Replies

Still more demoralizing, however, is that the same double standard has been at work within the Catholic Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). In our new book Chris Ferrara and I list one case after another of bizarre, unheard-of novelties that have to be read to be believed but that are positively encouraged by the bishops. What, on the other hand, of the traditional Latin Mass that formed the piety of Catholic faithful for over 1500 years and to which the saints and pre-conciliar popes were so devoted? Those bishops who do allow it in a parish or two often forbid any advertising and do nothing to encourage attendance. Charismatic hysteria, polka Masses, teen Masses – as long as no one had ever heard of it before 1965, the bishops promote it vigorously. Just as in the secular culture, anything goes but tradition. Catholics have witnessed the emergence of post-conciliar correctness in the Church – the ecclesial analogue of political correctness. In our book we make the case that this ecclesial version of PC has produced the greatest crisis in the Church’s history. The sheltering of homosexual priests by the bishops, who will not even consider following the Vatican’s 1961 instruction barring the ordination of homosexuals, is but one result of PC at work in the Church.

Practically anyone receives more pastoral attention and concern from the bishops than traditional Catholics. Cardinal Law, for example, finds time to attend ordinations of Anglican clergy despite the fact that over a century ago Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid. His Eminence is "too busy" to say the traditional Latin Mass once a year for the people at his indult (traditional Mass) parish, but doggone it he’s going to get to that interfaith picnic if it’s the last thing he does.

I remember as an undergraduate a guy who was active in the Republican Club and very well known around campus: we’ll call him Mark Dalton. Mark was always sure to let everyone know he favored "responsible" candidates, and that he considered Pat Buchanan akin to Satan – language he wouldn’t have dreamed of using to describe anyone on the political Left, whom he considered his honorable adversaries. Mark was a "compassionate conservative." Never once did he depart from the plantation of correct opinion to which the campus Left had relegated his kind.

And guess what. On Commencement Day the Harvard Crimson featured a long puff piece, complete with photos, called "Mark Dalton: The ‘Nice Republican.’" Meanwhile, one of my own friends, an authentic conservative, was savagely attacked by the same paper one Commencement Day later. I wonder why.

People like Mark Dalton, generally known as neoconservatives, are in effect the watchdogs of the liberal revolution. Much as they may think themselves opponents of liberalism, they don’t actually conserve anything other than liberal gains. Moreover, by attacking real conservatives they both harm the cause of authentic conservatism and, not coincidentally, manage to ingratiate themselves with the establishment.

In his inaugural encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, Pope John Paul II himself conceded that "it is perhaps a good thing" that opponents of modern ecumenism (which has since included prayer meetings with practitioners of voodoo) "should express their fears." Now if ecumenism were really a Catholic dogma (a qualitative impossibility in any case), the Pope could not welcome criticism of it. He certainly would not say that "it is perhaps a good thing" for the divinity of Christ to be denied, for instance.

The neo-Catholic establishment, on the other hand, ignoring this statement by the Pope and incapable of drawing distinctions or appreciating nuance, treats the ecumenical venture and the entire post-conciliar regime of novelty as if they were binding statements of Catholic doctrine, criticism of which involves one in disobedience in a matter of faith.

This is but a subset of their unstated principle: everything Rome does is ipso facto brilliant. One notorious neo-Catholic recently twisted himself into a pretzel to argue that Vatican II’s egregious failure to condemn Communism, seemingly a staggering blunder, was actually a stroke of genius. His starting point appears to be that it happened, so it must have been brilliant. Others have said (on television, no less) that the Pope was absolutely right not to remove any of the bishops implicated in the current scandals. You name it, the neo-Catholics defend it: the ceaseless apologies for the Church’s past; praying with witch doctors at Assisi; complete inaction in the face of moral and doctrinal chaos in the major religious orders; the Pope’s kissing of the Koran (no, this is not a misprint; "he meant it as a general sign of respect," goes the neo-Catholic non-explanation) – the list could go on and on. Whatever it is, there’s always an excuse. I hope that if I ever run a great institution into the ground I have such abject apologists as these.

But of course, it's better to have a KGB-employed Patriarch running your church. We can always overlook that when poking fun at Catholics and need to pretend we're white as snow.

Articles > English

Russia: Orthodox Church takes on Rasputin
Andrei Zolotov Jr. - The Moscow Times
6 Feb 2003, 15:29

Email this article | Printer friendly page

A heated debate over Russia's first tsar, Ivan the Terrible, and the lecherous mystical healer Grigory Rasputin, who compromised the monarchy in its waning years, is threatening to create a split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Moscow, 5 Feb (The Moscow Times) - At issue is a campaign to canonize the two men that is rooted in a widely embraced belief that the monarchy fell victim to a plot masterminded by Jews and Freemasons.

Last week, a group of theologians, church historians and official Orthodox journalists de facto proclaimed what has long been discussed privately in church circles -- that the campaign is being carried out by a sect that is undermining the Russian Orthodox Church from within.

For a decade the Moscow Patriarchate has tolerated the canonization drive in order to avoid a schism at all costs. But the drive has now grown so strong that the Patriarchate is considering changing its policy. It is unclear, however, whether it would be able to muster enough strength and moral authority to overcome the canonization forces.

Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II has spoken out against the canonizations in unusually strong terms over the past year, stressing it would be impossible to canonize Ivan the Terrible, who ordered the deaths of several clergymen who were later sainted, and Rasputin, whose debauchery and dubious healing practices compromised the last imperial family of Tsar Nicholas II.

"This is madness!" the patriarch said in his first statement on the subject in December 2001. "What believer would want to stay in a church that equally venerates murderers and martyrs, lechers and saints?"

But repeated statements by the patriarch have had little affect. In October, canonization proponents held a conference in Moscow and urged him to consider their request.

The theologians who last week linked the drive to a sect drew up a list of unofficial Orthodox newspapers, Internet sites and radio programs involved in the push and warned in a statement that they "undoubtedly could lead to a schism in the church."

"These publications juggle the facts of church history, distort the foundations of the Orthodox faith and ultimately create a sectarian mentality," the statement said.

The theologians said canonization supporters were also behind a protest against the government's decision to issue tax identification numbers (protesters likened the numbers to the apocalyptic sign of the beast) and a drive to venerate Nicholas II not as a passion bearer, as he was canonized in 2000, but as a co-redeemer -- which would put him on par with Jesus.

They said the campaign was being driven by a low level of church culture and a large influx of neophytes with a dissident mentality.

"Those demanding the canonization of Ivan the Terrible and Rasputin are a small but very noisy group," said Alexander Dvorkin, the church's leading expert on sects. "This will be followed by demands to canonize Stalin -- there is already some so-called research showing that he was secretly a monk. It is impossible to disprove all of these myths.

"Religious hysterics are the basis of this pseudo-Orthodox sect acting within our church."

Alexei Beglov, an Orthodox historian, said the roots of such thinking -- which includes the belief that Jesus will appear on earth as a new tsar -- can be traced to the apocalyptic superstitions of Russian peasants in the early 1900s.

These beliefs could be written off if they did not represent the development of the most appealing and coherent anti-Semitic ideology within the Russian Orthodox Church today.

Books and articles describing Ivan the Terrible as "St. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich" and Rasputin as "Martyr for God and Tsar Elder Grigory Novy" first appeared in the mid-1990s, along with icons depicting them as saints and prayer services glorifying them.

Most of these writings have a strong anti-clerical slant.

One prayer to Rasputin, written by a certain Nikolai Kozlov and published in a brochure, reads: "Seeing thy otherworldly struggle and labor with their carnal eyes, Oh St. Grigory, and having listened to the Jewish slander and libel, many bishops and priests were tempted and persecuted thee and thy kin. ... Thereupon thou received bodily wounds and a ferocious death from the Jews."

It is a matter of historical record that Rasputin was killed in 1916 by monarchists -- Prince Felix Yusupov and Duma member Vladimir Purishkevich, with the knowledge of Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich.

But this does not sway the myth-makers.

They describe Rasputin's killers as Freemasons, which is synonymous with Jews in their thinking.

They believe that Rasputin's orgies were carried out by a double and staged by his enemies.

They say Rasputin was a holy elder serving the tsar and healing his hemophiliac son, Alexis.

The same is true of Ivan the Terrible.

Proponents of his canonization see him only as a devout leader who formed the Russian monarchy in the 16th century and showed mercy while suppressing revolts.

The dark side of his reign -- mass murders, including those of his son and prominent clergymen, as well as his many marriages -- are ignored or denied as slander.

Proponents also ignore Russian Orthodox hymns that describe Ivan as a new pharaoh and new Herod.

The canonization drive is an offshoot of the teachings of the charismatic and controversial Metropolitan Ioann of St. Petersburg, who died in 1995.

Ioann taught that the monarchy was the last bastion of the Orthodox faith in a battle against the anti-Christian forces of Jews, Freemasons and Western Christian heretics, who he said led the Russian people to atheism and liberalism.

His teachings say that Ivan the Terrible founded the bastion and Rasputin was sent to protect the last tsar and his son.

The belief that Nicholas II was a sacrificial lamb slain by anti-Christian forces propelled a years-long campaign to canonize the imperial family.

The Moscow Patriarchate, however, rejected the theories by canonizing the imperial family in 2000 as passion bearers -- people who accepted their imminent death with Christian humility.

The canonization has only bolstered the confidence of people like Konstantin Dushenov, a former aide to Metropolitan Ioann who is one of the leaders of the campaign.

He said Moscow Patriarchate officials were worried about the campaign only because they were realizing that they lack the moral authority to influence church members.

"They can control cash flows and administrative resources but not the way that believers really feel," said Dushenov, editor of the St. Petersburg newspaper Rus Pravoslavnaya.

"If it is God's will, no one will be able to stop us -- neither the patriarch nor the synod," he said.

Andrei Zolotov Jr.

The Moscow Times, Independent Press' flagship edition, was launched in March 1992 as a twice-weekly, and relaunched in October 1992 as a daily. The foreign community and Russian business people depend a great deal on the newspaper for up-to-the-minute news on Moscow, Russia and the world. The paper is an objective, reliable source for English-language news on business, politics and culture.
Website: The Moscow Times

TOP