 |
|
|
|
|
| Deutsche Version AboutProjectsReport ArchiveCalenderNewsletterSearch | ||||
social issues & initiatives | Crossborder | by Bernhard Odehnal | 2008-05
Rooted in grandmothers’ historyReligion and religiosity, Communism and Church. Theologian Ernst Christoph Suttner on the difficult dialogue between the Orthodox and Latin churches in Eastern and Western Europe and the historical background.Bernhard Odehnal: To start with a question: the Orthodox churches of Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine or Russia have again become an important factor in the state and society. How were these churches able to survive the decades of suppression by the communists?Ernst Christoph Suttner: I can give you an example: I come from the Oberpfalz (northern Bavaria) where the Nazis did not succeed in having the crucifixes removed from walls of the classrooms in schools. Because, despite the intimidation by the Gestapo, people protested against this. Then there is the example of the Bishop of Münster, who spoke out against the murder of the mentally ill but who was so deeply rooted in Westphalia that the Nazis were forced to keep quiet. During the Communist era the Catholic Church in Poland and the Orthodox Church in Romania had equally deep and strong roots. And were the Communists helpless confronted with this? In Romania the only social facilities that were not subject to communist doctrine were the clerical ones. People who did not want to collaborate with the system had to look for some form of existence in the church. During the Ceaus¸escu era I visited a convent in Romania with 300 nuns, most of whom had first entered the convent in the communist period. And Ceaus¸escu never attempted to ban the Church or to subject it to massive oppression? Of course the Communists attempted to this but they never succeeded. The Communist state banned the Uniate (Eastern Catholic) Church1. But immediately after the fall of Communism the Uniates were there again, as their church had continued to live underground. The system was able to take away their religious freedom but not to get rid of them entirely. And as far as the Uniate Church in West Ukraine is concerned: when Michail Gorbatshov visited Rome the state church office admitted openly that members of the Uniate Church could not claim even those rights that the Soviet constitution allowed believers. This suppression of the Uniate Church in the Soviet Union had more nationalistic reasons? There was an entire series of reasons. We must always consider the historic roots, something that journalists and politicians do far too seldom. Let’s talk about the theological aspect. The persecution of the church by the state in the Soviet Union started at the time when in Rome, in his encyclical Mystici corporis, Pope Pius XII explained: whoever is not with the Pope cannot be in the Church. This was later revised by the Second Vatican Council in 1964 but in the East only a few bishops knew this fact. As a result of being so closed off people there learnt hardly anything about the developments of the Second Vatican Council and were, so to speak in a different state of mind: in the Soviet Union this was the state of mind that had prevailed before the First World War, in Galicia (Poland/Ukraine) it was the state before the Second World War. They had no information about what was thought in the world. After the fall of Communism they emerged from the basement, so to speak, and found a Catholic Church that was very different to their impressions. Therefore the position of the Orthodox churches towards ecumenical developments remains very sceptical, down to the present day. Is that why the Patriarch of Moscow still refuses to meet the Pope? It is not the Patriarch who refuses but a -substantial section of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Soviet Union saw to it that there was no -religious instruction. In some areas of Siberia one had to fly two hours to reach the next church. Knowledge of religion came only from the stories of grandmothers, over two and three generations. Just imagine if our knowledge of religion came only from our grandmothers. I see it as a miracle of the Holy Spirit that, after two or three generations, the religious consciousness “we belong to the Orthodox Church” existed in Russia at all. It was just that nobody any longer knew what this actually meant. This kind of church cannot accept its Patriarch meeting the Pope. Because that would be humiliating? Because the groups affected would no longer see someone who made a pact with the Pope as Orthodox. The faithful would no longer recognise their Patriarch. There would be a schism. Therefore there was only one answer that the Patriarch could give: he would not travel to Rome. Do the other Orthodox Churches distance themselves so clearly from Rome. The Romanians for example? I can give you an example: after the Warsaw Pact troops marched into Prague in 1968 Ceaus¸escu threatened in a speech made on the national holiday that the army would shoot if even a single foreign soldier were to cross the Romanian border. The day before he had invited the church leaders to meet him and only when the bishops assured him that the faithful would fulfil their patriotic duty did he summon up the courage to make this statement. The Soviets knew this. It was only our western journalists who did not grasp this. Ceaus¸escu did everything possible to make a good name for himself in the West. Romanian church leaders were allowed to travel abroad and western church leaders were invited to Bucharest. The first of these was Cardinal König. When I visited Romania two years after König Christians and Communists were still amazed by the fact that it had been possible to hold a real discussion with him. They had imagined a Catholic cardinal as something like an SS commander, holding a pistol, wearing black boots. Despite the fact that during the communist era the Romanians also had the Catholic and the Protestant churches in the country. It was also a Protestant pastor, László Tőkés whose protests in winter 1989 were at the start of the revolution against Ceauscescu. I greatly doubt whether his motivating force was a religious one. Even back then Hungarian nationalism was probably more important to him. This bishop was dissatisfied that he as Hungarian had to live in a Romanian state. Today he is the leader of a political party. Do ethnic tensions also play a role in the dialogue between the churches? Naturally, because people are the way they are. For example nowadays at ecumenical discussions it is far easier to bring Uniate and Orthodox Romanians together than Uniate Catholics and Latin Catholics from Transylvania. For the Latin Catholics are Hungarians and they don’t want to have much to do with the Romanians. There is nothing to be done about this. And are there also historical reasons for this conflict? Under communism ethnic conflicts were not solved but were brushed under the carpet and the carpet was then held in place with a lot of political pressure, above all in former Yugoslavia. Under Tito ethnic conflicts were not allowed. But when he died everything came to the surface again, and eventually led to war. The Serbian Orthodox Church supported Slobodan Milošević’s nationalism. And today, in the case of the Kosovo conflict it pours oil on the flames. To understand Serbian Orthodoxy, again we have to go back in history. After the decline of the Serbian state in the 15th century it was the Church that carried the identity of the Serbian nation. In the Ottoman Empire only Moslems could be citizens. The Koran was the law and whoever was not a Moslem could not be subject to this law. But the Ottomans granted members of those religions that had their own law, such as Judaism and Christianity, the possibility forming partly autonomous protected groups known as “millets”. For this they had to pay high taxes and in return their religious leaders were allowed to regulate matters that we regard as the concern of the state: the laws of inheritance, jurisdiction of the person and so forth. The Ottoman state was responsible only for military matters and criminal jurisdiction. Everything else was the preserve of the church-nation. For a period of 600 years the church leadership was therefore bearer of the Serbian nation. This was also the case with the Greeks and the Bulgarians. And indeed with the Croatians, but in their case under the Catholic Church. If one is aware of this history then it is hardly surprising that in the Serbian Church today there are hardliners whose nationalistic approach has not changed at all. The Serbian bishop Artemije recently demanded the reconquest of Kosovo … I also know Serbian bishops who don’t want to have anything to do with this. But their voice is not heard in public? If the Patriarch of Serbia were to say something that displeased his grassroots community the danger of a schism in Serbia would be considerable. The Georgian Patriarch had to resign from all ecumenical committees on account of the opposition of his community. He certainly did not do this of his own inclination. The majority of Orthodox Christians there resist any form of opening and are opposed to dialogue? In Georgia the suppression of the church was even more brutal than with the Russians. They had great difficulties in forming again after the collapse of Communism. The patriarch was not able to do anything other than to keep his mouth shut. Can this attitude of the Orthodox Churches slow down or prevent the process of European unification? European unification demands more than state treaties. It must be desired by the basis. And as long as the basis remains sceptical growing together will be very difficult. I therefore regard it as immensely important to study the mentalities and historic roots of the Orthodox Churches. So that we can finally move towards each other. Ecumenism should not be restricted to Catholics and Protestants. Protestantism split from Catholicism, both of these Churches therefore share the same stem, it is therefore easy to discuss with one another. The Byzantine and the Roman traditions are two separate stems. It is like a bush in which two different stems grow up from the same roots. If all you do is try to bind together the uppermost branches you won’t achieve anything. We must learn more about the stems. And this happens too rarely? Almost nothing happens. In Germany the study of the Eastern Churches has been throttled, in Vienna it has been cut back as far as possible. If we don’t build it up again we will not be able to compare the stems. Yet one of the fundamental preconditions for unity in Europe is that we get to know the various cultures, and the way they are rooted in the different peoples. 1) Uniate Churches: Eastern Churches connected to the Roman -Catholic Church while preserving their own rites and traditions of canon law; connected (Uniate) churches of the Orthodox and Oriental traditions Ernst Christoph Suttner, 74, is professor emeritus for Eastern Church Studies at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna and a member of the Academy of Sciences. Most recently he has published the book: “Staaten und Kirchen in der Völkerwelt des östlichen Europa. Entwicklungen der Neuzeit” (Academic Press Fribourg, Freiburg 2007). He is also, since 2001, director of the research project of PRO ORIENTE on the “Union of Transylvania”. Bernhard Odehnal (born in 1966) has been a correspondent of the Swiss daily magazine “Tages-Anzeiger” since 2004. He studied Slav language and literature and has worked for the magazines “Falter”, “Weltwoche” and “profil”. related articlesrelated galleries» Back to report |
|
|
||
| The MoreVALUE sponsoring program of Erste Bank Home | Imprint | sponsoring.kultur@erstegroup.com | sponsoring.sozial@erstegroup.com | ||||