Paula Borowska – 12/7/13
On 4 July the president of the Papal Inter-Religious Committee from Vatican, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, met with Alexander Lukashenka in Minsk. During the meeting Belarusian authorities tried to convince the Vatican’s representative that all 25 religious denominations present in Belarus live in peace and enjoy freedom. However, as Lukashenka made clear, only Orthodox Church has a leading role for the Belarusian society.
Top Belarusian politicians and Orthodox hierarchs often underline that the Eastern Christian rite laid a cornerstone for the Belarusian nationhood. But many are concerned that the Orthodox Church goes too much hand in hand with the Belarusian authorities and in many ways legitimizes the authoritarian regime.
Recently the Orthodox Church in Belarus publicly expressed its position on many society-related issues such as saying ‘no’ to the capital punishment. This signifies that the Church wants to become a real moral authority for Belarusians. The question might be, however, how independent can the Orthodox Church be, considering its canonical structure and dependency upon Moscow.
Metropolit Filaret: the Orthodoxy as a spiritual-cultural foundations of Slavic nations
Metropolit Filaret, born in Moscow in 1935 as Kirill Varfolomeyevich Vakhromeev, remains the highest hierarch in the Belarusian Orthodox Church. He was educated at the theological seminary in Moscow. In 1978 Filaret became a Metropolit of Minsk and All Belarusian Soviet Republic. In 1989 following the demise of the USSR and creation of an independent Belarus, he became the head of the Belarusian Orthodox Church.
The figure of Filaret arouses controversy. On the one hand, he remains popular due to his religious activity and attempts to revive the Orthodox Church in Belarus. He initiated translation of the New Testament into Belarusian. He also revived a number of monasteries. And finally, he founded the first Theological Academy in Belarus. That won him respect of many people.
At the same time many criticise Metropolit Filaret’s passivity when it comes to the human rights violations in Belarus. According to their logic, Church claiming to have a leading role for the society cannot remain silent about human rights violation.
Interaction between the State and the Church
Metropolit Filaret supported Alexander Lukashenka on many occasions. For example, supporting his referendum to remove limits of the number of times he could run as a president in 2004, he said that ‘the Belarusian nation more than once expressed its wisdom. I am convinced that now our nationals will make a right decision’.
A special agreement signed in 2004 between the Belarusian authorities and the Orthodox Church defines a character of their mutual relations. The agreement went as far as to define a scope of co-operation between the state authorities and particular ministries, with the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church received an exclusive right of influence in certain spheres of state’s activities such as education, health care, crime prevention. The state also granted it the status of “one of the most important social institutions” and “which cultural heritage in the past and today accord influence on formation of the spiritual, cultural and national traditions of the Belarusian nation”.
Belarusian Catholics are still waiting for a similar agreement. The Belarusian authorities has been postponing concluding concordat for several years.
More Equal than Others
The Belarusian Orthodox Church remains the biggest religious community in Belarus. But it is not independent.
The Belarusian Orthodox Church remains subordinated to the Russian Orthodox Church headquartered in Moscow. It means that the church in Belarus follows all elements of religious life such as teaching religion, service practice, and also a hierarchical system of management from its Moscow centre. Majority of Orthodox Churches in the world, like Polish, Greek and Serbian hold a status of autocephaly, meaning independent of external authority. In case of Belarus, the Church remains under Moscow patriarchal authority.
Apart from the state-recognised Church, the Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church exists, but it can operate only outside of Belarus. Since it does not accept supremacy of the Moscow Patriarchate, it cannot get permission to register itself in Belarus. This is the reason why the Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church remains the religious organisation primarily for Belarusians in in the United States and Canada.
Do Belarusians Need an Autocephalous Orthodox Church?
In 2010 Lukashenka met with Bartholomev I, holding the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the most honourable title within the Orthodox Church. Albeit he does not decide himself on the autocephaly, he has an exclusive right to call the special synods to deal with various issues.
The meeting caused rumours in Russian and Belarusian media about potential independency of the Belarusian Orthodox Church. Both Church and presidential administration immediately denounced it.
However, the Orthodox Church in Belarus has a short period of autonomy in its history in years 1922-1938. In 1930s due to anti-religious policy of the Soviet authorities it had to return under Moscow’s Patriarchate control.
Today the Church in Belarus probably would meet all criteria necessary for autonomy. It operates in the territory of independent state, has a number of the clergy, theological schools and monasteries. Advocates of the autocephaly often raise the issue of negative attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards the Belarusian identity, culture and language.
Many people think that nearly all Belarusians are Orthodox Christians. In reality, however, this is a simplification. The Western Belarus, including Hrodna region, has strong presence of the Roman Catholic Church, that uses both Belarusian and Polish in its service. But the vast majority of Belarusians – whether Orthodox or Catholic – do not pay much any attention to religion in their daily life.
Only over the last years the post-Soviet Belarusian society begun to search for the spiritual values. One of consequences of it was that protestant communities are on the rise over the last years, and the state persistently makes some institutional obstacles for them. Albeit the state favours the Orthodox Church, data shows that less people attend it.
The Orthodox Church and Belarusian Society
Recently Metropolit Filaret spoke against death penalty at a round table co-organised by the Council of Europe and the Belarusian authorities. As he reminded, when in a 1996 referendum where the death penalty question was put for a popular vote, the Orthodox authorities ‘called people to decline this form of punishment’. So far, however, the Orthodox authorities did not voice their opposition when executions took place. That was a case in 2012, when the state executed two men convicted for organising the bomb attack in the Minsk metro.
The Orthodox Church together with Catholic also opposed abortion and surrogacy. They appealed for the amendments to the Belarusian law. According to official figues, over 25 thousand abortions are made in Belarus every year. As press officer of the Belarusian Orthodox Church said: ‘Even the very early canonical sources treat abortion as killing. This is also our position now: abortion remains evil and contradicts Christian creed’.
Families of political prisoners publicly requested the leaders of the Orthodox Church for their support. So far these calls failed to produce any results. The Catholic Church is more assertive here. In 2012 the Vatican’s Ambassador to Belarus Apostolic Nuncio, Claudio Gugerotti, visited several political prisoners, including former presidential candidate Mikalaj Statkievich and human rights activist Ales Bialiatski.
Traditionally to the Orthodoxy, the state-Church relations are based upon the concept of “symphony”. It presumes that the state and the religious authorities should develop and inter-act in harmony. This should not mean, however, that the church should agree with any policy of the state.
If the Orthodox Church wants to strengthen its position as moral authority in Belarus it should clarify its position on political issues and moral dilemas facing the Belarusian society today. Being a moral authority requires more than praising the “Slavic brotherhood” with Russia and economic stability.