While the Russian media have, generally, covered the election of Metropolitan Cyrill as Patriarch of all Russia positively, opinion in the Western press has been centered on two fronts. Some are debating if the new Patriarch is “for” or “against” the Kremlin. Others — if he is a “modernizer” or a “conservative”.
The Economist, for example, labeled Metropolitan Cyrill “a tough and sophisticated practitioner of geopolitics” (whatever that means), labeled one of his “opponents”, Metropolitan Kliment, as a “cautious conservative” and another, Metroplitan Juvenaly, as a “loyal son of the state, while acting in private to protect the church’s liberals”. The fact that The Economist offers labels and no facts shows that they don’t really what they’re talking about.
The wires offer similar material. The AP calls Patriarch Cyrill a “modernizer who could seek a historic reconciliation with the Vatican and more autonomy from the state” and the LA Times expects the new Patriarch to “undertake some modest modernization”. Finally, Reuters seems to believe that the most important issue is when (and not even whether!) he will meet with Pope Benedict XVI.
To label Patriarch Cyrill a “modernizer” and a “reformer” is to show utter ignorance of Orthodoxy. What exactly is he proposing to reform? Theology? Practice? Liturgy? This is the man who, as Metropolitan, said: “I am categorically opposed to any reforms … If a reform destroys faith, tradition, values, then such a reform is called heresy”.
The problem is that anyone outside the Church is inclined to label all events within the Church a struggle between “liberals” and “conservatives”, even when such a dichotomy fails to exist. Those news sources with a blatant dislike of the Kremlin (like The Economist) tend to show the same dislike for the Russian Orthodox Church. Others need to find some issue that divides said “liberals” and “conservatives”, and they’ve found it in a proposed meeting with the Pope.
The reality for those who consider Patriarch Cyrill their “great lord and father”, though, is quite different. Whom the Patriarch decides to meet is his prerogative and of little tangible importance. Far more important are some of the important issues he will have to face. Here are just some of them:
Parish Life — Implementing the Parish Bylaws of the 1917-1918 Local Council and the normalization of parish life, destroyed during the years of state persecution. This will mean first and foremost the resolution of property issues — the State must finally return to parishes all property confiscated from the Church following the Bolshevik Revolution. This will mean keeping a register of parishioners, creating parish assemblies and parish councils to administer internal parish affairs as well as the further development of parish schools, libraries, and the like.
Missionary Outreach — Reaching out to those in Russia who consider themselves “Orthodox” but are not churched. This begins with implementing the Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture (OPK) curriculum in public schools, which has so far been stymied by the Ministry of Education.
Social Outreach — Broadening the social ministry of the Church. The most pressing issue here is the implementation of the Army and Navy chaplaincy programs.
The Jurisdictional Issue — The five-year transitional period following the ROCOR-MP reconciliation will be over during Patriarch Cyrill’s tenure. He will have to lead the Synod into making important decisions about jurisdiction in the diaspora, resolving the problem of parallel structures in a way that unites, not divides.
Fundraising — If parishes in the cities are fairly well off, parishes and monasteries in the villages are still for the most part in ruins. Priest’s salaries are virtually non-existent. The new patriarch will need to find a way to channel donor funds to places that need them most. One suggestion has already been made — the creation of a bank that will issue credit to village parishes.
Lay involvement — Unfortunately, the term concerned Orthodox lay people has become synonymous with supporters of the deposed Bishop Diomides. The new patriarch will need find creative ways to get laity involved in more tangible issues. Some members of the Local Council have already aired one idea — the creation of a consultative body composed of laity, similar to Russia’s Public Chamber.
The Estonian Issue — Solving the conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over jurisdiction in Estonia will be a top priority in Inter-Orthodox relations. Until Moscow and Constantinople reach agreement on this issue, all further work toward the calling of a Great Council of all the local Orthodox churches will be meaningless.
Relations with the Old-Ritualists — Patriarch Alexey II was instrumental in establishing cordial relations with two jurisdictions of priestly Old-Ritualists. In addition, the late Patriarch supported increased interest in pre-Nikonian liturgics. The creation of the Patriarchal Center for Ancient Liturgical Practice in Moscow as well as the increased usage of Znamenny chant in many parishes and monasteries provide some hope that reconciliation with the Old-Ritualists is possible.
Luckily, Patriarch Cyrill is well prepared to address these issues. Brilliantly educated, incredibly smart, an excellent orator, he is greatly respected both by his fellow bishops and by those outside of the Church. If Patriarch Alexey’s tenure was the “Second Baptism of Russia”, then Patriarch Cyrill’s may well be Russia’s Second Chrismation.
Many thanks for this interesting list. I’ve commented on it on the Reuters religion blog FaithWorld, where the point about meeting foreign religion leaders first appeared. See http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/02/02/priorities-for-kirill-from-a-russian-orthodox-bloggers-perspective/
I am struck on how the variety of Western press articles (or lack of) on the enthronement of Patriarch Kirill, distills
to two or three limited themes, his relationship with other world religious leaders, especially the Roman Catholic Pope, his relationship with the Russian
government and the question of of him being a reformer/modernizer.
Another item that is mentioned quite often with sinister connotations, is his
“possibly”, “potentially”, “high unlikely but in the realm of possibility”, of him having a “rumored”, “whispered”, “controversial” past with the Soviet KGB, and his role in importing of tax free tobacco products, that made him extremely rich in the process. The press didn’t dig deep enough, because he also ran 3/4 of the church
bingo (gambling) halls of America.
Excuse the tongue-in-cheek, it’s just to show how patently ridiculous these “wink,” “wink,” schoolyard rumors are. Scrape just the surface of these character assassination pieces wrapped in news articles, show the depths the Western press plunges to.
Even though there is a large variety journalistic voices, they are saying essentially the same things, I wonder who is pulling the strings of all their editors. It’s as if
everyone works for a few large corporations, and trot out the official company line. Either way it is deliberate, so much for providing facts to people to digest and make an opionion.
Were the KGB monitoring the the Russian Orthodox Church, of course. It’s widely known, at least to those who look for it, that Kirill (Vladimir) as a child did not
join the atheist sponsored Red Pioneers Scouting group (scouting for young commies). And later on in high school he argued with teachers that taught the Darwin
theory of evolution, that it was wrong. Later as a cleric he worked in ways to tell the Soviets what they wanted, and at the same time undermine their
authority, for instance by restoring the Smolensk diocesce that was ruined by Bolsheviks/Soviets, Nazis, WWII, etc.
The then Metropolitan Kirill crushed illegal duty free schemes of church income back in the ’90s when the Russia was lauded in the West as a model emerging
democracy, while at home everyone was going broke, Russia was being swindled and sold out by sneaky businessmen and corrupt bureacrats. It was a nuanced situation that was lost on
nearly the entire muckracking Western press, where copy sells much better when you report (false) scandals and then (maybe) apoligize for it at the
bottom of page 2 “corrections” in tiny lettering. Sorry folks looks like yellow journalism is still thriving even now in the 21th century. Do these 6th grade tactics really work?
The Church has a gone a long way from the early ’90s, where I now regulary see on television, icons in offices, on military aircraft, even at police headquarters. Over 30,000 people took the plunge during the Feast of Theophany (Baptism of Christ) in freezing waters in Russia; the numbers are increasing every year. (Right now you couldn’t pay be to do it, one day I’ll gather the courage as well.) For me as an average Orthodox Christian at the local level, some things I look forward to Patriarch Kirill leading the Church in is fostering parish life, social outreach, lay involvment that includes increased levels of church attendance and understanding of the services. Maybe in this the Patriarch is being modern, he’s encouraging the clergy to go seek out youth outside of the Church walls, where-ever they are. Then again what is old seems new again. A lot of time, people, church property, traditions, were lost to the devastation of communism. We need to keep commemorating and never forgetting the people and restore what we can, at the same time, the Church has to keep moving forward to restablish itself as the moral compass of society and fill the vacuum and emptiness left by the athiest state.
On meeting with the Pope, it all depends on actions by the Catholic Church. I cannot wait when the Catholic Church officially backs away from proselytizing in traditional Orthodox lands. There are plenty of people in traditionally Catholic countries that don’t go to church regulary and are somewhat
lost.
I have travelled numerous times to Europe and I’m struck by wonder and saddness on seeing the great old Catholic churches, especially in Spain and Italy. Many are quite large and also quite empty; European society is riddled with religious apathy. During Catholic mass, maybe a dozen pews are filled on a regular Sunday, while a typical church was built to accomodate hundreds.
Like any good sheperd, take care of your own flock, make sure it is healthy and growing before trying to take on more sheep. And surely do not try and “borrow” sheep from your neighbor.
Patriarch Kirill is a very good choice to lead the Russian Orthodox Church, I have seen his involvement in shows like Name of Russia, practically jumping on stage in Kiev at a rock concert to give a quick pep-rally/sermon to the 100,000 people in attendance, a regular weekly religious program on TV, etc. We really need him in today’s apathetic and economically trying times.