over its al tions to employ temporary or permanent staff on cOntract was also recog­ course. the statUte contradicted existing S nized. In short, the "Advice" subverted the entire tradition of Soviet legisla­ to the contrary placed at the head of th tion on religion. Since such a publication could not have appeared at the time explain why the church delayed forr withour official approval, it encouraged hopes for a breakthrough to religious Neverrheless. the text circulated freely an liberry in the USSR. The unanswered question was whether the principles of menred immediately following the counc "Our Legal Advice" would be written into state law; and ifso, when? Thus the millennium passed amidst a The intentions of the Communist reformers with respect to religion were the Bolshevik revolution, the Russian C publicly clarified in April 1988 when Chairman Gorbachev held an unptece­ Babylonian exile to claim "a future and a dented and highly publicized roundtable meeting with the senior hierarchs of the Russian Onhodox Church.54 The rone and substance of his remarks were conciliatOry even though he felt obliged to declare that Lenin's 1918 Dectee on RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY AND HUMAN R the Separation of the Chutch from the State and the School from the Church was a measure that "opened the way for the church to pursue its activities The annus mirabiLis of1988 marked the er: without any son of outside intetference." He conceded that "mistakes" were and the beginning of a new period in tn made with respect to the church and religious believers in the t930S and there­ Church. The new era is without precede after, observed that the errors were being corrected, wished the church well perous periods of its life undet the tsatS, on the eve of its millennium and invited the Orthodox communiry to col­ freedom of action that it possesses toda) laborate in the wotk of perestroika on the grounds that "we have a common freedom-how it will respond to the ch history, one Fatherl and and one future." The laSt point was especially lization, how it will deal with the religic Russian Otthodoxy and Human Rights 1.97 as an affront w teligious conscience and a poignant in that it was a major ideological retreat for a Communist leader to ther sign ofimprovement was the series of envision religion as having any SOrt of future, never mind the same as his own. tences on Russian Onhodox hiswry and Most imponandy, GOtbachev announced that "at the present time a new law ennium of the baptism of Russia. 52 The on fteedom of conscience is being devised in which the interests of teligious that the church was allowed w sponSOt organizations as well as othets will be reflected." The long-rumoted prospect t other than ecumenism or world peace. was now official. n the series featuted participation by dis­ When the church observed its millennium in June 1988, then, it did so in liar institutions as well as clergy and rhe­ a spirit of confidence and independence. The main event was a national etween secular and ecclesiastical scholars church council composed of the hierarchy and elected clerical and lay repte­ leriod. sentatives, The gathering was only the third national council of the Russian , there was evidence that new legislation Orthodox Church in the Soviet period (the others were in 1945 and 1971). It levels. In the January 1986 issue of the was the firSt to be held for a putpose other than electing a successor to a lere appeared a mysterious last page enti­ deceased patriarch. md Obligations ofReligious Societies. "53 In the area ofrights the most important action of the council was the adop­ advice" from any ecclesiastical source but tion of a fundamental statute for the Russian Orthodox Church.55 Based a secular law code employing the termi­ firmly on Orthodox canon law and the abrogated precedent of 1945, the new stance, of the Law on Religious Associa­ statute formally ended the bondage of the church to the pattern dictated by 'ecognized teligious associations as legal the Law on Religious Associations of1929 and the humiliating pseudo-coun­ 'acts and act as plaintiff or defendant ,in a cil of1961. It went much further than the statute of 1945 in spelling out struc­ ciations the right w purchase (not merely tures of authority and decision-making in the church. A tiered set of institu­ ious kinds of property including ritual tions at the diocesan, episcopal, and national level was set up to exetcise the lildings. The right of religious organiza­ church's newly won sovereignty over its affairs. At the time of its adoption, of lanent staff on contract was also recog­ course, the statute contradicted existing Soviet laws on religion despite a nOte ted the entire tradition of Soviet legisla­ W the contrary placed at the head of the document. The discrepancy may Ition could nOt have appeated at the time explain why the church delayed formal publication of the statute.56 ;ed hopes for a breakthrough to religious Nevertheless, the text circulated freely and its provisions began w be imple­ d question was whether the principles of mented immediately following the council. :1 into state law; and if so, when? Thus the millennium passed amidSt a great liberation. Seventy years after t reformers with respect to religion were the Bolshevik revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church emerged from its Chairman Gorbachev held an unprece­ Babylonian exile ro claim "a future and a hope" Oeremiah 29:10). able meeting with rhe senior hierarchs of e tone and substance of his remarks were ;ed to declare rhat Lenin's 1918 Decree on RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY AND HUMAN RIGHTS SINCE 1988 le State and the School from the Church V for the church to pursue its activities The anrlUs mirabilis of 1988 marked the end of the long struggle for civil rights nce." He conceded that "mistakes" were and the beginning of a new period in the history of the Russian Orthodox religious believers in the 1930S and there­ Church. The new era is without precedent. Never before, not even in pros­ leing corrected, wished the church well perous periods of its life under the tsars, did the Russian Church enjoy the vited the Orthodox community to coI­ freedom of action that it possesses today. What the church will do with its n the grounds that "we have a common freedom-how it will respond to the challenges of a complex modern civi­ uture. n The last point was especially lization, how it will deal with the religious pluralism of POst-soviet society, 298 Paul Valliere Russian ( what positions it will take with tegard ro the state, rhe schools, ptivate prop­ when his proposition could be verified. BI erry, and the whole tange of modern rights issues-all of these are open ques­ tion turned out to be wrong. tions. The answers will come, some soon, Others more slowly, as the Russian The codification of the civil rights of t Orrhodox communiry brings its rich tradition of piery and rheology to bear other religious associations in the Soviet tal on them. One safe prediction is that rhe new situation will Stimulate a gteat of laws on religious freedom by rhe legisla deal of fresh theological reflection. in Ocrober 199060 The AlI- Union law cea In terms of Russian Orthodoxy and human rights the period since 1988 has the USSR at the end of 1991. The 1990 F been shaped by thtee developments: rhe rebuilding ofchurch institutions, rhe POst-soviet Russian Federation. codification of legal tights, and the emetgence of rights issues quite different The All-Union (USSR) law carried th from those which occupied the church in rhe Soviet period. (1986) to rheir logical conclusion. It recogr The rebuilding of the Russian Orthodox Chutch has proceeded with entities (Article 13) and their righr to acqu remarkable rapidiry and on a larger scale than even the friends of the church erry (Articles 17-20). It recognized as "rel expected. In rhe period 1985-1987 the church opened or reopened a tmal of 29 congregarions bUt "directorates and centra parishes, a tespectable numbet by prereform srandards. In 1988, however, 809 brorherhoods, missionary societies (missio new parishes were registered; in the first nine months of the following year, ciations of religious organizations" (Auid 2,185. In roughly the same period a half dozen new theological schools and a gious organizations to establish ties wirh dozen new monasteries wete opened.57 The repossession of historic monu­ USSR, the right of believers ro leave rhe ments large and small-from the Kiev Caves Monastery to street corner religious purposes (Articles 9, 22, 24), thl chapels and rural pilgrimage sites-also proceeded rapidly in all areas of raise childten in a religion (Article 3), and t Orthodox settlement. The boom continued in the 1990S. By late 1993 the sue religio us education "in the languag number of new and reopened parishes in the Moscow Patriarchate surpassed together with others" (Article 6). It tecogr 7,000, bringing the total number of patriarchal parishes w more than 14,000. tions to condUCt religious services and oth In other words, the Patriarchate doubled in size in a five-year period. In the gious cenrers, private homes, cemeteries ;; same period the number of monasteries rose from about 20 to more rhan 200; Services in hospitals, prisons, and home the number of theological schools, from four to 38.58 The numbet of historic admitted "ar the request of citizens" inhab Orthodox monumenrs rescored during the period is incalculable. organizations having the right to solicit Sl The scale of the Orthodox renewal in Russia and the othet countries of rhe The law granted religious organization Moscow Paniarchate would appear w make it the largest revival of hiswric triburions of money and orher properry, I Ch tistianity in the twentieth centuty. At the very leaSt the rebuilding of taxation (Article 18). The right of religit Orthodoxy has dramatically alteted the Russian landscape. Russia is begin­ enterptises (e.g., publishing, restoration, a ning ro look like an Otthodox counrey again. vice institutions such as hospitals and sl To be sure, one would have to examine the spititual dimensions of the from such enterprises were declared taxabl Orthodox revival in ordet co evaluate it ade qua rely. But rhe material facts itable or educational ends (Article 23)· [ alone prove at leaSt a couple of things. They prove that rhe Orthodox Church's income were eliminated (Article 26). claim to possess historic rights in the Russian land enjoys a good measure of The RSFSR law tecognized all the aro popular support. Second, they show rhat the Moscow Patriarchate, whatever allowing considetably wider latirude to its failings, possesses greater reserves of energy and imagination than its Union law. The law explicitly recognized Soviet-era detracwrs allowed. When Father Yakunin wrote in 1979 that "if rhe zens on Russian soil (Article 4). It author: freedom to conduct teligious propaganda were suddenly granted in out coun­ the request of mass religious organizations try, the members of the Moscow Patriatchate would be incapable of profiting declaration of great religious holidays a.! from this opportuniry,"59 he scatcely imagined rhat the hout would come (Article 14). It recognized the tight of rl Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 299

·d to the state, the schools, private prop­ when his proposition could be verified. Bur the hour came, and the proposi­ rights issues-all of these are open ques­ tion turned oUt ro be wrong. soon, others more slowly; as the Russian The codification of the civil rights of the Russian Orthodox Church and l tradition of piety and theology to bear othet teligious associations in the Soviet lands was achieved with the adoption the new sitUation will stimulate a great of laws on religious freedom by the legislatures of the USSR and the RSFSR in October 1990.60 The All-Union law ceased to apply after the dissolution of d human rights the petiod since 1988 has the USSR at the end of 1991. The 1990 RSFSR law remains in effect in the :he rebuilding ofchurch institutions, the post-soviet Russian Federation. mergence of rights issues quite different The All-Union (USSR) law cattied the principles of "Our Legal Advice" :h in the Soviet period. (1986) to their logical conclusion. It recognized religious otganizations as legal )nhodox Church has proceeded with entities (Article 13) and their tight ro acquire and hold various kinds of prop­ cale than even the friends of the church erty (Articles 17-20). Ir recognized as "religious organizations" not JUSt local church opened or reopened a total of29 congregations bUt "directorates and central institutions, monasteries, religious refotm standatds. In 1988, however, 809 brotherhoods, missionary societies (missions), religious schools and also asso­ ~rst nine mon ths of the following year, ciations of religious organizations" (Article 7). Ir confirmed the right of reli­ alf dozen new theological schools and a gious organizations ro eStablish ties with groups outside the territory of the Y The tepossession of histotic monu­ USSR, the right of believers to leave the country for pilgrimages and other :.fev Caves Monastery to street corner religious purposes (Articles 9, 22, 24), the right of parents and guardians to -also ptoceeded tap idly in all area-s of taise children in a religion (Article 3), and the right ofall Soviet citizens to PUt­ nrinued in the 1990s. By late 1993 the sue religious education "in the language of their choice, individually or s in the Moscow Patriarchate surpassed together with others" (Article 6). Ir recognized the right of religious organiza­ arriatchal parishes to mote than 14,000. tions to conduct religious services and other ritUals in houses ofworship, reli­ lIed in size in a five-year period. In the gious centers, private homes, cemeteries and crematoria without conditions. :s rose from abOUt 20 to more than 200; Services in hospitals, prisons, and homes for the elderly and invalids were m four to 38.58 The number of histOric admitted "at the request of citizens" inhabiting the inStitUtions, with religious ~ the period is incalculable. otganizations having the right to solicit such requests (Article 21). in Russia and the othet countries of the The law granted religious organizations the right to solicit voluntary con­ ) make it the largeSt revival of historic ttibUtions of money and other property, exempting such contributions from y. At the very least the tebuilding of taxation (Article 18). The right of religious organizations to fOtm business ~e Russian landscape. Russia is begin­ enterprises (e.g., publishing, testoration, agricultural concerns) and social ser­ r agam. vice institutions such as hospitals and shelters was also recognized. Profits lmine the spititual dimensions of the ftom such enterprises wete declated taxable (Article 19) unless applied ro chat­ ~ it adequately. But the material facts itable or educational ends (Anicle 23). Discriminatoty tax rates on clerical lhey prove that the Orthodox Church's income were eliminated (Article 26). ~ussian land enjoys a good measure of The RSFSR law recognized all the aforementioned tights and rhen some, lat the Moscow Patriarchate, whatever allowing considerably wider latitude ro religious expression than the A11­ of energy and imagination than its Union law. The law explicicly recognized the religious libetty of foreign citi­ ther Yakunin wrote in 1979 that "if the zens on Russian soil (Article 4). It authorized the Russian government "upon cia were suddenly granted in our coun­ the requesr of mass religious organizations ... to make decisions regarding the rchate would be incapable of profiting declaration of great religious holidays as additional nonworking holidays" imagined that the hour would come (Article 14). Ir recognized the right of registered religious organizations ro ~oo Paul Valliere Russi8 offer instruction in schools and O[her educational instirurions "on an optional governmental and religious authoriries basis." & for the milirary, the All-Union law provided only rhar "the com­ sought to avoid. mand of military units will nO[ prevem military personnel from taking part in In the past, of coutse, state imen religious services or performing religious rituals during their free time" prompted mainly by ideological consi (Article 21). The RSFSR law pur the maner in more posirive terms, speaking atheism and discourage religious belief. of ''rhe right to conducr and participate in religious rites in military units of equal footing with other attitudes towar all branches ofservice" and charging militaty administrations actively to assist free to confess any religion or none at a citizens with arrangements for religious observance (Article 22). The RSFSR to propagate their views. The new laws law also provided for conscientious objection to the bearing of arms by means agare their views and barred the state fro ofan alternative service option (Article 7). or religious activities. In terms of the c( Another area in which rhe All-Union and RSFSR laws differed was that disestablishmenr of atheism was perhap concerning the moniroring of religious organizations. Under the All-Union the new legislation. A year before its der law, registration with the stare authoriries was required ofall religious organi­ With the adoption of the 1990 laws zarions seeking recognition as legal enrities. 10 supervise the process the law exercised the Russian Orrhodox Churc1 provided for "a state organ on religious affairs" to be formed by rhe Council menr during the long years of captiviry of Minisrers of the USSR (Article 29), i.e., a body much like the Soviet-era ofthe new rights will take time, and ther Council for Religious Affairs. The responsibilities of the "organ" included liai­ But the old issues are unlikely to rerum son with analogous bodies on rhe republican level, information gathering on taking their place. religious activities and on implementarion of rhe laws on religion, offering One of rhese came into view even be expert advice ro organs of administration and rhe courrs, assisting religious were finalized: the role ro be played by rJ organizations in negotiations with state aurhorities and promOting under­ process itself. During rhe Soviet period standing and toletance between religious confessions in the coumry and church to play in the legislative arena. I abroad. Such a broad mandate clearly envisioned the conrinuation of an legislative process is presumably respollS active, even interventionisr, role for rhe state in religious affairs. church's role, and that of other religiow The RSFSR law broke with the Sovier tradition of monitoring religion The Russian Orthodox episcopate v when ir declared that "executive or administrative organs ofsrate authority sions of the draft of the All-Union law ( and state job posirions specially intended to resolve issues telated ro the publish critical commenraries on the dr exercise of citizens' rightS to freedom of religion may not be instirured on ning a number of changes to their likin the rerritory of the RSFSR" (Article 8). Implementation of the law on reli­ 6l ers. For example. rhey urged deletion I gion was assigned to the Ministry ofJustice and local law enforcement agen­ tion ofchurch and state providing rhat cies. The Council for Religious Affairs was duly abolished in the RSFSR on ZJtions and employees may nO[ be acco January 1,1991. On the other hand, the RSFSR law preserved the same reg­ riruals and ceremonies.,,62 The provisic istration requirement as rhe All-Union law. It also followed the All-Union the way for blessings, prayers, and oth. law in providing for an "expert" council of"represematives of religious orga­ formed on stare occasions. So, for exan nizations, social organizations, state organs, religious experts, legal experts, rated as the first democratically elected and other specialisrs in the sphere of freedom of conscience and religion" to parriarch ofMoscow took part in the ce conduct research and give advice on issues involving religious organizations and making a speech exhorring the pres; under the auspices of the Comminee on Freedom ofConscience, Religion, each other's burdens, and rhus ... fulfi Charity, and Philanrhropy of the Russian parliament. While a council of column, the bishops proposed wordin! experts is a far cry from the Council for Religious Affairs with its plenipo­ tion could be given "in the [public] sc tentiaries, the RSFSR law still envisions a degree of collaboration between basis." Patriarch Aleksii, a member of [ Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 30r reducational inSticutions "on an optional governmental and teligious authorities which a more precise law might have Jnion law pwvided only that "the com­ sought to avoid. nt military personnel from caking part in In the past, of course, State intervention in the religious sphere was :Iigious tituals duting their ftee time" prompted mainly by ideological considerations. The aim was to promote matter in more positive terms, speaking atheism and discourage religious belief The new laws placed atheism on an late in religious rites in military units of equal footing with otber atticudes toward religion. Soviet citizens wete always military administrations actively to assist free to confess any religion or none at all, but only atheists enjoyed the right )us observance (An:icle 22). The RSFSR to propagate their views. The new laws granted all citizens the right to prop­ bjection to the bearing ofarms by means agate their views and barred the state from financing either atbeist propaganda :Ie 7). or religious activities. In terms of the constitutional history of the USSR the 1ion and RSFSR laws difFered was that disestablishment of atheism was perhaps the most significanr achievement of lUS organizations. Under the All-Union the new legislation. A year before its demise the USSR became a secular state. 'ities was required of all religious Ofgani­ With the adoption of the 1990 laws on religion most of the issues which ntities. To supervise the process the law exercised the Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet human rights move­ us affairs" to be formed by the Council ment during the long years of captiviry passed into history. Implemenration I), i.e., a body much like the Soviet-era of the new rights will take time, and there will be complications along the way. )onsibilities of the "organ" included liai­ But the old issues are unlikely to recum to center stage. New issues are already 'ublican level, information gathering on taking their place. tation of the laws on religion, offering One of these came into view even before the 1990 laws on religious liberty Hion and the COUITS, assisring religious were finalized: the role to be played by the Orthodox Church in the legislative tate authorities and promoting under­ process itself. During the Soviet period, of course, there was no role for the gious confessions in the country and church w play in the legislative arena. But in a democratic Russia, where the rlyenvisioned the continuation of an legislative process is presumably responsive to civil sociery, the question of the le state in religious affairs. church's role, and that of Other teligious forces, naturally arises. ;oviet tradirion of monitoring religion The Russian Orthodox episcopate was deep~y involved in official discus­ dministrative organs of stare authoriry sions of the draft of the All-Union law of1990. The bishops wen t so far as w ended to resolve issues related to the publish critical commenraries on the draft before and aftet its adoption, win­ 1 of teligion may not be insticuted on ning a number of changes to their liking and failing to get their way on oth­ g). Implemenration of rhe law on reli­ ers.61 For example, they urged deletion ofa sentence in the section on separa­ ustice and local law enforcement agen­ tion of church and state providing that "the activities of state organs, organi­ s was duly abolished in the RSFSR on zations and employees may not be accompanied by divine liturgies, religious 1e RSFSR law preserved the same reg­ rituals and ceremonies."62 The provision was in fact deleted, which opened m law. It also followed rhe All-Union the way for blessings, prayers, and othet overtly religious actions to be per­ :il of"representatives ofreligious orga­ formed on state occasions. So, for example, when Boris Yeltsin was inaugu­ lrgans, religious experts, legal experts, rated as the firSt democratically elected presidenr of Russia in July 1991, the i-eedom of conscience and religion" to patriarch of Moscow rook part in the ceremony, blessing the new officeholder ,sues involving religious organizations and making a speech exhOrting the presidenr and people of Russia "to take lip on Freedom of Conscience, Religion, each other's burdens, and thus ... fulfIll the law of Jesus."63 In the negative ssian parliamenr. While a council of column, the bishops proposed wording guaranreeing that religious instruc­ for Religious Affairs with its plenipo­ tion could be given "in the [public] schools on a voluntary extra-curricular illS a degree of colJabotarion berween basis." Pattiatch Aleksii, a membet of the Soviet parliament at the time, vig­ 302 Paul Valliere Russi: orously supporred rhe amendment; bur ir was rejecred by a vote of303 to 46.64 replacement srtucture, which is being b· The All-Union law did nor explicitly bar religious instruction from the Naturally the finished product will nor schools, however; and, as we have nored, rhe RSFSR law was hospitable to it. shrine or Baptist or Adventist prayer he In fact many Russian schools currently accommodate religious instruction, Privileged treatment of rhe Orthodo usually conducted by clergy or itineram missionaties. The decision [Q allow or ofits oflJ.cial regisrration as a legal entil disallow rests with local school administrations. The formal act ofregistration had to be Another deficiency in the All-Union law from the bishops' poim of view II's pilgrimage to the Holy Land al was its treatmem of Orthodox parish communities as legal emities distinct Meanwhile, othet religious organizal from the church as a corporare body. As the bishops saw it, the legal entity of Mormons, Baptists, Seventh-Day Adv parishes should derive from that of the church as a whole because "in the registered by the republican authoriti [Orthodox] Church there cannot be 'religious communities' which ate inde­ returned home and went to register I pendent from the hierarchical cemer and from each other."65 The practical received from the hands of the Ministe issue was the degree of latitude to be enjoyed by local Orthodox churches in rich in symbolism; the number 1.67 relation to the central church administration. The Moscow Patriarchate faced In short, the blurring ofdistinctions vigorous challenges from competing Orthodox jurisdictions in the late in present-day Russia and will remain! Gorbachev and early pOst-soviet years and feared secessionist movemems in Clearer legislation, in turn, depends its ranks (with good reason). The bishops wan ted to ensure that any Orthodox Russian civil society as a whole, inclu, parish that abandoned the Moscow Patriarchate would lose its property and words, the issue ofchurch-state relatior rights of legal entity. a long time to come. The theoretical issue was the degree to which the "self-understanding of Foreign expertS can playa useful ro the Church," as the bishops called it, should be taken into account by secular countries to the attention of Russian lawmakers. Secular law aims to treat all religions equally, bur this is easier said scholars; but in the end the issues of tel than done. A law that tegards local teligious communities as autOnomous setded in a way that makes sense to th, entities, for example, has a diffetent meaning for chutches with congrega­ dition represents a synthesis of univers tionalist polities (e.g., Baptist chutches) than fot a church with an episcopal­ totical conditions and commirmenl sacramental polity. American critics ofRussia has been to c The prominence of the Orthodox hierarchy in the legislative debates of the particular. Bur in Russia as elsewhe 1990 pointed to an even latger issue: the role to be played by the Orthodox In the present case respect fOt the p Church in the POst-soviet Russian state. Religious minotities as well as athe­ penertation of the modern history ofcl ists and secularists worry that the chutch is bent on securing a ptivileged posi­ naire approaches. Because the mentalir tion fot itself in the new Russia. The sheer size of the Orthodox Church and ored by a long tradition of teligious e: its thousand-year tradition ofstate establishment are certainly grounds for the religious establishment is viewed wid minotities' fears. So is the display, episodic bur ftequent, of the symbols and rightS theorists, the application ofhum clerical petsonnel of Orthodoxy on all SOrtS of official occasions. So ate the Orthodoxy can quickly degenerate iure innumetable cases of ditect church-state collaboration, including pooling of But if the job of thinking about hum, funds, which can be documented throughour Russia tOday. change the world but to undetstand ir One may cite the reconsftuction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in othet Otthodox chutches) is a rich sub central Moscow as a case in point. This church, once the largesr in Moscow, The study of religious establishmer was built in the nineteenth century ro commemorate Russia's victory over establishment, which is a vastet phen< Napoleon. In 1931 it was dynamired by the CommuniSt city government. In one of the most negleCted subjects in t January 1995 the parriarch and the mayor ofMoscow laid the cornerstone ofa special pathos of the Russian church il Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 303

ir was rejected by a vore of303 co 46.64 replacemene suucture, which is being built wirh heavy reliance on state funds. y bar religious insuuc£ion from rhe Naturally the finished product will nor be a hiscoricaJ monumenc or milirary 66 :I, the RSFSR law was hospirabJe [Q if. shrine or Baptisr or Advenrist prayer house, but an Ormodox church. Y accommodate religious insuuction, Privileged rreatrnenr of me Orehodox Church was evidene on the occasion ,missionaries. The decision co allow or of irs official regisuation as a legal encicy in the RSFSR in the spring of1991. 'trations. The formal act ofregisrration had ro be postponed because ofPattiarch Aleksii 1 law from the bishops' poine of view II's pilgrimage co the Holy Land and Other scheduling complications. communities as legal encities distinct Meanwhile, other religious organiz.ations including Jehovah's Witnesses, ) me bishops saw it, the legal emicy of Mormons, Baptisrs, Sevench-Day Advencists, and Buddhists were officially Ie church as a whole because "in rhe registered by the republican authorities. Nevereheless, when the pauiarch :Iigious communiries' which are inde­ returned home and wenr co register his church, the official documenr he nd from each other. "65 The practicall received from rhe hands of me Minister of]ustice bore a regisuation number ljoyed by local Ormodox churches in rich in symbolism: the number 1. 67 ation. The Moscow Pauiarchate faced In shore, rhe blurring of distincrions between church and state is pervasive Orehodox jurisdictions in rhe late in presenr-day Russia and will remain so uncil clarified by more precise laws. wd feared secessionisr movemenes in Clearer legislation, in turn, depends on rhe clarificarion of attitlldes in swaneed to ensure rhat any Orehodox Russian civil sociecy as a whole, including the Onhodox Church. In orher riarchate would lose irs propercy and words, me issue ofchurch-state relations will remain a lively one in Russia for a long rime co come. co which rhe "self-undemanding of Foreign expens can playa useful role by bringing rhe experience of orher auld be taken inro accoum by secular counuies co rhe attencion of Russian legislacors, church leaders and legal :eligions equally, bur this is easier said scholats; but in the end rhe issues of religion and policy facing Russia must be igious communiries as auconomous serded in a way mar makes sense co rhe Russians memselves. Every legal [fa­ leaning for churches with congrega­ dition represenes a synchesis of universal notions of rights wirh concrete his­ than for a church with an episcopal­ torical conditions and commitmenrs. The tendency of European and American criries ofRussia has been co concenrrate on rhe universal and ignore ierarchy in rhe legislarive debares of rhe particular. But in Russia as elsewhere the parricular demands irs due. e role co be played by the Orthodox In rhe presenc case tespecr for me parricular means making a sympathetic Religious minoriries as well as athe­ penetrarion of rhe modern hiscory of rhe Russian church and resisring docui­ is benr on securing a privileged posi­ naire approaches. Because me memalicy of Russian Orthodoxy is deeply col­ :er siz.e of the Orehodox Church and ored by a long tradition of religious esrablishmenc, and because rhe idea of ishmenr are certainly grounds for me religious establishmem is viewed wirh suspicion by mosr modern human :iic but frequem, of rhe symbols and righrs theorisrs, rhe application ofhuman righrs rheory co me case of Russian ;orrs of official occasions. So are rhe Orthodoxy can quickly degenerare inco polemies and simplisric dichocomies. . collaborarion, including pooling of But if the job of rhinking abour human righrs is in rhe first instance not to ;hout Russia coday. change the world but to undersrand ir, the case of Russian Orehodoxy (and he Cathedral of Christ rhe Savior in orhet Orehodox churches) is a rich subjecr for the invesrigaco[. church, once the largest in Moscow, The study of religious establishmenr-panicularly de facto sociocultural commemorare Russia's viccory over esrablishmenr, which is a vasrer phenomenon rhan the juridical variecy-is :he Communisr cicy governmenr. In one of rhe mosr neglecred subjecrs in the compararive study ofreligion. The ofMoscow laid rhe cornersrone of a special parhos of the Russian church in the twemierh century is also scanrly 304 Paul Valliere Russi: appreciated. The Russian Orthodox Church was not disestablished by a sial initiative of the 1990S relative to h constitutional process but by a cruel and arbitrary powet determined to 1990 legislation on religion in such a w, eradicate the church altogether. Far from living "at ease in Zion," the lead­ gious activities of foreigners on the tel ers of the church trod the parh of persecution and martyrdom.68 Thar rhe amended law was in fact adopted by the blood of rhe martyrs is the seed of the church is a rruism of church history. 1993, only to be vetoed by President Ye What is not so widely recognized is that the principle applies JUSt as much ment also turned OUt to be a dead letter ro priestly church establishments as ro prophetic minorities. The aura of the parliamenr in the bitter conflict 0 sanctity abour the patriarchal church was enhanced, not diminished, by issue has not been laid to resr. Another r Communist persecution. discussion in the Duma since 1994. At h The mentality of establishmenr is not confined to church circles. The Patriarchare let ir be known that it sri Russian srate is as inrerested in promoring close church-srate relarions as the acriviries of foreigners in RussiaJo episcopate, and wirh good reason. Present-day Russia is nor a peaceful, pros­ The Patriarchate's campaign dtew a perous, or productive country. Devasrated by decades of oppression, Russian and prompred rhe inrervention ofW civil society must be rebuilt from the ground up. In these circumstances no International conferences on the issue 'i\ Russian government, particularly not a democtatic one, can afrord to draw a proposed limitations on religious activi cordon sanitaire betWeen itselfand the largest and hest organized institurion of violating the inrernational human ri Russian civil society.69 Declaration, the Helsinki Final Act, Interreligious, intercommunal, and internarional relations are orher arena..~ (1989), and other instrumenrs to which in which complex rights issues are emerging for Russian Orthodoxy. Mosr of to suppose thar rhe monitoring of reli the faith communiries of pOst-soviet Eutasia are experiencing genuine reli­ post-Communist states will cease any gious liberty for the firsr time, and thete is confusion abour whar ir means. human rights groups are well organize There is a real danger that rhe free marker in religion will spawn violent eth­ politically. Russian church leaders will nic and religious conflicrs. In Ukraine, for example, no fewer rhan three sep­ will a democratically oriented Russiar arate Eastern church jurisdicrions-Ukrainian Orthodox (Moscow Patri­ nance violations of trearies ro which it archare), Ukrainian Autocephalous, and Ukrainian Catholic-vie for a share ment in which rhe Russian OrthodQ) of the rich ecclesiasrical patrimony of rhe region. Compecing Orrhodox juris­ been inrernationalized. dictions also distutb the peace of the church in rhe Russian Federation. The outlook for relations betWeen The growrh of nontraditional Chrisrian seers and exotic non-Christian or Western religious and rights organizati pseudo-Christian cults in Russia represents an even more baflling challenge to Srrong inrernationalist cutrents have I Orthodoxy. The Russian Orthodox community has long been used to dealing among the hierarchy. An inreresring fea with Muslim Tarars, Buddhisr Mongols, and orher peoples of the Russian tary on the AlI- Union law of 1990, for Federarion whose religious orientation is a matter of historic rradition. It has inrernarional human rights instrumen a harder rime coming to terms wirh Russians who embtace nontradirional law as rhe first piece of Soviet legislat: religious options. Orthodox sensiriviries in this regard have been greatly exac­ principles of the Universal Declaration erbared by the ridal wave of foreign missionaries that has washed over Russia Conference on Security and Cooperati( since 1988. The church views most of the newcomers as interlopers whose reached by participating government vocation is to rustle rhe Russian people away from its true shephetds. The Helsinki process."72 irony is that the foreign missionaries operate under the wartant of the 1990 Even more important as a stimulus law on religious liberty which the Orthodox Church helped set in place. ofrhe patriarchal church itself. Always I Refusal to accept this irony for what it is led the senior hierarchy of rhe the Moscow Parriatchate became a rrul~ Russian Orrhodox Church to launch what can be termed its mosr controver- following the breakup ofthe USSR in 1 Russian Orrhodoxy and Human Rights 305

Church was not disestablished by a sial initiative of the 1990S relative to human rights: agitation to amend the ·1 and arbitrary power determined ro 1990 legislarion on religion in such a way as to bar or otherwise limir the reli­ rom living "at ease in Zion," the lead­ gious aCtivities of foreigners on the territory of the Russian Federarion. An rsecution and martyrdom.68 That the amended Jaw was in faCt adopted by the Russian parliamem in rhe summer of e church is a truism of church history. 1993, only ro be veroed by President Yelrsin. A revised version of the amend­ hat the principle applies juSt as much mem also turned our to be a dead lener following Yelrsin's forcible dispersal of to prophetic minorities. The aura of the parliament in the birrer conflicr of September-Ocrober 1993. Still. rhe h was enhanced, not diminished, by issue has not been laid to resc Another revision of the 1990 law has been under discussion in the Duma since 1994. Ar hearings on the mattet in early 1995 the •not confined to church circles. The Patriarchate let it be known that it still favors limitations on the religious tjng dose church-State relations as the activities of foteigners in Russia.7° .em-day Russia is nor a peaceful, pros­ The Patriarchare's campaign drew a good deal of international anention lted by deeades of oppression, Russian and prompted the intervention of Western-based human rights activists. ground up. In these citcumstances no International conferences on the issue were held in 1994 and 1995 at which the l democratic one, can afford ro draw a proposed limitations on religious acriviry in Russia were roundly criticized as argest and best organized institution of violating the international human rights norms stated in the Universal Declaration. the Helsinki Final Act, rhe Vienna Concluding Document imernational relations are other arenas (1989), and other instruments ro which Russia is a parry.7 t There is no reason rging for Russian Orthodoxy. Most of ro suppose that the monitoring of religious conditions in Russia and other :<-urasia are experiencing genuine rei i­ post-Communist stares will cease any rime soon. Western missionary and ere is confusion about what it means. human rights groups are well otganized, well financed, and well connected

ket in religion will spawn violent eth­ polirically. Russian church leaders will not be able [0 ignote them. Even less for example, no fewer than three sep­ will a democratically oriented Russian government find it easy to counte­ Jkrainian Orthodox (Moscow Pani­ nance violations of rreaties to which it is a signarory. In effect, the environ­ d Ukrainian Catholic-vie for a share menr in which the Russian Orrhodox Church carries out its ministry has le region. Competing Orthodox juris­ been imernationalized. lUrch in the Russian Federation. The outlook for relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and tian sects and exotic non-Christian or Wesrern religious and rights organizations should not be painted [00 darkly. :ms an even more baffiing challenge ro Strong internationalisr currems have long existed in the chutch. especially lmuniry has long been used ro dealing among rhe hierarchy. An interesting featute of the Russian bishops' commen­ ,Is. and other peoples of the Russian tary on the All-Union law of 1990, for example. was theit commendation of is a maner of hisroric tradition. It has international human rights insrruments. The bishops hailed the AlI- Union ~ussians who embrace nontraditional law as the first piece of Soviet legislation rhat "answers [0 rhe fundamental •in this regard have been greatly exac­ principles of the Universal Declararion of Human Rights, the Final Act of the .sionaries that has washed over Russia Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the other agreements the newcomers as interlopers whose reached by participating governmenrs in the course of implementing the e away from its true shepherds. The Helsinki process. "72 petare under rhe warrant of the 1990 Even more important as a stimulus to inrernarionalism is the composition :>dox Church helped set in place. ofrhe parriarchal church irself. Always more cosmopoliran than irs repurarion. r it is led the senior hierarchy of the the Moscow Patriarchate became a truly inrernational community ofchurches hat can be rermed its mosr conrrover- following the breakup ofthe USSR in 1991. Preeminent not just in Russia, the 306 Paul Valliere Russi patriarchal church is the largest church in Ukraine and Belarus, one of the 3. The primat."y ofgrace was the theme of0 largesr in rhe Baltic countties, and a significam presence on the religious scene sermons, Metropoliran Hilarion's "Sermon 01 Russian (non-Greek) merropoliran of Kiev i in all fifteen pOst-soviet states. The church also has close, if no longer juridi­ Serge A. Zenkovsky, Medieval Russia's Epics cal, ties ro a daughter-church in North America, the Onhodox Church in Dutton, 1974), pp. 85-90.

America. The leadership of rhe Patriarchate is deeply committed ro holding 4. Evgeny Barabanov sums up the view Q this diverse community of churches rogether ro the extent possible in the face when he wrires: "The Church is not defined j' of ethnic, political, and ecclesiastical pressures to rhe contrary. Many chutch­ and tradition. In essence and idea she is thar, men surely recognize rhar the interests of rhe Pattiarchare and its huge flock nor be divided. Ovet againsr rhe Church SGUl in rhe Near Abroad and elsewhere will be bener protected in rhe long run of the world, bur in all being there does nOr through reliance on international human rights norms than by religious pro­ deepesr level, if nor in our ideologized conscio Church is the emerging solidariry of all rhit tecrionism, ad hoc political pressures, or other artificial arrangements. everyrhing divided and broken. All of us are ' Crirics of me Moscow Patriarchare view irs effortS to preserve irs organiza­ which has nor yet become part of het, every tion in rhe Near Abroad as a dangerous manifestation of neo-sovier "empire~ enreted inco her. For we know rhar nowhere, saving. "73 The accusarion should not be dismissed lightly, since rhe alienation of whar God has revealed in His Body­ ofsome twenty-five million Russians from rhe Russian state is certainly a polir­ Samosozanie: shornik ,.tatei, ed. P. Lityjnov, ~ ical earrhquake rhar will send aftershocks rhrough rhe region for years to come. York: Khronika Press, 1976), p. 2.6. 5. The uniqueness of persons is connored But it is equally important to recognize thar rhere is an ecclesiastical principle (sing.) is also used as a collecrive noun referri ar stake in rhe ambitions of rhe Moscow Patriarchate. Sectarianism, splinter­ tisters, as in the exp ression prichislit' k liku s; ing and the proliferarion ofjurisdictions are not rhe final word in church polity saints," i.e.) co canonize. from an Orthodox point of view. Nor is there any theological reason for the 6. For a somewhat different interpreta[jon church to mirror the polirical divisions of the age. It may be a good thing for freedom" in Byzanrine sociery in Alexandet post-soviet Eurasia ro divide into erhnically based democratic republics. But Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Mo, rhe Russian church is nor a republican entity any more rhan ir was a tsarist or Dumbanon Oaks Center for Byzantine SrucL Sovier enrity. Its citizenship is in heaven. Like the cross of Christ in which ir 7. One should nor forger thar "rhe righrs glories, rhe Orrhodox Church srands "rowering o'er the wrecks of time." points of Napoleon's bayoners. 8. See Andn.ej Walicki, Legal Philosophit Press, 1987), ch. r: "The Tradirion of rhe Cer galism among Russian Orthodox rhinkers w~ whose COntribution ro legal consciousness ane NOTES lyzed by Walicki in ch. 3: "Vladimir Soloviev: the 'New Libetalism.' " 9. Vladimir Zelinsky, Prikhodiashchie v tse I. For s[3risrlcs on prerevolurionary church insrirurions, see Igor Smolirsch, Geschichte tin rus,l'ischen Kirche, 1700-1917, vol. 1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964): pp. 705-13. ro. See [he penerrating discussion of rhis p 2. There were approximarely 15,000 functioning Orrhodox churches in rhe Sovier Pp·46-47. Union by the end of World War II, many of them in rhe newly incorporared rerrirories. II. In the fall of1990 a jonrnalisr asked nt'l ~ Aner rhe Khrushchev persecurion there were abour 6,000 or 7,000. The besr recenr sources Russian Orthodox Church needed to repenr of informarion on rhe Russian Onhodox Church prior ro rhe expansion of the lare 1980s His answer illustrares the organic, establish! are Narhanid Davis, A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History o/Russian Orthodoxy Russian Church sinned againsr rhe Rnssian I vie~ (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995); Jane Ellis, The Russi.an Orthodox Church: A Contemporary Church jf nor this same Russian people History (Bloomingron and Indianapolis: Indiana Universiry Press, (986); Dimirry the Russian Church as a whole rhere is no sin Pospidovsky, The Russian Church Undfr the Soviet Regime 1917-1982, 2. vols. (Cresrwood, people." The parriarch went on ro defend Mel N.Y.: Sc. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984); and William C. Flercher, Soviet Believers: The loyalry to the Sovier state in 192.7 which I diSCl Religious Sector o/the Population (Lawrence: The Regents Press oflGmsas, 1981). 1990, p. 9· Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights 307

in Ukraine and Belarus, one of the 3. The primacy ofgrace was the theme ofone ofrhe earliesr and mosr celebrated Russian ficam presence on the religious scene sermons, Metropoliran Hilarion's ~Sermon on Law and Grace." Hilarion became rhe first ch also has close, if no longer juridi­ Russian (non-Greek) mctropoliran of Kiev in 105'. For a partial English translation see America, rhe Orrhodox Church in Serge A. Zenkovsky. Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles, and Tales, rev. ed. (New York: Dutton. (974), pp. 85-90. late is deeply committed to holding 4. Evgeny Barabanov sums up the view of many modern Russian Orthodox rhinkers cher to the extem possible in the face when he wrires: "The Church is nOt defined just by her sanCtuary and lirurgy. her rheology isures to the conrrary. Many church­ and tradition. In essence and idea she is rhat Absolure Reality whose being is not and can­ f the Pauiarchate and its huge flock nor be divided. Over againsr the Church stand evil and deam, the falsehood and darkness be better protected in the long run of the world. bur in all being mere does nor exjsr a positive reality or grace which on irs rights norms than by religious pro­ deepest level, ifnor in our ideologized consciousness, could be opposed ro the Church. The other artificial arrangemenrs. Church is rhe emerging solidarity of all things, and her essence lies in joining together everything divided and broken. Ali of us are called ro build the Church our ofeverything w its efforts to preserve irs organiza­ which has not yet become parr of her, everything which has not visibly and perceptibly nanifestarion of neo-soviet "empire­ emered inco her. For we know thar nowhere. nOt on any paths, will man reach the hLUness lismissed lightly, since rhe alienarion of what God has revealed in His Body-the Holy Church." "Pravda gumanizma.n I the Russian state is cenainly a polit­ Samosozanie: sbomik slatei, ed. P. Lirvinov, M. Meerson-Aksenov; and B. Shragin (New hrough the region for years to come. York: Khronika Press, 1976), p. 26. lar there is an ecclesiastical principle 5. The uniqueness of pelsons is connoted by the root word of iichnoJt': iik, "face." Lik Patriarchate. Sectarianism, splimer­ (sing.) is also used as a collective noun referring to me company of saints, angels, or cho­ risters, as in rhe expression prichisiit' k iiku sviatykh, "to reckon among the facers] of the 'e not the final word in church polity saints," i.e.• to canonize. there any rheological reason for the 6. For a somewhat different interpretation see the discussion of "individualism without .rhe age. Ir may be a good rhing for freedom" in Byzantine society in Alexander Kazhdan and Giles Constable. People and lIy based democratic republics. But Power in B)'zantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies (Washingron. D.C.: :iry any more rhan ir was a tsarisr or Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1982). Like rhe cross of Chrisr in which it 7. One should not forget rhar "the rightS of man and citizen" came ro Russia on me ·ering 0'er the wrecks of rime." pointS of Napoleon's bayonetS. 8. See Andrzej Walicki. Legal Philosophies ofRu.r." he asked. "But what is the Russian ~ssian Orthodox Church: A Contemporary Church if nor this same Russian people viewed in terms of their spiritual aspirarions> In ana University Press. 1986); Dimitry the Russian Church as a whole rhere is no sin which is separare from the sin of the Russian ?t Regime '9J7-1982, 2 vols. (Crestwood. people." The patriarch wem on to defend Metropolitan Sergii's controversial declaration of Villiam C. Fletcher, Soviet Believers: The loyalty to rhe Soviet stare in 1927 which I discuss below. Literatumaia gauta. November 28, tegents Press of Kansas. 1981). 1990. p. 9· 308 PauL VaLLiere Russian

12. John Meyendorff, "The Russian Church After Parriarch Tikhon," St. Vladimir's l3. Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent, p. 275· TheoLogicaL Quarterly t9, no. I (1975): 40. 24. For a complete English translation of rh 13. Quoted by Meyendodf, "The Russian Church After Parriarch Tikhon," pp. 39-40, the hierarchy see "Documems: Appeals for Rei from Patriarkh Sergii i ego dukhovnoe nasLedstvo (Moscow, 1947), p. 62. The text of Seminary Quarterly 10, nos. l-2 (1966): 67­ Metropolitan Sergii's t927 encyclical is included in the laner source. Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets: Perserotion 0. 14. The All-Union law, "0 svobode sovesri i religioznykh organiucsiiakh," was pub­ York and Washington: Praeger, 1970), pp. 189-2 lished in Pravda, Ocrober 9, 1990, p. 4· The RSFSR law, "0 svobode veroispovedanii," the Soviet period including the letters coauthor was published in SovetJkaia Rossiia, November 10, 1990, p. 5, and in VedomoJti s"ezda nar­ Gleb Yakounine. Un pretre seul au pays des fOvi odnykh deputatov i VerkholJnogo So veta RSFSR, no. 21 (1990), Stat'ia 240. For furrher com­ preface by Olivier Clement (Limoges: Editions ment, see note 60. 25. There were a few bishops, however, who 15. English rranslarions of the decree on Separation of the Church from the State and cized the council of [961 and supported Orth< the Schools from the Church may be found in William B. Stroyen, Communiu Rlmia and dissidenrs, Ermogen (Golubev) of Kaluga (earli, the Russian Orthod.(Jx Church 1943-191'f2 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of (Golyshev) of Novosibirsk, were eventually fore America Press, Inc., (967), pp. Il7-I8; and in Richard H. Marshall, Jr. et al., eds., AJpem are described by Ellis, The Rttrsian Orthod. ofReligion in the Soviet Union 1917-1967 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Pospielovsky, The Russian Church Under the Sc Press, 1971), pp. 437-38. I quote from Stroyen's translation, excepr rhat I have changed the also the materials on the case of Archbishor word "government" ra "sr.ate" in the ride of the decree. Prophets, pp. 238-54. [6. Konstitmsiia (Osnovnoi 2akon) Soiuu Soverskikh Sotsialistichesk..ikh Respublik 26. For example, the case of the believers c (Moscow, (977), Stat'ia 6. The corresponding arricle of the constitU(ion of 1936 is Arricle Deftnd Thm Rights: Human RightJ and the Sovit 1l6. The language of 1977 is more doctrinaire. For an English translation of the constitu­ Random House. 1974), pp. [99-208. Updated tion of [977, see The SOIJiet Union Through Its Lows, ed., rrans. and wirh an intra. by Leo Orthodox Church, p. 295. Hecht (New York: Praeger, 1983), pp. 17-60. For a rransladon of rhe constiturion of 1936, 27. For a fairly representative sample of d see Basic Laws on the Structure ofthe Soviet State, trans. and ed. by Harold J. Berman and human righrs movemenr, see Michael Meersc John B. Quigley, Jr. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, [969), pp. 3-28. A rranslarion Politico'!, SociaL, and Religious Thought ofRu.f. of the two constirurions may also be found in David Lane, PoLitics and Society in the USSR Nickolas Lupinin (Belmom, Mass.: Nordland, I (New York: New York University Press, 1978), Appendix C!J-l. 28. For an accoum of the interview, with exCi 17. Konsrirursiia SSSR, Stat'ia 52. The corresponding article of the constitution ofr936 Lemen Letter," rranslated by Ludmilla Thorne,: is Atticle t24. sec. 4: 18. A translarion by Alexis Klimoff rna 18. English rranslations of the Law on Religious Associations may be found in Stroyen, Haugh, and Alexis Klimoff, eds., Akxandn SoL Communist Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church, pp. 121-27; and in Marshall et al., eds., Materials (Belmom, Mass.: Nordland, (973), pp Aspew ofReligion in the Soviet Union, pp. 438-45. 29. See AJexeyeva, Soviet Dissent, pp. 255­ [9. Polozhenie ob upravlenii russkoi pravoslavnoi rserkvi, PraIJoslavnyi tJerkovnyi kaien­ pp. 373-81. dar' na 1946 god (Moscow, 1946), pp. 58-60. An English translarion may be found in 30. English translations of Yakunin and Rej Stroyen, Communist Russul and the Russian Orthodox Church, pp. 136-40. Articles 39 and Aksenov and Shragin, eds., PoLitical, Social and 40 perrain ro the dvadtJatka. Father Gleb Yakunin and Lev Regelson, Letters. 20. The text of the measures approved by the council of bishops in 1961 was published in the USSR, ed. by Jane Ellis (KeslOn: Keston C< in ZhurnaL mOJkovskoi patriarkhii, no. 8 (196[): 15-17. See also the summary of rhe concil­ Communism; San Francisco: H. S. Dakin, 1978 iar discussions on pp. 9-15. 31. Pavel Litvinov, "0 dvizhenii La prava chel, 21. An English translation ofthe 1975 amendments to the Law on Religious Associations (New York: Khronika Press, (976), p. 86. along with the articles which they replaced may be found in Pospielovsky, The Russian Jl. The Council for Russian Orthodox Churc Church Under the Soviet Regime, 2: 493-500. for Religious Affairs. 22. The best general account of rhe Sovier human rights movemenr is Ludmilla 33. "To the Chairman of the Presidiulll of d Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent: Contemporary MOIJemenrs fOr National, ReLigious, and Human Socialist Republics," St. Vladimir's Seminary Qu RightJ (Middlerown, Conn.: Wesleyan Universiry Press, 1985). Detailed discussions of 34. See Ellis, The Russian Orthodox Church, I Orthodox rights aCtivism may also be found in the works by Jane Ellis and Dimitry 35. "To His Holiness, rhe Most Holy Patr Pospielovsky already cired. Vlo.dimir's Seminary Quarterly IO, nos. 1-2 (196<; Russian Orthodoxy and Human Righrs :J09

urch Mer Patriarch Tikhon," St. Vladimir's 23· Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent, p. 275. 24. For a complete English translation of the tWO lereers along wirh the cover letter to I Church Mer Patriarch Tikhon," pp. 39-40, the hierarchy see "Documenrs: Appeals for Religious Freedom in Russia," St. Vladimir's ledstvo (Moscow, 1947), p. 62. The text of Seminary Quarter~y 10, nos. 1-2 (1966): 67-lJl. Large excerpts appear in Michael :led in the laner source. Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets: Persecution ofthe Russian Orthodox Church Today (New :sci i religioznykh organizatsiiakh," was pub­ York and Washingcon: Praeger, 1970), pp. 189-223. A flne edition of Yakunin's writings iu e RSFSR law, "0 svobode veroispovedanii," the Soviet period inclllding the lerrers coauthored with Eshliman ha-~ appeared in French: er 10,1990, p. ), and in Vedomo,rti s"ezda nar­ Gleb Yakounine, Un pretre ,reul au pays des sovi(-'tS, presented by Fran<;ois Rouleau with a ?, no. 21 (1990), Stat'ia 240. For further com­ preface by Olivier Clemenr (Limoges: Editions Criterion, 1984). 2). There were a few bishops, however, who resisted the antireligious campaign, criti­ ;eparation of the Church from the State and cized the council of 1961 and supported Orthodox dissidents. The most vocal episcopal n Wil1iam B. Stroyen, Communist Russia and dissidents, Ermogen (Golubev) ofKaluga (earlier, ofTa-~hkent and Cenrral Asia) and Pavel shingcou, D.C.: The Catholic University of (Golyshev) ofNovosibirsk, were eveurually forced out ofservice. Their activities and fates l Richard H. Marshall, Jr. et al., eds., Aspects are described by Ellis, The Rus;ian Orthodox Church, pp. 17, 68, 235-44; and by hicago and London: Universiry of Chicago Pospielovsky, The Russian Church Under the Soviet Regime, pp. 327, 393-94, 421-22. See l'S translation, except that I have changed the also the marerials on the case of Archbishop Ermogen in Bourdeaux, Patriarch and ne decree. Prophea, pp. 238-54. za Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik 26. For e.....ample, che case of the believers of Naro-Fominsk. See Valery Chalidze, To ~ article of the conscinJtion of t936 is Article Defend These RightJ: Human Rights and the Soviet Union, trans. by Guy Daniels (New York: ~. For an English rranslarion of the constitu­ Random House, 1974). pp. 199-2,08. Updated informarion appears in Ellis, The RusJian J Laws, ed., rrans. and with an intro. by Leo Orthodox Church, p. 295. For a translation of the constitution of193 6, 27. For a fairly representative sample of dissident samizdat from the period of the ate, trans. and ed. by Harold J. Berman and human righrs movement, see Michael Meerson-Aksenov and Boris Shragin, eds., The liversiry Press, 1969), pp. 3-28. A cranslauon Political, Social, and Religious Thought ofRussian aSamizdat"; An Anthology, trans. by David Lane, Politics and Society in the USSR Nickolas Lupinin (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1977). , Appendix C/I-2. 28. For an account of the interview, with excerpts, see New York Times, April 3, 1972. "A 'esponding arricle of the conscicucion ofr936 Lemen Letter," cranslated by Ludmilla Thome, appeared in New York Times, April 9,1972, sec. 4: r8. A translation by Alexis KJimoff may be found in John B. Dunlop, Richard gious Associacjons may be found in Stroyen, Haugh, and Alexis KJimoff, eds., Alex£wder Solzhenitsyn: Critical E5Sa.ys and Documentary ?ureh, pp. 121-27; and in Marshall et al., eds., Materials (Belmont, Ma-~s.: Nordland, 1973), pp. 472-77. -45· 29. See Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent, pp. 255-59; Ellis, The Russian Orthodox Church, ;/avnoi tserhi, Pravosl.avnyi tserkovnyi kalen­ pp. 373-81. I. An English translation may be found in 30. English translations of Yakunin and Regelson's lener may be found in Meerson­ rthodox Church, pp. 136-4°. Articles 39 and Aksenov and Shragin, eds., Political, Social and Religious Thought ofRussian "Samizdat"; Father Gleb Yakunin and Lev Regelson, Lettwfrom Moscow: Religion and Human Rights :he council of bishops in 1961 was published in the USSR, ed. by Jane Ellis (Kesron: Keston College Cenrre for the Study of Religion and : 15-17. See also the summary of the concil­ Commuuism; San Francisco: H. S. Dakin, 1978). 3I. Pavel Lirvinov, "0 dvizhenii za prava cheloveka v SSSR," Sarnosozanie; sbomik statei dmencs to rhe Law on Religious Associations (New York: Khronika Press, 1976), p. 86. nay be found in Pospielovsky, The Russian 32. The Council for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs was later replaced by the Council for Religious AflJ..irs. 'iet human rights movement is Ludmilla 33. "To the Chairman of the Presidium of rhe Supreme Soviec of the Union of Soviet mzents for National, Religious, and Human Socialist Republics," St. Vladimir's Seminary Q1.Idrter/y ro, 110S. 1-2 (1966): 68. ersity Press, 1985). Detailed discussions of 34. See Ellis, The Rus,rian Orthodox Church, pp. 255-56. d in rhe works by Jane Ellis and Dimirry 35. "To His Holiness, the Most Holy Parriarch of Moscow and of All Russia," St. Vladimir's Seminary Q1.Idrter/y 10, nos. 1-2 (1966): 79. 310 Paul Valliere Russial

36. Ibid., p. I04. Relarions: "Informatsionnyi biulleten' ord 37. "Vserossiiskomu Pauiarkhu Pimenu: velikoposmoe pis'mo," Vestnik ru.'skogo stu­ Moskovskogo Parriarkhata," 1988, no. 7-9 (Ot dmcheskogo khrisri.amkogo dvizheniia I03 (1972): 148-49. srature reads; "This Srarute has been composed i 38. "Pis'mo A. Sol1.henirsynu," Vesmik russkogo studencheskogo khristiamkogo dvizheniia gious culrs and may be changed or supplement( 103 (1972): 157. Mr. Alexis Liberovsky, archivist of the Orthod 39· The original Russian texr is in Arkhivsamizd.ata, no. 3751 (October 26,1979). In rhe with a copy of the "Informarsionnyi biulJeten' " preparation of this essay I have used the French transladon, "La situation actuelle de 57. Metropolitan Vladimir of Rostov, "The l'Eglise orthodoxe russe et les perspectives d'un renouveau religieux en Russie," in Gleb Church After rhe Adoption of the New Statut Yakounine, Un pretre .feul au pays des soviets, pp. 137-74. nos. 2-3 (1990) :tl7-39. See also Kyrill, archbi 40. "La siruarion actuelle de l'Eglise orrhodoxe russe," pp. 166-74. Church in Relation [Q Society Under 'Pereslro 41. lhid., p. 151. originally appeared in Zhumal moskovskoi patri, 42. For Yakunin's praise of Dudko, see "La siruarion actuelle de l'Eglise orthodoxe 58. The data are given in "Ko dniu tewimel russe," p. 148. A derailed discussion of Dudko's recantation appears in Ellis, The Russian Tserkvi," Zhurnal moskovskoi patriarkhii, no. 2 OrThodox Church, pp. 430-39. semation of rhe dara on the size and marerial c( 43· Ellis, The RltsJum Orthodox Church, pp. 120-21. since World War II, see Nathaniel Davis, A LoTo 44. PospieLovsky, The Russian Chureh Under the Soviet Regime, 2; 427-31. ofR~'sian OrthodfJxy (Boulder: Westview Press, 45· Pospielovsky, The R~sian Church Under the Soviet Regime, 2: 404-6. 59. "La situarion actuelle de I'Eglise orrhodc 46. Ellis, The Rwsian OrthodfJx Church, pp. 93--94. 60. See above, nore 14. AlI·Union law, "0, 47· See, for example, rhe article by V Savitsky, "Prestiz.h advokatury," Pravd.a, March iakh"; RSFSR law, "0 svobode veroispovedanii u, 1987, p. 3. my own rranslalions. Quorarions from the RSF 48. The nine were Farher Gleb Yakunin, Father Nikolai Gainov, Andrei Bessmermyi, tion prepared by rhe Foreign Broadcasl Inform.; Valery Borshchov, Vikrar Burdiug, Vladimir Zelinsky, Evgeny Pawkhin, Vikror Popkov, Religion," JPRS-UPA-90-071, Decembet 1~ and Vladimit Poresh. The lerrers were released ar a news conference in Moscow in May Commerce, Narional Technical Informacion 1987. The lerrer ro Gorbachev was published in rhe Paris newspaper Russktlia mys/', no. Deborah Jones, Librarian of rhe Hudson Inslin 3676 (June 5, 1987), p. 6. The lerrer ro Parriarch Pimen was published in no. 3682 (July 17, 61. "Zaiavlenie Pomesrnogo Sobora Russkoi 1987), pp. 6-7· proekta Zakona SSSR '0 svobode sovesri j J 49· New York Times, June 8, 1987 and Augusr 23, 1987, sec. 4:(. Yakunin was subse­ mo,-kouskoi patriarkhii, no. 9, (1990): 9-Il; and quendy elecred ro rhe parliamenr of rhe Russian republic. In 1993, however, the svobode sovesri," ibid., no. 2 (1991): 2-5. Parriarchare banned its clergy from standing for public office. Running for a seat in rhe 62. "Zaiavlenie Pomesmogo Sobora Russkol posr-soviet Duma at Ihe rime, Yakunin refused ro comply and was defrocked. 63. Quoted by Dimirry V. Pospielovsky, 50. See the account of Konstanrin M. Kharchev's visir ro New York, New York Times, Posrcommunisr CIS," The Potitics ofReligion i, Ocraber 30,1986. Kharchev was chairman of rhe Council for Religious Affairs ar rhe rime. Michael Bourdeaux. Inrernarional Polirics of E1 5!. This is one of rhe changes nored by rhe group of nine in rheir open lerrers ro ParroH, vol. 3 (Armonk, N.Y. and London: M Gorbachev and Patriarch Pimen (see above, nore 48). Sworn in as Russia's Leader," New York Times, J 52. The conferences were held in Kiev, July 1986; Moscow, May 1987; and Leningrad, 64. "Zaiavlenie Pomesrnogo Sobora Rw February 1988. "Verkhovnyi sover SSSR odobril zakonoproekt 53· The Journal ofthe Moscow Patriarchate, 1986, no. I: 80 [English edirion]. The ririe in 5, 1990, p. 20. the Russian edirion is "Nashi iuridicheskie konsul'ratsii: Prava i obiaz.annosti religioznogo 65. "Zaiavlenie Pomesrnogo Sobora Ro obshchesrvol.'· The reference is the same. "Opredelenie 0 priniatorn Zakone SSSR 0 svo~ 54. See rhe repon in Pravd.a, April 30, 1988. 66. The cosr of the projecr is esrimated ar $2 55· "Usrav ob upravlenii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi," Pornesmyi sobor Russkoi York Times, April 24, 1995, p. A{. The projecr is Pravoslaunoi Tserkui. Troitse-Sergiroa Laura. 6-fJ iiurtia /988 god.a. Materialy, Kniga pervaia ing Orrhodox intelligenrsia who see it as mi (Moscow: lzdanie Moskovskoi Pauiarkhii, 1990), pp. 24-49. The UStav was adopted on applied to rebuilding the church at rhe parisi June 8, 1988. vygodnym," Nezauisimaia gdzeta. April], 1994, 56. Prior ro formal publicarion in 1990 (see note 55) the statute was published in rype­ Khrisra Spasitelia prevrashchaersia v banal'nuit scripr formar in rhe newslerter of the Parriarchate's Deparrmem of Exrernal Church p. 2. The host of a relevision show on Orthodt Russian Orthodoxy and Human RightS 311

Relations: "lnformatsionnyi biulleten' otdela vneshnikh tserkovnykh snoshenii : velikoposwoe pis'mo," Vesmik russkogo stu­ Moskovskogo ParriaIkhata," 1988, no. 7-9 (October 4, 1988). A gloss on the tirle of the 72): 148-49. statute reads: "This Starute has been composed in harmony with existing legislation on reli­ sskogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia gious cults and may be changed or supplemented in the event of new legislation." I thank Mr. Alexis Liberovsky, archiviSt of the Orrhodox Church in America, for supplying me samizdata, no. 3751 (Ocrober 26, 1979). In me with a copy of the "Informatsionnyi biulleten' " edition of the srature. :rench translation, "La situarion actuelle de 57. Metropolitan Vladimir of Roscov, "The Current State of the Russian Orrhodox run renouveau religieux en Russie," in Cleb Church After the Adoprion of the New Statute," Sf. VWimir's Theological Quarterly H, pp. 137-74· nos. 2-3 (1990) :1I7-39. See also Kyrill, archbishop of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, "The odoxe russe," pp. 166-74. Church in Relation to Sociery Under 'Perestroika,' " ibid., pp. 141-60. Both documents originally appeared in Zhumal moskovskoi patriarkhii, 1990, no. 2. "La siruation aCtuelle de I'Eglise orrhodo.xe 58. The data are given in "Ko dniu tezoimenimva Predscoiarelia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi ko's lecantation appears in Ellis, The Russian Tserkvi," Zhumal moskovskoi patriarkhii, no. 2 (1994): 9. For a scrupulously careful pre­ sentation of the data on the size and material condition of the Russian Orrhodox Church p. nO-H. since World War II, see Nathaniel Davis, A Long Walk tQ Church: A Contemporary History ter the Sovier Regime, 2: 42 7-31. ofRussian QrthotUixy (Boulder: Wesrview Press, 1995). fer the Soviet Regime, 2: 40 4-6. 59. "La situar;on aCtuelle de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe," p. 151. P·93-94· 60. See above, nore 14. All-Union law, "0 svobode sovesti i religioznykh organiursi­ ~jtsky, "Pleslizh advokarury," Pravda, March iakh"; RSFSR law, "0 svobode veroispovedanii." Quotations from the All-Union law are my own translations. Quotations from the RSFSR law are taken from the English transla­ Father Nikolai Cainov, Andrei Bessmerrnyi, rion prepared by the Foreign Broadcast Informarjon Service: "RSFSR Law on Freedom of Zelinsky, Evgeny Pazukhin, Viktor Popkov, Religion," JPRS-UPA-90-07I, December 19, 1990 (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of ed at a news conference in Moscow in May Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.). I rhank Ms. I in the Paris newspaper Russkaia myst, no. Deborah Jones, Librarian of rhe Hudson Institute, for retrieving the last-named source. :h Pimen was published in no. 3682 (July 17, 6t. "Zaiavlenie Pomesrnogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v sviazi s publikatsiei proekra Zakona SSSR '0 svobode soveSti j religioznykh organi~arsiiakh,' " Zhttrnal Igust 23, 1987, sec. 4:1. Yakunin was subse­ moskovskoi patriarkhii, no. 9, (1990): 9-1I; and "Opredelenie 0 priniatom Zakone SSSR 0 Russian republic. In 1993, however, rhe svobode sovesti," ibid., no. 2 (1991): 2-5. for public office. Running for a seat in the 62. "Zaiavlenie Pomesrnogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi," p. 10. d ro comply and was defrocked. 63. QuoIed by Dimitry V. Pospielovsky, "The Russian Orrhodox Church in rhe archey's visit co New York, New York Times, Postcommunist CIS," The Polities ofReligion in Russia and the New States ofEurasia, ed. :he Council for Religious Affairs at rhe time. Michael Bourdeaw:, International Polirics of Eurasia series, ed. Karen Dawisha and Bruce the group of nine in their open letters co ParlOrt, vol. 3 (Armonk, N.Y. and London: M.E. Sharpe, 1995), p. 49. See also "Yelrsin ore 48). Sworn in as Russia's Leader," New York Times, July 11, 199I. y 1986; Moscow, May 1987; and Leningrad, 64. "Zaiavlenie Pomesrnogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi," pp. 10-11; "Verkhovnyi sover SSSR odobril zakonoproekt 0 svobode sovesri," Russkaia my!!', October [986, no. I: 80 [English edition). The title in ~, 1990, p. 20. nsuJ'tatsii: Prava i obiazannosri religioznogo 65. "Zaiavlenie Pomesrnogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi," p. 10; cf. "Opredelenie 0 priniatom ZakDne SSSR 0 svobode sovesti," p. 4. 66. The COSt of the projecr is estimared at $200 million; see "A Rebirth in Russia," New ;lavnoi Tserkvi," Pomestnyi sobor Russkoi York Times, April 24, 1995, p. A4. The projecr is nor popular with the intelligentsia, includ­ ~ iiunia I988 gOda' Materialy, Kniga pervaia ing Orrhodox intelligentsia who see ir as misdirecting resources thar would berter be 10), pp. 24-49. The Ustav was adopted on applied to rebuilding the church at rhe parish level. See "Pobianie [Q2he m02her bye' vygodnym," NezalJisimaia gazeta, April 7, 1994, p. 6; and "Lichnyi narodnyi khram: khram note 55) the starute was published in rype­ Khrista Spasirelia prevrashchaetsia v banal'nuiu udaInuiu srroiku," ibid., January 10, 1995, rchate's Department of Exremal Church p. 2. The host of a television show on Orthodoxy and Russian culture recently said of Ihe 312 Paul Valliere

challenges facing contemporary Russia: "the main thing is [Q build the spiritual carhedral of Sf. Sophia, nor the crude marerial cathedral of Christ rhe Savior; rhe main rhing is to create the spiritual foundations of democracy." "Imperiia kul'tury, iii 0 pravoslavnykh storannikakh demokraticheskoi Rossii," Literatumaia gaura, April 26, 1995, p. 15. 67. NeZtlVisimaia gazeta, June I, 1991. MUSLIMWO:M 68. Writing of the early Soviet decades, Vladimir Zelinsky rightly observed: "The furure historian will by no means jndge those rimes to be the worst in rhe life of the Russian epis­ HUMAN RIGH copate. One cannor deny it: individuals to whom fate seemed to have guaranteed a peace­ ful existence under [he wing of tsarist Orthodox Russia did not go ro pieces when faced ISLAMIC Nom with arresr, prison, and concentrarion camps. Some were even able ro die in joy with a prayer for their executioners on rheir lips, as in apostolic times. Should the age of persecu­ tion rerum again, the majority of our bishops would find rhe strength ro walk rhe same path as their predecessors." Prikhodiash<"hie v tserkov', p. 104. 69. No less an authority than James H. Billingron offered the following assessment in mid-1994: "With the collapse of rhe world's first atheisr srate, the historic religion of Russia MIRIAM COOKE /J has emerged as the central culwral force in rhe COUntry's new national self-consciousness. As a cohering ideology, Orthodoxy has replaced communism as rhe lodestar of Russian society. Along with the army, the Church is one of [he few national institutions thar is srill respected." "The Case for Orthodoxy," The New Republic, May 30,1994, pp. 24-25. 70. Coverage of rhe issue in [he mainline RussiaJI press has generally been unsympathetic ro the protectionist cause. See A1eksandr Nezhnyi, "Kra boirsia cheloveka s evaJlgeliem," Izvestiia, July 15, ]993, p. 5; and "Vse religii ravny ... No esr' bolee ravnye?" Literatumaia gazetLl, February 22, 1995, p. 2. Debares on the issue have appeared in "thick" journals, e.g., None of the three major ropics [0 be addr "Spor 0 svobode sovesti," Novyi mir, no. 9 (1993): r56-7I; and "Svoboda sovesti, religiia, pravo while we hope [0 open up new perspecl (marerialy 'kruglogo srola')," Voprosy filosofii, no. I2 (1994): 3-r8. For an overview of the issue illumining barh differences and converE since r988, see Michael Bourdeaux, "Glasnost and dIe Gospel: The Emergence of Religious Pluralism," The PoLitics o/Re/igion in Russia and the New StLltes o/Eurasi.a, pp. II3-27. For the begin with rhe knorry bur pivotal [Opic of course of events in 1994 and early 1995, see Lauren B. Homer, "Laresr Legal Developments Can human rights be universalized b( Affec[ing Religion in Russia," East-Wm Church &Ministry Report 3, no. I (WinrerI995): 1-4. conrexts? Or have they come inro prominc 71. For an excellent exposirion of the criricisms see W Cole Durham, Jr.. Lauren B. cisely because they do mark a specific if e Homer, Pierer van Dijk, and John Wirte, Jr., "The Furure of Religious Liberty in Russia: wirhin rhe world sysrem from generaliu Report of rhe De Burght Conference on Pending Russian Legislarion Resrricling Religious bipolar conflict in the cold war, and no"," Liberty," Emory Intemational Law Review 8, no. I (Spring, 1994): 1-66. The essay includes the contexc of Wesrern global hegemony an English rranslalion of the proposed amendment of ALIgust 27, 1993 (Appendix A). I thank Ms. Lauren B. Homer, President, Law and Liherty Trust, and Mr. Scon M. find expression excepr as a reflex of powe Ellsworth of rhe J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, for directing me accounr for irs own interesrs, bur only for ro rhis and relared sources. These are the questions rhar elites rhn 72. "Opredelenie 0 priniarom Zakone SSSR 0 svobode sovesti," ZhumaL moskovskoi rhey remain unanswerable as long as rhe patriarkhii, no. 2 (t991): 2. See also rhe precise cirarion of [he Vienna Concluding oncilable opposires. Instead of ralking ab Documem in argumentation for changes in the draft of the 1990 law in "Zaiavlenie who is concerned about human righrs. 1 Pomesrnogo Sobora Russkoi Ptavoslavnoi Tserkvi v sviazi s publikarsiei proekra Zakona sors in a majot American universiry, wh SSSR '0 svobode sovesti i religioznykh organizarsiiakh,' " ibid., no. 9 (1990): roo benefits of concern for human rights. ~ 73. See John B. Dunlop, "The Russian Orthodox Church as an 'Empire-Saving' th~ Insritution," The PoLitics 0/ReLigion in Russia and the New States 0/Eurasi4, ed. Michael despite good intentions, we recognize Bourdeaux. pp. 15-40. elites, and not the views of all strata of benefits are diffuse and conjectutal: as el