According to a report released by the Organization of American States (OAS) the Department of Electoral Cooperation and Observation (DECO) stated that the outcome of the Venezuelan presidential elections conducted on July 28 2024 is not acceptable. The report, directed to OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, details irregularities and structural problems that affected the voting process casting doubt on the credibility of the elections.
The National Electoral Council (CNE) declared Nicolás Maduro as the winner of the election stating that he secured 51.2% of the votes while his main rival, Edmundo González received 44.2%. However according to the OAS report there are differences between these official figures and independent evaluations such as exit polls and citizen led verifications that showed a clear advantage for González.
The CNEs announcement was made than six hours after the polling stations closed without providing a detailed breakdown of the results or granting access, to official tally sheets. The report criticized the CNE for labeling the results as “irreversible” despite mathematical errors and a lack of transparency.
Systematic Intimidation and Repression
The recent report from the Organization of American States (OAS) reveals a scheme orchestrated by the Maduro government to disrupt the electoral process by using tactics like fearmongering, political oppression and disqualifying opposition contenders. Of concern is the case of María Corina Machado, a prominent opposition leader who was barred from participating despite winning in the primary elections, a move widely perceived as politically motivated.
Leading up to the elections there were than 135 arbitrary arrests documented in the report, with many of them targeting individuals affiliated with the opposition. The air was thick with apprehension marked by instances of violence enforced disappearances and harassment directed at supporters of opposing parties. On election day itself there were reports of intimidation incidents occurring, such as sightings of government factions, near polling places.
Lack of Transparency and Observational Access
The OAS report underscores the importance of transparency in elections pointing out that the CNE hindered both international observers from effectively monitoring the electoral procedures. While a few civil society organizations were granted observer status by the CNE access was denied to electoral observation missions such as the European Union and the Carter Center.
Moreover the report highlights that the CNE refused entry to opposition witnesses at polling stations contributing to a decline in trust in the election process. Despite these obstacles local observers noted that opposition witnesses were present, in 90% of polling stations.
Electoral Manipulation and Clientelism
The report details how the Maduro administration used government resources to gain an edge in elections, such as offering aid in return for political backing. This tactic along with the absence of rules on campaign funding resulted in an unfair advantage for the ruling party.
Furthermore the OAS report raised concerns about the lack of autonomy within the CNE highlighting that its members have ties, to the Maduro government. This situation undermined the credibility of the electoral commission. Cast doubts on its capacity to oversee impartial and transparent elections.
Call for Accountability
Based on the evidence of irregularities the OAS has determined that the official outcomes of the Venezuelan presidential elections lack credibility and should not be recognized as reflective of democratic principles. The report emphasizes the need for transparency in disclosing voting records and urges global accountability measures against the actions of the Maduro government.
Amid protests in Venezuela following the election outcome the OAS findings underscore the ongoing struggle for democracy, within the nation. The Venezuelan populace, who displayed a dedication to exercising their democratic freedoms now confront an uncertain future as governmental authority grows stronger and dissent is suppressed.
Serbia plans to take one of the leading places in the supply of lithium to the markets of European countries. The country’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, noted the possibility of producing about 58,000 tons of lithium per year in local enterprises.
If all this metal were sent to the European Union (EU), it could be used to make batteries for 1.1 million electric vehicles. Thus, Serbia will be able to capture about 17% of the lithium market in the EU during the energy transition.
The Serbian leader noted that Belgrade is conducting negotiations on this matter with a number of European companies, including Mercedes, Volkswagen and Stellantis.
At the same time, Vucic considers it necessary to use most of this metal for the production of batteries and catalysts in the country.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz attended on July 19a “critical raw materials summit” in the Serbian capital where a memorandum of understanding between the EU and Serbia’s government on a “strategic partnership” on sustainable raw materials, battery supply chains and electric vehicles was signed Germany is also interested in the use of this material in the production of equipment.
The decision to stop lithium development jointly with the Australian-British company Rio Tinto was made in 2022.
This was preceded by environmental protests, whose participants opposed the mining of the lithium-bearing mineral jadarite in the area of the city of Loznica. But a Serbian court overturned this decision recently.
Illustrative photo by Pixabay: https://www.pexels.com/photo/round-brown-and-grey-metal-heavy-equipment-on-sand-33192/
Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4. 1 – 4. The capture of Peter and John and consequences of Peter’s speech. 5 – 12. The questioning of the apostles before the Sanhedrin and their answer. 13 – 22. The bewilderment of the Sanhedrin and the release of the apostles. 23 – 31. The prayer of the apostles and the new miraculous sign. 32 – 37. The internal state of the early Church.
Acts. 4:1. While they were speaking to the people, the priests, the governor of the temple, and the Sadducees stood before them,
“While they spake,” therefore the speech of the apostles was “interrupted” by the priests.
“the priests, the governor of the temple, appeared before them”, οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ. The definite articles of the Greek original here point to certain priests who had a turn in the temple services during that week (cf. Luke 1:8). The priests intervened here out of irritation that the apostles, without being legally authorized according to them, were teaching the people in the temple.
“the governor of the temple”, actually the head of the guard, which consists of Levites and takes care of good order, silence and order in the temple, especially during worship. He was also a priest.
Acts. 4:2. who were angry because they taught the people and preached in the name of Jesus resurrection from the dead;
the “Sadducees” took part in the capture of the apostles, as they were angered by their teaching of the resurrection of the dead, which, as is known, they did not recognize.
Acts. 4:3. and they laid hands on them and detained them until the morning; because it was already evening.
Although as a “first” measure against the apostles’ violation of temple order it was quite enough to simply remove them from the temple or forbid them to speak, in reality we see much more than that. The priests and others who came with them “laid hands” on the apostles and “detained them until the morning.” This suggests that the activity and personality of the apostles had already attracted the alarming attention of the authorities, and that the latest event in the temple was only a sufficient occasion to bring them before the highest court.
“it was evening”. The apostles went to pray in the temple at the ninth hour (that is, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon). Between the healing of the chromia and Peter’s speech to the people, it could have been a long time before the miracle was publicized and the people flocked. Peter’s speech itself, which may have been only briefly summarized by the scribe, may have been longer. From this it is clear that the capture of the apostles took place at such a time in the evening, when it would have been difficult to assemble the Sanhedrin, and there was no need for such haste: it was enough to do what had already been done – to keep them under guard until morning .
Acts. 4:4. And many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of men came to five thousand.
“the number of men came to five thousand” (τῶν ἀνδρῶν), besides, apparently, women and children. The number of converts this time surpassed even the first success on the day of Pentecost, evidently because, besides the power of the apostle’s word and the greatness of the miracle, the people themselves were already more disposed to believe in Christ by the conduct of the believers, who excited the popular sympathies, as and from the extraordinary actions of the apostles.
St. John Chrysostom explains these events thus: “About five thousand believed.” .. What does this mean? Did they see the apostles in glory? Did they not see, on the contrary, that they were bound? How did they believe then? Do you see the manifest power of God? For those who believed should have become weaker because of what happened, but they did not. Peter’s speech sowed deep seeds and touched their souls.”
Acts. 4:5. On the next day their leaders, elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem,
From the enumeration of those gathered in Jerusalem, it is clear that this was the full meeting of the Sanhedrin – in the same composition as at the trial of Jesus Christ.
Acts. 4:6. high priest Annas and Caiaphas, John and Alexander, and as many as were of the high priestly lineage;
“John, Alexander, and the rest” – members of the high priestly family, unknown to history, who apparently had great power in the Sanhedrin at the time.
Acts. 4:7. and, standing them in the midst, they asked them: By what power, or in whose name did you do this?
The members of the Sanhedrin hardly knew “in whose name” and “by what power” the apostles performed the miracle that brought them to the highest court. If they do ask such a question, it is either to justify their accusation of blasphemy through the thinking of the Apostles themselves, or – according to the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom – “they assumed that the Apostles, fearing the people, would deny themselves, and thought, that this will fix everything.”
Acts. 4:8. Then Peter, being filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: leaders of the people and elders of Israel!
“being filled with the Holy Spirit” – in a special way, for the protection of the righteous work, according to the promise of Christ (Matt. 10:19 – 20, etc.).
Acts. 4:9. if we are questioned today about a favor to an infirm person, how was he healed,
The conditional form of the apostles’ answer to the Sanhedrin’s question is above all a delicate but also clear indication of how unjust it is for the apostles to be judged for their help to the sick man.
St. John Chrysostom: “The apostles seem to say: ‘For this, of course, we should have been crowned and proclaimed benefactors, but instead we are condemned because of the beneficence to a man who is weak, not rich, not strong and not equal [to others].”
Acts. 4:10. let it be known to all of you and to the entire nation of Israel, that through the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, through him he stands before you healthy.
The apostle points out the undoubtedness of the miracle and the power with which it was performed. This is the power and the name of Jesus.
Acts. 4:11 a.m. This is the stone which, neglected by you masons, has become the head of the corner; and in no one else is there salvation;
Acts. 4:12. for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
To explain the meaning and power of Jesus’ name, the apostle quotes a sentence from a psalm, which the Lord himself once referred to Himself before the Jewish leaders (Ps. 117:22; see Matt. 21:42).
According to the meaning of this sentence, the Messiah is the chief cornerstone that the builders of the building neglected. The Crucified Christ is precisely this Stone which they, the builders, the leaders of the religious and moral life of the people, neglected in arranging the theocratic life of the people, but – in spite of everything – this Stone, by the will of God, nevertheless became the head and foundation of the new building of God’s kingdom on earth.
Boldly applying this meaning to the contemporary leaders of the people, who crucified Jesus, the apostle ends his speech with the majestic confession of Jesus as the true Messiah, whose name – and only this name – contains in its power the salvation of the whole world – not only the temporary one (such as the healing of the sick), but – what is more important – the eternal and universal (salvation from sins with all their consequences, including from death itself).
Acts. 4:13. And when they saw the courage of Petra and Joanna and when they realized that they were uneducated and simple people, they wondered; and they knew very well that they were with Jesus;
the “courage of Peter and Joanna,” who went from the position of accused to that of valid accusers before the whole Sanhedrin, is all the more impressive in view of their ignorance and simplicity, and caused understandable surprise and consternation. “It is possible to be both illiterate and unsophisticated, as well as simple and illiterate, but here both coincided. That is why everyone was amazed when Peter and John spoke and made speeches” (Theophilus).
Acts. 4:14. but seeing the healed man standing with them, they had nothing to object.
The recognition of the apostles as constant companions of Jesus assures everyone that these people really continued the work of their Master, so hated by the whole Sanhedrin, who had just betrayed the Lord to death. Evidently this served to inevitably condemn the apostles to the same fate by the charge of religious or political offense. But the presence of the healed man himself restrained the Sanhedrin, who could say nothing despite the apostles’ explanation of the miracle.
How did the healed man come to the Sanhedrin? Probably at the behest of the authorities themselves, who hoped to force him to deny the miraculousness of the healing, as they once did when the Lord healed the man born blind (John 9). But then, as now, the Sanhedrin misjudged the matter and only increased its shame and injustice.
Acts. 4:15. And, commanding them to go out of the Sanhedrin, they consulted among themselves
Acts. 4:16 a.m. and they said: what should we do with these people? For it is known to all who dwell in Jerusalem that a marked miracle was wrought through them, and we cannot deny it;
Acts. 4:17. but, that this may not be further spread among the people, let us sternly threaten them to speak no more of this name to any man.
Acts. 4:18. And when they called them, they commanded them not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus.
The decision of the Sanhedrin in the case of the apostles is the decision of confused people. They themselves say that all who live in Jerusalem know about the apparent miracle of the apostles, and at the same time they command that it should not be made public among the people. The thought of the decision, however, seems to be directed rather to the character of the explanation of the miracle than to the miracle itself as a fact, the publication of which was too late and naive to forbid.
The Sanhedrin forbids speaking about the “name” of Jesus, with whose power the apostles explain the performance of the miracle. “What folly!” exclaims John Chrysostom on this occasion, “knowing that Christ had risen and having in this proof of His Divinity, they hoped with their intrigues to hide the glory of Him whom death does not hold back. What can be compared with this folly? And do not be surprised that they again devise an impossible deed. Such is the property of malice: it looks at nothing, but wanders everywhere…”.
“never speak”. Not to speak even in private and not to teach in public.
Acts. 4:19. But Peter and John answered them and said: judge whether it is fair before God that we listen to you more than to God;
“is it just before God.” The apostles do their work according to God’s command, of which miracles are an obvious and sufficient sign. This commandment is all the more binding and authoritative for them, because it commands them to preach, not some distant, abstract, and unverified truth, but what they themselves have seen and heard. To give up the right to talk about these things is “impossible” as it would be tantamount to rendering a reasonable person speechless.
Thus it is also shown that the order of the Sanhedrin itself went beyond common sense and the laws of conscience, and as such justly deserved the same fate to which it now ventures to condemn the Divine commands.
Acts. 4:20. for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.
Acts. 4:21. And they, having threatened them, let them go, because because of the people they could not find how to punish them; for all glorified God for what had happened.
“they did not find how to punish them” (πῶς κολάσονται αὐτούς, διὰ τὸν λαόν). More precisely, Slavic: “nichoche obretshe, kako muchit ih”, that is, they did not find how, on what grounds, to punish them.
“because of the people” (cf. Matt. 21 et seq.) – because of fear of the people, because of the mass sympathy and favor towards the apostles.
Acts. 4:22. And the man with whom this miracle of healing happened was more than forty years old.
Deyan. 4:23. When they were released, they came to their own and told what the high priests and elders had told them.
“came to their own.” At this time their brethren were gathered together (verse 31), probably praying for the release of the apostles and for the successful completion of their work.
Acts. 4:24. And they, having listened to them, with one accord raised their voice to God and said: Lord, You are God, who created the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them;
“unanimously… they said.” It is likely that one of those present, perhaps Peter, was an exponent of the prayerful sentiments of the believers, who, repeating within themselves the words of his prayer, thus turned it into a unanimous prayer of the whole community (cf. Acts 1:24).
The prayer is based on a sentence from David’s second psalm (Ps. 2:1-2), which describes with evangelical clarity the rebellion of the kings and princes of the nations against the Messiah and the One who sent Him, which takes place during the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. As the apostles carried on the work of the Messiah, the present rebellion against them was also the same as that “against the Lord and His Christ,” and therefore gave rise to prayer for their protection and strengthening.
“They refer to the prophecy, as if asking God to fulfill his promise, and at the same time to console themselves that their enemies had devised all in vain. Their words mean, ‘Stop all this, and show that their designs were in vain.” (John Chrysostom, Theophylact).
Acts. 4:25. You are the One who, through the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David, Your servant, said: “Why were the nations agitated, and the people planned vain things?
The attribution of the quoted psalm to David is not evident from the inscription of the psalm itself, but it was probably indicated here by the apostles on the authority of tradition.
Acts. 4:26 a.m. The kings of the earth rose up, and the princes gathered together against the Lord and against His Anointed”.
Acts. 4:27. Because Herod and Pontius Pilate together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel gathered in that city against Your Holy Son Jesus, whom You anointed,
“Whom You have anointed” – ὃν ἔχρισας. This followed at His baptism, at the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him.
Acts. 4:28. that they may do that which Thy hand and Thy will had predestined to be done.
“to do this”. The enemies of Christ wanted to do quite another thing – to kill Jesus as the unacknowledged Messiah, but in reality, without knowing it, they did what the hand of God’s almighty had predestined to happen – to redeem all mankind through the death of the Messiah and restored it to its former dignity and glory (cf. John Chrysostom and Theophylact).
Acts. 4:29. And now, O Lord, look upon their threats, and grant Thy servants with full boldness to speak Thy word,
Acts. 4:30. as You stretch out Your hand for healing, and let miracles and omens happen in the name of Your Holy Son Jesus.
“stretching out Your healing hand” – ἐν τῷ τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐκτείνειν σε εἰς ἴασιν. In the Slavic translation: “once upon a time I extended Your hand to You in healing”. This is not a mere reference to the signs accompanying the work of the apostles, but to the necessity of the success of that work, which was also the object of their prayer. The meaning of the verses is: “Give … with boldness to speak Your word, as at that time You will help (help) them from Your side with wonderful healings and signs.”
Acts. 4:31. And after they had prayed, the place where they were gathered was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and boldly spoke the word of God.
“the place shook” – this was not a natural earthquake, but a miraculous earthquake (for only the “place of assembly” was shaken), which means that God heard their prayer, and at the same time foreshadows another miraculous event – the filling of believers with the emboldened power of the Holy Spirit.
It was also a symbol of God’s omnipotence, assuring the apostles that they need not fear the threats of the Sanhedrin and that He was strong enough to protect them by shaking the place of their prayer meeting (John Chrysostom, Theophilus). Thus, to encourage the gathered believers, the Lord immediately fulfilled their prayer and granted what they asked for: to speak with boldness and support their words with signs and wonders. And so they spoke, and the meeting place was “shaken.”
Acts. 4:32. And the many who believed had one heart and one soul; and no one called any of his property his own, but everything was common to them.
Acts. 4:33. The apostles testified with great power about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and great grace was upon them all.
The miracle of the healing of the lame and the great moral victory of the apostles over the Sanhedrin in its first rebellion against the new society is a great event in the early Christian church. Since then, the community of Christians has multiplied almost three times compared to the believers from the first day of Pentecost. This is why the author again finds it necessary to describe the inner state of this growing society (verses 32 – 37).
As the main characteristic of this society, he points out that the multitude had complete unanimity and brotherly love: “one heart and one soul” – perfect unity in thought, in feeling, in will, in faith, in the whole structure of spiritual life.
Truly, an amazing phenomenon in a sinful, self-absorbed world. Another characteristic feature, which naturally follows from the first, is the complete community of property, not by compulsion and by any law binding on all, but completely voluntarily, by virtue of the fraternal love and moral unity that animates all.
“no one called any of his property his own,” though there was property, but it was given brotherly to all who needed it, according to their needs, and thus general contentment was achieved and the complete absence of needy.
“great grace was upon them all.” It was the most characteristic and magnificent mutual aid society in the history of mankind, not devoid of a reasonable and elaborate organization, with a special general treasury, which, on the one hand, was constantly replenished by the proceeds of the property donated and sold for the common benefit, and on the other , continuously maintained a complete absence of the poor and needy. And at the head of this so wisely organized organization stood not great statesman minds, but ordinary Galilean fishermen, the apostles, or to be more precise – abundantly “the new power of truly Christian gracious inspiration pouring through them”, the power of faith and love for the Savior.
“they testified with great power about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ”. In explaining the great rapture of the believers, the author of Acts mentions the great power of the apostolic preaching “about the resurrection of the Lord.” This resurrection is the foundation of the whole Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:14), and therefore it is the foundation and center of the whole apostolic preaching, being, of course, not the exclusive, but only the main, the main theme of that preaching.
Acts. 4:34. There was not one among them who was in want; for those who owned lands or houses sold them and brought the price of what was sold
“who owned lands or houses” – ὅσοι γὰρ κτήτορες χωρίων ἢ οἰκιῶν ὑπῆρχον. The more accurate meaning of the expression is: not “all who”, but “those who”. Nor does “selling them” mean that the owners “sold everything,” leaving nothing for themselves. In both cases it is a question of good will and brotherly love on the part of everyone, and various degrees were allowed, in which there was not even a shadow of external coercion (cf. Acts 5:4).
Acts. 4:35. and laid at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each one according to his need.
“laid at the feet of the apostles” – in the sense of their complete disposition and responsibility.
Acts. 4:36. Thus, Josiah, called by the apostles Barnabas, which means son of consolation, a Levite, a native of Cyprus,
As an example of the sacrifices mentioned, perhaps the most instructive of all, the author points to Josiah, who was called by the apostles Barnabas, which means “son of comfort.” This Barnabas—afterwards so famous a companion of the apostle Paul—was a prophet (Acts 13:1), and his sobriquet probably indicated the special consolation of his inspired prophetic utterances (1 Cor. 14:3). He was also a “Levite.” (1 Cor. 14:3) This, too, is remarkable: never before has there been an instance of a holy knee bowing before Christ by faith in Him. However, soon there are mentions of many priests who submitted to Christ’s faith (Acts 6:7).
“native of Cyprus” – from the island of Cyprus, located off the coast of Palestine in the Mediterranean Sea.
Acts. 4:37. who had a field, sold it, brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles.
Priests and Levites could have real estate, as can be seen from the example of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 32 ff.).
Source in Russian: Explanatory Bible, or Commentaries on all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: In 7 volumes / Ed. prof. A.P. Lopukhin. – Ed. 4th. – Moscow: Dar, 2009, 1232 pp.
By Vasileios Thermos, Psychiatrist, Professor, and Priest of the Church of Greece
At the very beginning, we consider it necessary to make some clarifications. First of all, fundamentalism is not about specific ideas and beliefs. It should be seen as a particular worldview, as a way of thinking and relating – dualistic, paranoid, despotic and punitive.[1]
From this point of view, fundamentalism, although born in a Christian environment, is also found in a secular context – even an atheist or a rationalist can exhibit the above characteristics in their way of thinking. In such a case, the term “fundamentalist” is not used literally, insofar as it does not refer to the content of specific ideas. It is not related to any relevant reflection on the foundations in the particular variation of Modernity. Rather, it refers to the modern practice of investing in an absolute way in concrete ideas, as well as the neglect and hatred of the different that accompany this practice. Humanity has experienced the horror of secular fundamentalism in the form of militant godlessness. In our time, this hybrid manifests itself in the more moderate forms of ideological bias and scientific fanaticism.
Returning to our topic of religious fundamentalism, we must note that its definition is subject to semantic distinctions based on the various cultural elements that influence and participate in its formation. There is a group of fundamentalist Christians in the US who may not fall under the label of “religious fundamentalism”. This more moderate form of religious fundamentalism that we find there can be explained by the different distribution in the conservative-liberal range. In America, the term “conservative” as a self-definition includes a large number of Christians, the same ones who in Europe place themselves at the center of this scale. Europeans who self-identify as “conservatives” tend to be more austere, i.e. closer to a more extreme fundamentalism. The same is true of Islamic fundamentalism, although in this case research is needed as to what are those special paths that lead to its manifestation. In Europe, Islamic fundamentalism has most likely also adopted local characteristics, as there are many victims of Islamic radicalism.
On the other hand, it is easily explained that a more conventional conservatism, such as the American one, leaves a free field on the right for a tamer fundamentalism. No matter how controversial the latter, there is no doubt that many Americans would feel offended if someone classified them as a fundamentalist in the sense of a state of psychosis.[2]
* * *
Religious fundamentalism arose initially as a reaction of some Protestants against what they themselves saw as a threat from Modernity. Sometimes this threat was limited to their imaginary constructions; other times, however, very often, the threat was real – traditional interpretations of theological truth were threatened (because the encounter with Modernity calls for new interpretations) or truth itself was threatened (although, of course, fundamentalism does not represent an appropriate and productive alternative to rationalism).
The secularization that erupts from Modernity is a systemic expression of the modern subject’s thirst for individual autonomy and independence from any religious framework. Under this prism, secularization is loved and surrounded by trust and faith, it has become a movement and an ideology. In fact, Modernity has radically changed the way we think, as well as the way we think we should think.
As a reaction against this, religious fundamentalism feels that the world that springs from Modernity is hostile, and so fundamentalism encourages us to return to the sources, to the foundations. As a result, it is in fact a product of the stress arising from the consciousness that the modern remarkable cultural turn is irreversible, that both society and science have finally emancipated themselves from the traditional theological foundation. It is obvious that there is no reason to exclude the Orthodox Church from this description, since all societies are westernizing at a very fast pace.
According to religious fundamentalists, history has been distorted by Modernity; what for them is a “fall” is Modernity.[3] Furthermore, fundamentalists proclaim themselves to be the sole judges of truth, the only ones with the authority to decide who follows Christian truth and who is a traitor to it.[4] They have the ambition to unite in their own person and to play all the roles: to legislate, to accuse, to judge and to carry out the punishments at the same time.
An interesting fact that may have escaped public attention is that religious fundamentalism is also a “child” of Modernity. Although an unwanted child, he is nevertheless a true quasi-product of modern times, having developed under their shadow. Paradoxical as this may sound, it can serve to explain many interrelated phenomena.
Recognizing that religious fundamentalism owes its existence to secularization, we understand that both are inseparable entities. Secularization submits to the seductive power of the secular, while fundamentalism fights against it in panic and hatred. Both entities have elevated the mundane to the position of obsession—but each in opposite ways. They resemble each other and are therefore in competition with each other. This is logical, because what is born as a negation or antidote to something else is condemned to see its path determined exclusively by its unwanted “generator”, thus losing the possibility of being an expression of something original. Their constructive polarity explains their kinship, just as rebellious adolescents resemble their despotic parents in the long run.
Paradoxically, although religious fundamentalism is a passionate opponent of psychology, it actually functions as a kind of psychologism. He judges and interprets on the basis of habit, not on the basis of truth. For fundamentalism, what is threatened is immanent identity; it is the decisive criterion by which everything is determined. Terrified by the complexity of the modern world (which has already been modified into the chaos of Postmodernity), fundamentalism is quick to resort to oversimplified solutions because it cannot withstand doubt, confusion and coexistence.
This defensive reaction usually also mobilizes the identification with a characteristic linguistic vocabulary. The struggles of the fundamentalists in the Orthodox Church are well-known for investing in phraseology, in cult, in clothing, statutes and other historical patterns in which later church life has crystallized. Manzaridis writes with alarm that where fundamentalism raises its voice in defense of the sacred and against the profane, it actually absolutizes the created order.[5] In other words, a subconscious “applied psychology” absolutizes concrete human (creature) forms that the truth of the Church has assumed over time in order to articulate the external elements of tradition; therefore, it absolutizes history in its inability to understand that it is thus repeating the same sin against which it so fiercely fights.
Very often the idealization of the created order is characteristic of culture. Florovsky warned us about those who fall into the charm of being fascinated by culture in the name of their faith.[6] Indeed, culture has the remarkable power to attract Christians and get them carried away by it, thereby neglecting the meaning of the Church. Elements that make up this force of culture are customs, aesthetics, and closed community. Customs are capable of denying us our openness to the universality of truth, which is capable of accepting new ways of interpretation. Aesthetics can ensnare the faithful, binding them sensually to what is understood as tradition. And a closed community educates its members to be suspicious of any voice that seems out of place.
A worldview like the one we have described so far cannot function in a healthy way within the fundamentalist community. To be precise, we must say that this community is characterized by a lack of self-criticism, resistance to change, excessive attention to unimportant matters, despotism of leaders and dependence of their followers on them.[7] All these characteristics function as stabilizers of the threatened identity: both individual and collective.
The relationship with psychology is not the only example of that particular psychoanalytic defense mechanism called identification with the attacked. The irony here is that the religious fundamentalists themselves are moving down the same path of heresy, although it usually cannot be understood as heresy in its content, because they have decided to wage war within the Church and in the name of the Church, repeating allegedly and “protecting ” the ancient beliefs. Obviously, this choice of theirs will have to be appreciated and recognized. However, what escapes their notice (because of their outwardly orthodox and spiritual terminology) is that their dominant spiritual needs are exactly the same as those which lead others to resort to a given heresy or sect. As the Russian philosopher Berdyaev warned long ago, “… the fundamentalism of the extreme “Orthodoxy” in religion has a sectarian character. The feeling of satisfaction in belonging to a circle of the elect is a sectarian feeling”.[8]
* * *
However, it is possible to be faithful to one’s religion and be emotionally invested in the foundations of the faith without being a fundamentalist. Healthy religiosity is based on tradition and does not propose to remove its foundations, but at the same time it is incompatible with maladjustment and with prejudice. On the contrary, sick religiosity refers to the profile of a personality that reflects the deformation of the psychic structure: it has Manichean or dualistic beliefs; requires that clear lines be drawn between good and evil; absolutizes the truth and the authoritative figures who proclaim it; experiences anxiety when in complex circumstances; is attracted by the old and the familiar; identifies with maladaptive views; shows an inability to distinguish between essential and non-essential matters; feels uneasy about the changes.[9]
Furthermore, the fundamentalist’s mental image of God is usually that of a cruel and distant God, limited in sensitivity and core to the fundamental defense mechanism. The mechanism of projection is also mobilized to settle the guilt that inevitably arises from self-knowledge. Therefore, blame must be assigned to other individuals or groups. The religious fundamentalist has a desperate need to locate evil in some external source. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for religious groups to officially show their preference for such processes through their teachings.[10]
Such an unhealthy formed mental structure creates for them a sense of coherence, which culminates in a mental identity, although it is a pressed, superficial and contradictory identity. It also contains some relief from the pressure exerted by the external forces of decay. The cost of these debts is the sharp distinction between those in error and “us of the righteous.”
As if all this was not enough for them, lately the main and defining stress factor for fundamentalists has been getting worse. Postmodernity, characterized by fluid mixing and risky instability, has led to an increase in dissatisfaction. The more prematurely and hastily formed the identity, the more attackable it is now – this is an important point for psychology and for pastoral care. In other words, the problem is perpetuated: the fundamentalist psychosis contains within itself the grounds for its intensification when conditions become less favorable, because it arose as a temporary solution and not as a free mature development.
To the extent that violence usually harbors a barely perceptible threat, it finds its justification in the phenomenon of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are often insecure in their faith. The reason lies in the fact that their faith, precisely because it is not due to a conscious adoption of dogmas, but to a simple declaration, is not sufficient to tame the external forces of corruption that are innate in each of us. Faith needs a complete existential participation, which implies a living relationship with God; consequently, the lack of emotional sensitivity and responsibility leaves the soul unsatisfied and hanging in the air. Dissatisfaction is thus appeased by the imposition of the dogmas on others; others become a monitor on which the fundamentalists’ unconscious clashes take place.
Consequently, religious fundamentalists are sometimes divided in their desires. In a mental structure that is restless, devoid of peace, as described in the preceding paragraph, the sight of surrounding people who are free and joyful leads to envy, which can quickly escalate into hatred. The sad thing here is that it is disguised as what it considers itself to be “holy jealousy”. The inability to rejoice leads to the prohibition of joy.
Through these processes, fundamentalists base their religiosity on fear rather than love. In this case, offensiveness becomes an actual matter of spiritual survival rather than an expression of courage.[11] As a result, the noblest elements of faith are not internalized, not subjectivized. Instead, deeply uncultivated psychic polemicism finds the possibility of legitimizing itself through the discovery of a strong alibi, such as the defense of “lore,” a defense that derives not from trust but from fear. It is a fear that can develop into real paranoia, i.e. malicious suspicion of non-existent enemies. We understand, then, how the inner-psychic motivations for upholding the tradition are more mundane than fundamentalists can imagine.
What are the spiritual roots of religious fundamentalists’ fear? Psychoanalysis has dealt extensively with introverted (inner) objects as sources of love, hate, and other feelings. The mental image each of us has of God derives its characteristic properties from the internal images of other people we have within us, being guided by our perceived successes or failures of them. When the spiritual image of our parents causes fear in us, then, in the case of the religious person, it is most likely that he perceives God as strict or hostile or persecutory, etc. Some people manage to limit fear in their individual religious field; however, others, depending on the circumstances, legitimize their fear by fitting it into the collective “legitimate” worldview of fundamentalism. By finding one’s place in the collective space, it helps one to legitimize one’s own individual paranoia.
Interestingly, not all fundamentalists preach a fearful and vengeful God; some seem to harbor unhealthy subconscious feelings, while at the same time their sermons are rather theologically sound. This is yet another indication that faith is an existential event, not just some face value of some verbal outpouring.
Based on Melanie Klein’s famous study of the transition from paranoid-schizoid to depressive state,[12] the fear that springs from an internalized “bad god” can coexist with the adoption of a paranoid-schizoid stance along with the inability to develop in direction to a depressed position. What this means, in fact, is that fundamentalists tend to see others as entirely evil, while at the same time seeing themselves as entirely good (as with ideas and interpretations: a sharp distinction between right and wrong dominates). “In psychoanalytic terminology, reductionism means backwardness, erasing the ‘middle ground’, to bisect, dividing the world into security and threat, good and evil, life and death”.[13] Such a thwarting of the normal transition is usually marked by a state of psychosis.
Berdyaev emphasizes that “… the fanatics who act with the greatest empathy, pressure and cruelty always feel themselves surrounded by dangers and always overcome by fear. Fear always makes a person react violently… In the mind of a fanatic, the devil always appears to him as terrible and strong, and he believes in him more strongly than he believes in God… Against the devil’s forces, a holy inquisition or various commissariats are always created… But the devil always he proved to be stronger because he was able to penetrate these institutions and take over their leadership”.[14]
Ignorance of one’s own “I” can reach the point where hatred and fear are repressed, restrained and beautified under the false sense that the persecution is carried out in the name of a hypothetical love. Berdyaev continues with the words: “The holy inquisitors of old were fully convinced that the inhuman acts they did, flogging, burning at the stake, etc., were an expression of their love for humanity… He who sees devilish traps all around him, is the same one who always alone perpetrates persecutions, tortures and guillotines. It is better for a man to suffer short torments within the earthly life than to perish in eternity. Torquemada[15] was an uncomplaining and selfless person, he did not want anything for himself, he was completely dedicated to his idea, to his faith. While torturing people, he served God, did everything exclusively for the glory of God, had a particularly sensitive streak in him, felt no malice and hostility towards anyone, was a kind of “good” person”.[16]
In other words, those who discover devils in harm’s way end up becoming devils themselves, while, in a tragic irony, they care for truth and love!
Dichotomous thinking obviously hinders self-criticism, and to an even greater extent it hinders the building of bridges of communication and exchange with enlightened circles. But the reverse is not inevitable either: not all paranoid-schizoid sufferers develop fundamentalist ideas and practices. It deserves to be investigated why for some people this type of pathology is limited only to individual relationships, while for others it acquires the corresponding views that lead them to form coalitions and struggle to mobilize against the enemy. At the collective level, the inability to reach a depressive position means, in fact, that the group is unable or unwilling to accept the historical trauma and therefore to grieve; instead, it responds to pain with recourse to action and cognitive distortion.
Facts, history and ideas call for interpretation, while time demands that this interpretation be done with urgency. The art of hermeneutics is an opening to the new and the fresh, which call us to make sense of truth amid new conditions. At the same time, every new thing stresses the fundamentalists. They do not wish to interpret because they fear not only mistakes, but – something far more terrible – they fear the appearance of their own otherness as interpretive subjects. Fundamentalists, swayed by the utopian expectation of an imagined totalitarian purity, unable to bear doubt or polyvalence, fearful of what will happen in the wake of the gradual disclosure of their own “I”—let us not forget that interpretation is at the same time a litmus for the truth of the interpreter himself, and not only for the truth of the object—suggests in the end to maintain the infantile position, repeating old recipes of their predecessors, rather than marking their lives with their own personal otherness. As a result of the sincere interpretation, inner freedom, security, conscientiousness, the exploration of the abyss of the psychological inner world of the mind and the heart actually manifests in an unforced way; anything can be stressful.
Likewise, the religious fundamentalist is indecisive, unwilling or unable to interpret the sacred texts because he regards them as fossils without considering them in the context in which they appeared. In its finished form, his word is devoid of metaphoricality, which is a necessary means of interpretation. From a psychoanalytic point of view, the religious fundamentalist (as a collective rather than an individual diagnosis) functions in the Church as a psychosis. A main characteristic of psychosis is that the word is always concrete, without a metaphorical function. Among the aspects of metaphor (μεταφορά) are translation (μετάφραση) and contextual theology. As a result, it makes perfect sense that fundamentalists fight both the translation of liturgical texts into a modern common language (in the case of Greece) and the contextual interpretation of theological tradition.
As a result, held hostage to an extreme “cataphatic” truth that is demarcated with intransigent phraseology, religious fundamentalism is unwilling or even hostile to the possibility of accepting the “shaking” of both theological thought and religious experience, that is, to welcome an “apophatic” perspective. Thus, isolating himself, he must inevitably seek out enemies and apostates. Therefore, the other way in which fundamentalism tends towards a state of psychosis is through paranoia, i.e. fear, which shuts down all dialogue and acceptance.[17]
Paranoia should be understood as closely related to dichotomous thinking.[18] If people are either good or bad, then it is easily understandable that a person would want to be counted among the good. Usually, the fear either does not correspond to the potential threat or is artificially created in relation to a non-existent threat. I have mentioned above that inward enmity assumes a Christian guise, and is brought out when the uncultivated destructive forces of the soul are set in motion against that which is perceived as an enemy. Thus, the threat is understood as something that originates from outside, while in reality it is an overt hostility.[19] Paranoia as narrative and activity is a paradigmatic model for unconscious reverse autobiography.
All this really means that religious fundamentalism is a symptom and at the same time an attempt at self-healing: although it is an example of psychosis in the Church, it manages to organize thought patterns and thoughts in such a way as to limit psychotic stress. Consequently, it functions both as an ecclesiastical disease and also as a defense mechanism that prevents this same disease from becoming an individual diagnosis. In other words, it means moving from the individual level to the group level – the fundamentalists make the Church sick so that they themselves do not fall into psychosis!
It is obvious that such a procedure cannot function. Individual psychosis can be treated with the means of psychiatry, while the collective “psychosis” ends in a deformation of theology. It is expected that the dilemma between personal insanity and the apparently secure system of ideas will always find its solution in favor of the former – personal insanity. Orthodox theology is deformed by fundamentalism – either in its verbal form (through the verbal proclamation of isolation or hatred, or mistrust, or fear, etc.), or through its practical application (through its adherence to a hypothetical “tradition”, through the promotion of clericalism or “old age”, of supporting nationalism or the right, of attributing heretical thoughts to anyone with a different opinion, etc.). By placing psychosis at the service of theology, fundamentalism leads to the thwarting of its liberating and saving mission, while at the same time turning pastoral practice into a danger to the souls of men. It also has the power to make even a moderate and necessarily contextual theology seem like an arbitrary or vainglorious alternative.
Karen Armstrong writes of fundamentalists: “They indulge in confrontation with enemies whose secular policies and beliefs seem hostile to religion itself. Fundamentalists do not see this battle as a conventional political struggle, but experience it as a war of the worlds between the forces of good and evil. They fear annihilation and seek ways to strengthen their beleaguered identity through the selective retrieval of certain teachings and practices from the past. To avoid desecration, they often withdraw from society to create a counterculture. However, fundamentalists are not dreamers floating in the clouds. They have absorbed the pragmatist rationalism of Modernity and, under the guidance of their charismatic leaders, refine these “fundamentals” to create an ideology that gives the believer a blueprint for action. Finally, they strike back, undertaking a reconsecration of an increasingly skeptical world”.[20]
While the sanctification of the world is no doubt a desirable thing, if we look at it in a theological perspective, it cannot be the result of forceful imposition; it can only be accomplished through the personal sanctification of Christians. Christ came to “condemn sin in His flesh” (“condemniti greh vo ploti Svoei”),[21] not “in our flesh”.
Religious fundamentalism cannot be understood simply as a flawed way of thinking. It is a false response through ideological and behavioral conditioning to external emotional problems: a false sense of truth and power begins to become inevitable when stress is experienced as humiliating. Fundamentalists feel they have no control over change, which is true; however, they do not have the consciousness that they never had such control! This is one of the most basic deceptions they live by, which originated in times that were more favorable to the Church – “caesar” being the main common denominator of this false feeling. The extreme party in the Church misinterprets its institutional influence, mistaking it for authority over human souls, i.e. they mistakenly believe that when the current culture and political life is positive towards church people, then they are driven by the same beliefs and moral values .
The issue of incapacity requires a lot of attention. The prominent psychologist of religion Gordon Allport links prejudice to inner feelings of weakness and shame: “Sometimes the source of fear is unknown or forgotten or repressed. Fear may simply be a repressed remnant of internal emotional weaknesses in dealing with the processes of the external world… a generalized sense of inadequacy… However, stress is like hostility in that people tend to feel ashamed of it… Although we partly repress it, at the same time we shift its position so that it sublimates into socially acceptable sources of fear. Some people among us display an almost hysterical fear of “Communists.” It is a socially acceptable phobia. The same men would not be honored if they accepted the true source of much of their stress, which is to be found in their personal inadequacy and in the dread they feel of life”.[22]
This excerpt peels back the veil of fundamentalism, stripping it of its intended ideological character, and exposes the profound mental inadequacy and insecurity of the prejudiced extremist fighter. This deficiency is not necessarily objective: particular people may be genuinely talented. Subjective feeling is what rules here, as fundamentalists are emotionally convinced that they are useful and valuable only through “witch hunts”. The traumatic feeling that springs from the experience that history is running against us, indifferent or offensive to our subjective desires, finds solace in the false sense that the fundamentalist is a gifted, blessed man who contributes decisively to the exposure of heresy and the preservation of truth.
Shifting the battle from the psychological to the ideological field is crucial for fundamentalists, because in this way their mental and spiritual malaise is concealed and rationalized. The result is that belief becomes ideology, and as 20th century history has taught us very well, ideologies function as an effective antidote to stress as well as an excellent disguise for psychopathology. Ideologies have the ability to reduce and systematize the complexity of the world, to bring the warmth of belonging, and to banish the guilt caused by angry outbursts, presenting them as blessings against the “bad.” These mechanisms are a very ancient phenomenon, about which St. Basil the Great wrote: “Some, therefore, understand the supposed defense of Orthodoxy as a weapon in their war against others. And, concealing their personal enmities, they pretend to fight in the name of piety”.[23]
Fortunately, fanaticism does not always breed fundamentalism. However, even though they do not match, they have some common characteristics. “A fanatic is self-centered. The fanatic’s faith, his boundless and selfless devotion to an idea, does not help him to overcome his egocentrism. The fanatic’s asceticism—fanatics are often ascetics—does not defeat his devotion to himself, nor is he turned to the actual givens. The fanatic – whatever orthodoxy he belongs to – identifies with his ideas, identifies the truth with himself. And finally this becomes the only criterion of Orthodoxy”.[24] Perhaps one preventive measure would be to pastorally address fanaticism before it develops into fundamentalism.
Let’s make one last comment (but not the last). To what extent has Orthodox fundamentalism been fueled by expanding conservatism and the centuries-old incorporation of our church? Perhaps some good-natured forms of fear of the world are relapsing into vicious fundamentalism because of the facilities that the church space offers them in this direction? In short: might some common characteristics of the Orthodox Church favor extremes instead of restraining them?
In other words, is fundamentalism a purely personal failure, or is it nursed by immanent disorders in the functioning of the system? Prof. Vassilis Saroglu, enumerating many problematic worldviews and behaviors in Greek Orthodox church life (sectarian tendencies, isolationism, Hellenocentrism, hostility to the West, despotism, judicialism, suspiciousness), asks if there is an umbilical cord that probably connects fundamentalism with Orthodox life as such: “Is fundamentalism foreign, or is it related to Orthodox theology?”.[25]
It is difficult for moderate conservatives to diagnose whether the case in question is valid. Because the repressed manifestations of extreme fundamentalist behavioral responses (paranoia, aggression) are invoked, they are unable to recognize that they too probably suffer from milder forms of the same deviant spectrum. To be precise, they exhibit the same characteristics as the fundamentalists, differing from them only in degree and intensity. Their sincere protest “we are conservatives, not extremists”, while formally correct, obscures reality, neutralizes vigilance and leaves unprotected the field in which fundamentalism rises.
If our church wishes to truly weaken and disarm Orthodox fundamentalism, it will need to re-educate its ecclesial totality so that both the psychological and ideological fundamentalist complex is tracked down and obliterated. We know that things do not change quickly, but a clear strategy that is flexible, open to serious and theologically grounded changes, with a vision that is broader than the national, will certainly bear fruit. The key word here is prudence.
This progressive advance means that Orthodox church life (worship, catechesis, leadership, administration) will cease to serve defensive identities, but will instead embrace the very essence of the Incarnation. Indeed, I can find no better description of the antidote to religious fundamentalism than that offered by the late eminent Greek theologian Panagiotis Nelas: “Orthodoxy, which neither fights nor competes with any culture, wants to live in ours as well ( western culture), even more willing to incarnate in it, precisely to help it overcome its immanent impasses. And it can do so, since it is based on the fundamental principle of the incarnation and the transfiguration of the problem, on which the fathers of the Church relied in order to meet the Greek culture. This principle expresses at the level of Church-sacred relations the central Chalcedonian Christological dogma… It is a question of a complete loving surrender, of the pouring out or condescension of the Church towards culture, something that means not only toleration of the elements subject to transformation of culture, but also their complete assimilation in so far as it leads to their transformation into the flesh of the Church… These particular elements of culture must be Christianized. This is where the great reality of asceticism intervenes… The Church is the real and actual Body of Christ, and the body of the Church is pure and simple the social body. Christianity is asceticism, when it does not deny, but accepts the body, loves it and fights to save it”.[26]
We are called to live this change, which is a criterion of vital importance.
[1] Eklof, T. Fundamentalism as Disorder. A case for Listing it in the APA’s DSM, 2016. The author also highlights the similarity between fundamentalist thinking and the childish way of thinking as described by Piaget: finite and unconditioned, unable to put oneself in the place of the other. This infantility may account for the oversimplification (which represents yet another stressor that creates fear) that anything that cannot be interpreted by the tools available is a threat.
[2] Indeed, I personally know many religious Americans who share an ultra-simplistic religious mindset without necessarily embracing paranoid, despotic, or punitive worldviews.
[3] Hunter, J.D. “Fundamentalism in Its Global Contours” – In: The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: A View from Within; A Response from Without, ed. by N. Cohen, ‘Eerdmans’ 1990, p. 59.
[4] Arbuckle, G. Refounding the Church: Dissent for Leadership, Maryknoll, N.Y.: “Orbis Books” 1993, p. 53.
[6] Florovsky, G. Christianity and Culture, Northland, 1974, p. 21-27.
[7] Xavier, N. S. The Two Faces of Religion: A Psychiatrist’s View, New Orleans, La.: “Portals Pr” 1987, p. 44.
[8] Berdyaev, N. “Concerning Fanaticism, Orthodoxy and Truth”, transl. by Fr. S. Janos, 1937 – here.
[9] Jaspard, J.-M. “Signification Psychologique d’Une Lecture “Fondamentaliste” de la Bible” – In: Revue Théologique de Louvain, 37, 2, 2006, p. 204-205.
[10] Jones, J. W. “Why Does Religion Turn Violent? A Psychoanalytic Exploration of Religious Terrorism” – In: The Psychoanalytic Review, 93, 2, 2006, p. 181, 186.
[11] Hunter, J.D. Op. cit., p. 70.
[12] Klein, M. Envy and Gratitude: A Study of Unconscious Sources, London: Basic Books 1957, p. 22-31. Klein deals with the two unconscious positions which mark the organization of the personality at an early stage of life. The schizoid-paranoid position recreates the immature state in which the young child perceives the outside world as “black and white”, i.e. he experiences his mother exclusively as good or as bad, as well as the mother-toddler pair as absolutely good, and the outside world as a potential hazard. The depressive position, on the other hand, is the natural successor of the schizoid-paranoid: with this transition, the individual’s ability to worry is gradually gained, complex perceptions of himself and others begin to form, and the capacity to feel guilt is internalized in adulthood .
[13] Young, R. “Psychoanalysis, Terrorism, and Fundamentalism” – In: Psychodynamic Practice, 9, 3, 2003, p. 307-324.
[14] Berdyaev, N. Op. cit.
[15] Thomas de Torquemada (1420-1498) – Spanish clergyman, first inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition (note trans.).
[16] Berdyaev, N. Op. cit.; cf. Verdluis, A. The New Inquisitions: Heretic Hunting and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Totalitarianism, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006, p. 138-139.
[17] Powell, J., Gladson, J., Mayer, R. “Psychotherapy with the Fundamentalist Client” – In: Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 4, 1991, p. 348.
[18] Eklof, T. Op. cit.
[19] Arbuckle, G. Op. cit., p. 53; Hunter, J.D. Op. cit., p. 64.
[20] Armstrong, K. The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, London: Random House 2000, p. hi.
[21] St. Liturgy of St. Basil the Great – Prayer of Ascension.
[22] Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice, Doubleday 1958, p. 346.
From there they point out that for more than 2000 years Christianity has been the basis of European civilization. The BOC emphasizes that it has left its indelible mark on all spheres of human life and culture. Jesus Christ and His disciples and followers have served as inspiration in the creation of the greatest works of human art, the synod points out in its position.
The Holy Synod is categorical that the opening ceremony of the XXXIII Summer Olympic Games in France has thrown the Christian world into turmoil. The presented artistic images are completely incompatible with Christian evangelical morality, with Christian spiritual life, with common human reason, with natural human law, with centuries-old European aesthetic criteria, as well as with the classical ideal of beauty – a healthy spirit in a healthy body, embedded in the idea of The olympic games, celebrate the clergy.
According to the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church vulgarity and ideological tastelessness are only part of the problem. In his position, it is stated that the religious feelings of the faithful have been offended. The clerics point out that the many critical voices that have been heard for several days testify to the fact that Christian Europe is alive, and attempts to de-Christianize and dehumanize it will not succeed. The Synod emphasizes that all attempts to fight against Christ and the church end in failure.
The path of our people is the European path, but we are for a Christian Europe, for a Europe that respects and honors its history and roots. We are convinced that without a real, living faith in Christ and in eternal Christian values, Europe does not and cannot have a future, writes the Holy Synod.
Illustrative photo: Pontius Pilatus, fresco at the monastery of Transfiguration, VelikoTarnovo diocese, Bulgaria
In the heart of Paris, amidst the roar of a passionate crowd, David Popovici made history by becoming the first Romanian male swimmer to clinch an Olympic gold medal. His impressive performance in the men’s 200m freestyle at the Paris La Defense Arena on July 29, 2024, not only marked a personal victory but also a significant milestone for Romania in the world of swimming. This blog post delves into Popovici’s remarkable journey, his philosophy of perfection, and the moments that made this event unforgettable.
As the race came to an end, the atmosphere in the arena was electric. Popovici’s powerful strokes carved through the water, and as he touched the wall, adrenaline surged as he looked up to see his name at the top of the scoreboard. It was an ecstatic moment; with emotions spilling over, he splashed the water in celebration, embracing the victory he had worked so hard for. The gold medal hung around his neck like a testament to years of training and perseverance.
For a moment, the weight of expectations lifted, and he reveled in the joy of his achievement. Flashes from photographers captured the delight on his face as he posed proudly with his gold medal. However, this joyous interlude was fleeting. Known for his reflective demeanor, Popovici quickly transitioned back to his characteristic poise, preparing himself for what lay ahead.
Chasing Perfection: A Humble Mindset
What sets David Popovici apart is not just his record-breaking speed in the water but also his profound approach to the sport. In interviews, he remains modest despite his incredible accomplishments. “Absolutely no one is a perfect swimmer. Neither am I,” he reflects, acknowledging that even legends like Michael Phelps have their imperfections. This mindset drives him daily, as he trains relentlessly to get closer to his version of perfection.
“I just try to chase perfection,” Popovici emphasizes. “But being aware that you can never touch it.” This philosophy reveals a deeper understanding of the sport; it’s not just about the medals and records, but also about the relentless pursuit of improvement. It’s a lesson that resonates not just with athletes but with everyone striving for excellence in their fields.
The Road to Paris: Overcoming Challenges
David’s journey to gold was not devoid of obstacles. From early morning training sessions to grueling workouts, he faced multiple hurdles, including injuries and the pressure of competition. However, each challenge only fueled his determination to excel. Popovici’s focus remained unshaken, always looking ahead to the next race and the next goal.
His resilience mirrors that of many elite athletes who must navigate personal and professional challenges while maintaining peak performance. With each setback, he refined his technique and strategy, preparing for the brightest stage in the world: the Olympics.
Celebrating Romania’s Achievement
Popovici’s victory is more than just a personal triumph; it is a historic achievement for Romania, igniting national pride and inspiring a new generation of swimmers. His success brings attention to the country’s burgeoning talent in the sport and showcases the dedication of Romanian athletes on the global stage.
In the wake of his monumental win, Popovici has called for increased support for swimming programs in Romania, expressing hope that young swimmers will follow in his footsteps, fueled by dreams of Olympic glory. The impact of his achievement extends beyond the medal count—it inspires change and growth within the sport nationally.
David Popovici – A Legacy of Excellence
David Popovici’s journey to gold at the Paris 2024 Olympics embodies the spirit of chasing perfection, humility, and resilience. His victory not only adds a glorious chapter to his career but also sets a powerful example for athletes worldwide.
As he continues to push boundaries in the pool while remaining grounded, Popovici illustrates that greatness is not solely defined by victories but by the pursuit of improvement and the impact one can have on others. With his eyes set on future competitions, we can be sure of one thing: the “Skinny Legend” will keep chasing perfection, inspiring many along the way. The world eagerly awaits what will come next from this extraordinary athlete.
As Europe navigates through a rapidly changing global landscape, the urgency for a unified and proactive approach has never been clearer. The recent discussions by Renew Europe highlight the fundamental policy priorities aimed at strengthening the European Union (EU) for all its citizens. This blog post delves into the key focal points raised by Renew Europe, as outlined by Clara De Melo Ponce, and examines the necessary steps for a resilient and prosperous EU.
The Aftermath of the European Elections: A Call to Action
In the wake of the recent European elections, it has become evident that citizens are increasingly unsettled by the complexities and insecurities surrounding them. Renew Europe is poised to address these concerns head-on, emerging as the advocates for liberals and centrists throughout Europe. Their commitment centers on empowering democratic rights and values, fostering sustainable growth, and enhancing competitiveness to improve the quality of life for all EU citizens.
This vision emphasizes the need for a new political compass that focuses on addressing pressing issues while embracing a spirit of institutional reform. Key initiatives include the implementation of the migration and asylum pact and the Green Deal, which aim to manage challenges that the EU faces.
A Unified Approach to Security: The European Defence Union
The turbulent geopolitical scenario, marked by threats to European security, accentuates the need for a robust Defence Union. Renew Europe stresses the urgency of forging a collaborative framework that not only protects the Union but also responds swiftly and effectively to emerging threats.
Valérie Hayer, President of Renew Europe, captured the essence of this urgency, stating: “Unity and resolve are our best defence against evolving security threats.” This requires a collective approach to defence, minimizing reliance on external partners, especially with potential instability from the United States. A proactive stance, including a fully-fledged Security and Defence Committee within the European Parliament, is crucial for the future of Europe and its citizens.
Driving Growth and Competitiveness: The Path Ahead
To close the growing competitiveness gap with global powerhouses like China and the US, Europe must adopt a comprehensive strategy centered on innovation, entrepreneurship, and a well-functioning single market. Renew Europe emphasizes the deepening of the single market and the strict enforcement of market rules as vital components of this approach.
Hayer advocates for a Europe that nurtures its entrepreneurs, stating, “We want a Europe where entrepreneurs and small businesses feel at home.” Streamlining regulations, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and ensuring strategic investments are essential for fostering an environment conducive to business growth and sustainability.
A Commitment to Democratic Values
One of the cornerstones of Renew Europe’s vision is an unwavering commitment to upholding democratic values and principles. The group is resolute in rejecting collaboration with extremist or populist figures, emphasizing that a stronger Europe must emerge from the political center.
This commitment extends to demanding accountability from the European Commission in tackling violations of rule of law. The implementation of necessary reforms aligns with the values that have historically defined the EU, ensuring that the institution acts as a reliable “prosperity machine” for its citizens.
Renew Europe’s Vision for the Future
As Europe faces a myriad of challenges, the priorities laid out by Renew Europe represent a clarion call for unity, accountability, and proactive governance. By championing a strong, inclusive, and competitive European Union, Renew Europe signifies hope for a continent grappling with insecurity and change.
With a clear focus on creating a secure environment, advancing economic prosperity, and protecting democratic values, the path forward requires collective effort and visionary leadership. The commitment to building a robust and free Europe, capable of navigating the complexities of today’s world, is imperative for the well-being of all EU citizens. The time for action is now, and the vision for a more competitive, secure, and free European Union is within reach.
Recent developments in Bangladesh have raised significant alarm within the international community, particularly regarding the announcement of a controversial “shoot on sight” policy. As violence escalates, the High Representative’s statement during the ASEAN Regional Forum Ministerial Meeting sheds light on the urgent need for accountability and justice. This blog post examines the troubling situation in Bangladesh, the implications for human rights, and the necessary steps toward restoring peace and order.
The alarm bells began ringing on July 27, 2024, when the High Representative conveyed serious concerns to Dr. A.K. Abdul Momen, Bangladesh’s former Foreign Minister, regarding the government’s newly declared “shoot on sight” policy. This directive, coupled with the unlawful killings reported in recent days, has sparked widespread condemnation and fear among citizens and international observers alike.
The repercussions of such a policy are both immediate and profound, threatening to erode trust in law enforcement and escalating an already volatile situation. The potential for human rights abuses is alarmingly high, and the High Representative’s statement reflects a strong stance against the government’s actions, underscoring the need for restraint and adherence to human rights standards.
Rising Violence and Accountability Demands
The situation in Bangladesh is exacerbated by reported violence, including attacks on law enforcement officers, torture, mass arrests, and widespread damage to property. These acts not only disrupt societal harmony but also propel the nation into a spiral of fear and distrust. The High Representative has called for thorough investigations into these acts, stressing that those responsible must be held accountable.
Accountability is vital in restoring public faith in the justice system. The need for an impartial investigation into these unlawful killings and violent acts cannot be overstated. Importantly, all individuals arrested must receive their due process, reflecting fundamental democratic principles and respect for human rights.
Protecting the Innocent: A Human Rights Crisis
Amidst the turmoil, it is crucial to highlight the indiscriminate nature of the violence that has swept across Bangladesh. Reports indicate that protesters, journalists, and even children have not been spared from excessive and lethal force employed by law enforcement. Such disproportionate responses are not only a blatant violation of human rights but also a significant threat to individual freedoms and civil liberties.
The High Representative’s statement underscores an essential truth: protection of the innocent should be paramount. The international community must stand in solidarity with the victims and advocate for a framework that prioritizes human rights, allowing Bangladesh to emerge from this crisis with renewed commitment to justice and equality.
The Path Forward: EU-Bangladesh Relations
As the High Representative pointed out, the developments in Bangladesh will be closely monitored, taking into consideration the fundamentals of EU-Bangladesh relations. The European Union has historically engaged with Bangladesh to promote sustainable development, human rights, and stability. However, these recent actions pose a significant challenge to the integrity of that relationship.
Moving forward, it is crucial for the Bangladeshi authorities to realign their approach, emphasizing respect for human rights and the rule of law. The EU is in a unique position to facilitate dialogue and encourage reforms that can enable Bangladesh to navigate this crisis while maintaining its commitment to human rights.
A Hope for Justice
The unfolding events in Bangladesh are a stark reminder of the delicate balance between governance and human rights. The High Representative’s concerns encapsulate the urgent need for an end to violence, accountability for wrongful acts, and the protection of civilian lives.
As the international community watches closely, it is essential for Bangladesh to reassess its approach, ensuring that all citizens can enjoy their rights without fear of retribution. Only through genuine commitment to justice and accountability can Bangladesh hope to restore public trust and pave the way for a peaceful and prosperous future. The world stands ready to support this journey towards achieving true justice and respect for human rights for all Bangladeshi citizens.
As the dust settles from Venezuela’s recent presidential election, the European Union (EU) has provided a critical assessment of the electoral process, emphasizing the ongoing challenges faced by the nation. High Representative Josep Borrell’s recent statement sheds light on both the commendable aspects of Venezuelan civic engagement and the significant shortcomings in the electoral system. In this blog post, we will explore the implications of these recent elections for democracy in Venezuela.
The EU commends the determination of the Venezuelan people to exercise their democratic right to vote, highlighting the crucial role of civic participation in a healthy democracy. Despite severe political and economic instability, the willingness of citizens to come out and cast their ballots reflects a desire for change and a commitment to democratic principles.
However, Borrell notes that this determination comes against a backdrop of an uneven playing field, where the opposition’s participation has been complicated by various systemic challenges. The EU recognizes the efforts of opposition groups to engage in the electoral process under these difficult circumstances, emphasizing that the will of the people must be respected and upheld.
Lack of Transparency: A Call for Clarity
One of the most pressing concerns outlined in the EU’s statement is the lack of transparency in the electoral results. As Borrell aptly pointed out, the reported outcomes of the elections cannot be deemed representative of the people’s will until there is a full publication and verification of all official records from polling stations.
To instill faith in the electoral process, the EU urges the Venezuelan Electoral Council (CNE) to prioritize transparency, calling for immediate access to voting records and the publication of disaggregated election results. This call for clarity is crucial to restoring faith in the electoral system and addressing the grievances of Venezuelan citizens who feel disenfranchised.
Flaws and Irregularities: A Troubling Trend
Despite the commitment of Venezuelans to participate in the electoral process, credible reports indicate that the elections were rife with irregularities. The EU has expressed regret that key recommendations from the 2021 EU Electoral Observation Mission were not heeded. These recommendations aimed to address fundamental issues undermining the electoral integrity, such as obstacles to opposition candidates, deficiencies in the voter registry, and imbalanced media access.
These flaws not only tarnish the credibility of the elections but also reinforce the perception of a political landscape heavily skewed against the opposition, raising alarms about the future of democracy in Venezuela.
Human Rights Concerns: A Dark Cloud Over the Process
Borrell’s statement does not shy away from addressing the concerning human rights situation in Venezuela during the electoral process. Reports of arbitrary detentions and intimidation of opposition members and civil society activists underscore a climate of fear and repression that permeates the political arena.
The EU strongly advocates for the immediate release of all political prisoners, emphasizing that a genuine democracy can only exist with respect for human rights and freedoms. The call for calm and respect for the right to peaceful assembly is critical as tensions rise in the aftermath of the elections.
A Hopeful Path Forward: Dialogue and Engagement
Despite the challenges highlighted during the electoral process, the EU remains committed to supporting political and diplomatic efforts to foster dialogue and find a peaceful resolution to Venezuela’s political crisis. Borrell’s statement reiterates the EU’s support for both regional and international initiatives aimed at restoring the democratic legitimacy of Venezuelan institutions.
In these uncertain times, a collaborative and peaceful approach remains essential in guiding Venezuela toward a more democratic and just future.
Conclusion: Navigating the Future of Venezuelan Democracy
Venezuela’s recent presidential election has shed light on many systemic issues that need urgent attention. While the determination of the Venezuelan populace to vote is a beacon of hope, it is overshadowed by significant electoral irregularities and human rights violations. The EU’s strong stance on transparency, respect for political rights, and the need for constructive dialogue underscores the complex challenges ahead.
As the international community watches closely, the next steps for Venezuela will be crucial in defining its path toward democracy. Through sustained engagement and commitment to democratic principles, it is possible for Venezuela to navigate these turbulent waters and emerge as a strong, democratic nation that truly reflects the will of its people.
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) released its latest Risk Dashboard, providing insights into the health of Europe’s occupational pension funds, officially known as Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORPs). The findings indicate an overall stable risk landscape; however, significant concerns regarding market risks persist amid ongoing volatility and real estate market vulnerabilities.
The report reveals that the exposure of IORPs to market and asset return risks remains high due to persistent market fluctuations. The macroeconomic landscape is displaying medium-level risks, with projected GDP growth across major geographical areas showing some positive trends but still falling short of historical averages. This tempered outlook reflects the complexities and uncertainties facing the European economies as they navigate recovery pathways.
Credit risks are meanwhile stable at a medium level; however, there has been an increase in credit default swaps (CDS) spreads for corporate bonds noted by the end of June 2024. In contrast, government bond spreads have remained largely consistent, suggesting a differentiated risk environment between corporate and sovereign borrowing.
High levels of volatility have been observed in both fixed income and equity markets, as the report highlights a noticeable decline in real estate prices across the Euro Area. This decline is primarily attributed to challenges in the commercial real estate sector, which remains a critical area of concern for pension funds reliant on steady asset performance. However, there is a silver lining; recent annual data shows a rebound in IORPs’ portfolio performance for 2023, mainly driven by positive market returns.
Reserve and funding risks for defined benefit IORPs are assessed as unchanged at a medium level. The financial robustness of these funds continues to be supported by rising interest rates as of the first quarter of 2024. Additionally, concentration risks have decreased compared to the previous quarter, reflecting a more diverse investment portfolio among IORPs. Notably, the median exposure of IORPs to banks and non-banking financial activities has seen a slight uptick.
Furthermore, all other risk categories currently assess at medium levels, but there is a growing concern related to digitalization and cyber risks. The report indicates a potential increase in these risks over the next 12 months, underscoring the need for IORPs to bolster their cybersecurity measures as they adapt to an increasingly digital landscape.
EIOPA’s Risk Dashboard provides a comprehensive overview of the vulnerabilities within the IORP sector of the European Economic Area (EEA), drawing from regulatory reporting from 625 IORPs. It encompasses both defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) schemes, offering a nuanced look at the financial health and risks facing these pension plans.
As Europe grapples with the dual pressures of economic recovery and market volatility, EIOPA’s insights serve as a timely reminder of the complexities influencing occupational retirement provision. While the current risk assessment leans towards stability, the identified risks highlight the necessity for vigilance and proactive management within the IORP sector to safeguard the retirement savings of millions across Europe.
