Russia: Why Putin Is Going [Went] To The Vatican

Radio Free Europe ^ | March 13, 2007 | Victor J. Yasmann

[NYer]

Pope Benedict XVI and Russia's President Vladimir Putin, left, talk with Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone at the end of their talks at the Vatican Tuesday, March 13, 2007. It was the highest-level Kremlin-Vatican talks in more than three years, a meeting expected to focus on ways of easing tensions between Catholics and Orthodox Christians and finding common ground on moral issues. The meeting - the first between Benedict and Putin - is part of a visit that takes the Russian leader to Italy and Greece this week. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini, Pool)

---

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Pope Benedict XVI, flanked by Russia's President Vladimir Putin, pose with their delegations at the end of their talks at the Vatican Tuesday, March 13, 2007. It was the highest-level Kremlin-Vatican talks in more than three years, a meeting expected to focus on ways of easing tensions between Catholics and Orthodox Christians and finding common ground on moral issues. The meeting - the first between Benedict and Putin - is part of a visit that takes the Russian leader to Italy and Greece this week. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini, Pool)

[Oratam]

As a Vatican cardinal, Benedict was responsible for helping to set up a meeting of John Paul II and Aleksy.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "Vatican cardinal?" Are journalists required to have any understanding of the subjects they cover?

[jjm2111]

I know he may be (or may not be) an enemy of the USA, but I have a fair amount of respect for Putin.

[Cicero]

Is Putin a devout believer? It's hard to say.

The Orthodox Church is admirable in many ways, but it also has a long history of deep involvement in politics. The Catholic Church has sometimes had similar involvement, but the separation of Church and State is more basic to Catholic understanding than to the Orthodox.

Putin has used the Orthodox Church as one of his means of control, and the Orthodox Church has used him as a way of keeping other Christians--Catholic or Protestant--out of Russia.

So, is he devout? I don't know. But he's certainly a power manipulator who knows how to use the Orthodox Church to his own advantage. Yet it's by no means clear that there has been any kind of real religious revival in Russia since the fall of Communism. Immorality is widespread; church attendance is very low; abortion is rampant; crime is rampant. It's not clear that the Orthodox Church has benefited spiritually from this mafia-style relationship.

[Cheburashka]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "Vatican cardinal?" Are journalists required to have any understanding of the subjects they cover?
---
Mr. Yasmann wanted you to understand that the person in question was not a St. Louis or Arizona Cardinal.

In answer to your second question, no, they are assigned to write something. They aren't required to know anything about what they are writing about. It probably is easier to write something when you can make up anything, instead of being constrained by a few facts that you do know.

[Longinus]

Or as Channel One commentator Pyotr Tolstoy said recently, "Moscow is the 'third Rome'" and due to the lack of a "second Rome," "relations with the 'first Rome' are very important to us."

I think this article is important because many here don't seem to understand the Russia under Putin - seeing it through the Cold War mentality.

What motivates Russia as Putin has shaped it is a more nationalist mentality than the one that existed under the 'internationale' of the Communists who were not all Russians.

How many Western leaders persuaded a Muslim head of state to set aside land for a Church?

Why is it that outside of the Vatican the only other European head of state of any note that calls for Europe not to lose her Christian heritage is Putin?

[Malesherbes]

Sadly you are right, and demographically Russia faces an existential crisis. I would hope that the Orthodox Church which is so deeply bound up with Russian history and nationalism could lead the country out of its moral morass.

Some years ago I was in Odessa (Ukraine, but still very Russian with statues of Pushkin and with Orthodox churches.) Accompanied by a young female guide, I visited the Orthodox cathedral and the guide went around kissing all the icons. She acted as if it were most normal, and it pleased me that a girl in her early twenties had her faith in tact despite the Communist plague.

[Longinus]

The Catholic Church has sometimes had similar involvement, but the separation of Church and State is more basic to Catholic understanding than to the Orthodox. Kind of odd for a Catholic to say - with the Papal States once having been a European power - and in fact I may be wrong but the Papacy has never accepted the annexation of the Papal States into Italy and refused to accept any sort of treaty with Italy to legitimize this fact.

[Eagle of Liberty]

I know he may be (or may not be) an enemy of the USA, but I have a fair amount of respect for Putin.

You should read Epicenter by Joel C. Rosenburg. You may develop a different view of him.

[Longinus]

I know he may be (or may not be) an enemy of the USA, but I have a fair amount of respect for Putin. We all grew up with the Cold War mentality of being either on one side or the other. We are seeing a return to a 19th century style of geopolitics where on some areas nations are competitors and on some other geopolitical issues they are allies. I consider Putin to be a competitor on regional issues near to Russia and a possible ally in some other areas and in some areas Russia does not get involved. And it is not only Russia - It is a complicated world where NATO left us alone in Iraq but helps us in Afghanistan.

[Campion]

in fact I may be wrong but the Papacy has never accepted the annexation of the Papal States into Italy and refused to accept any sort of treaty with Italy to legitimize this fact.

Sure they have -- the Lateran Treaty of 1929.

[NYer]

The Catholic Church has sometimes had similar involvement, but the separation of Church and State is more basic to Catholic understanding than to the Orthodox.

The first RC hierarch in America, John Carroll, endorsed the concept of separation of church and state.

[jjm2111]

Welcome to FR.

[Longinus]

Thanks - I keep forgetting how to make paragraphs here though - Sorry for squishing the paragraphs up.

[Cicero]

Yes, as I said there have been exceptions. The reason for the Papal States and then Vatican City, which the Pope certainly did accept, was to try to keep the Papacy separate from any of the major powers. For instance, the French came in at one time and carried to Pope off to Avignon, thinking this would be a good way to expand their political control. It was not a happy time.

Also, many bishops have at times been rulers of cities or small states, notably in Germany.

But these are the exceptions. Much more typical was the running battle between the Popes and the Emperors over who was in charge. The de facto solution was that the Emperor was the highest secular authorities and the Pope was the highest religious authority.

Things tended to go differently in Russia, where the Tsars and the Orthodox Church worked closely together, perhaps too closely. And the same earlier, in Constantinople before its fall.

Of course Christianity will always be sometimes subversive of worldly power. Rulers have always tried to use it to control their subjects, but it has often turned in their hands and struck at them instead.

In Dostoevsky, Father Zosima seems to stand for that sort of vision, of a Christianity that would be more than an instrument of state power.

As I said, I don't KNOW that Putin is not genuinely religious, but he certainly falls nicely into the ancient pattern of Tsar and Patriarch working together.

[Longinus]

I assumed that till now the Vatican has refused the annual financial convention of the Lateran Treaty of 1929 and this refusal of the payments is seen as a way that Vatican can show that it is accepting the treaty that settled the loss of the Papal States under protest.

Am I wrong?

[Longinus]

but he certainly falls nicely into the ancient pattern of Tsar and Patriarch working together.

Did the Pope not crown Charlemagne?

Is not the Christian credo to be loyal to secular authorities when faith is not an issue? Did St. Maurice and his Egyptian Christian legions not accept martyrdom rather than obey /disobey their emperor's order rather than fight their lawful secular ruler?

The Christian relationship you speak of only came about starting with the enlightenment when the church was severed from the life of the people. One may argue that may be a good or bad thing for our modern age but it was not unique to Eastern Orthodox.

The Orthodox never had a patriarch rule as a king like we saw in the Papal states nor was there ever a Church run city state like we saw the Protestant and the Catholic churches have during the Middle Ages (Bishops ruling over fiefdoms and as secular vassals to their secular lords).

So until the post Christian era of the West the Orthodox church was actually less linked to the state than the churches of the West were. One to think on.

[goldstategop]

The Roman Emperor was the head of the Church and the practice continued under the Russian Tsars. The Imperial model was the image of Theokratos - God - The All Ruler. It was the perfect union of state and church under one supreme head, in contrast to the West, where temporal and sacerdotal authority was separated from the outset.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus