12 C
Brussels
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Home Blog Page 308

The Tragic Theodicy

By
Newsdesk
-
0

By Boris Vysheslavtsev

In his ethical activity and judgments, man has no right to take the viewpoint of Providence. He has no right to judge sub specie aeternitatis [from the point of view of eternity], appropriating God’s point of view as if he were seated on the throne with Him. Otherwise, he may imagine himself to be a sun shining equally on the good and the bad. To begin to allow and tolerate evil as a manifestation of free will, as God does with man. It may even begin to affirm the necessity of evil in the development of world tragedy, its reasonableness in the ways of Providence. And finally to enter the role of villain and traitor, believing that this role is necessary in the world tragedy foreseen and intended by the Creator and His providence. And the more terrible it is, the greater the humility and self-abasement and self-sacrifice of the actor who performs it for the sake of the celebration of righteousness and justice, for the sake of the celebration of Providence. Such was the role of Judas. “Beata culpa” [blessed guilt] would not be a fault at all, but rather a merit, but if only Judas could foresee the way of Providence and had the right to stand from the point of view of historical necessity, i.e. of the very Providence. The Apostle Paul is aware of these dialectical difficulties and poses the problem as follows: how can sinners be punished, if God’s righteousness and justice are best revealed through their injustice? “Should we not then do evil that good may come?” (Rom. 3:8).

If temptations must come into the world, then someone must take the blame for it—bring them into the world, though knowing that it would have been better (subjectively, not objectively) not to have been born for that role. Indeed, there is no more outrageous ambiguity, more outrageously quaternio terminorum [the fallacy of the four terms, i.e., deductive logical fallacy] than that “ought” and “ought.” In one case, this is a judgment of divine providence about historical destinies (temptations must come into the world), and in the other – a judgment of man about his moral duty, about his ultimate task in time and space: he must take the blame upon himself.

However, this is not a logical fallacy and it is not a sophistry: the whole problem is clearly contained in the two aspects of the obligatory. 1) the divine necessity of Providence and 2) the human necessity of moral action. In his moral obligation, man has no right to stand from the point of view of what is obligatory in the sense of Providence, from the point of view of historical necessity or the necessary degrees of development of the Absolute Spirit. It has no right to stand on the standpoint of Hegel’s historiosophy (that is, the standpoint of the “Absolute Spirit”) or Leibniz’s theodicy. It is equally vulgar and immoral for him to say: everything goes for the better in this best of all worlds, and history is progress in the consciousness of freedom. For it means to justify the crimes of history—for example, the atrocities of revolution—as necessary stages in the development of liberty. If “everything goes for the better”, then “everything is allowed”.

This thought can also be reached from the opposite side: man cannot stand on the point of view of Providence and absolute judgment even when the latter corresponds to his human understanding of good, evil and justice. For example, his thirst for revenge, to exterminate the villain, cannot be interpreted as a demand for divine vengeance. In contrast to this, the words sound: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay. And God rewards in another way and not then, and not where we think and want. And we must not justify the executioner by identifying his action with the will of Providence and divine wrath, as Joseph de Maistre does. It is for this very reason that every executioner is more odious than every villain, because he appropriates to himself the sanction of infallibility, the sanction of Providence, and the “objective spirit,” while the villain bears upon himself the manifest stamp of sin and crime, and that is more humble and – true.

Man has no right either to conduct the terrible judgment, or to anticipate it. The parable of the weeds testifies to this: what “objectively” seems insignificant and unnecessary to him cannot be destroyed for the sake of fulfilling absolute justice (for example, in Raskolnikov – the killing of the evil old woman and in general the whole problem of great personalities fulfilling the will of Providence). As a terrible judgment, absolute Justice acts not through us, but through its absolute servants – the angels. This is revealed through the parable.

In this way, as if by itself the following conclusion is imposed: Penetration into the divine plan of Providence does not justify anything and does not condemn people for their actions, does not contain any anthropodycy, because evil remains evil and it should not be “justified ”, that is, to become a right because of no good and necessary plan of Providence. Moreover, the evil leading to the best in this best of all worlds becomes a great evil; the evil that leads to “progress”, to a just system, is the worst evil – an evil that dares to justify itself by imagining that it is good. In this case, it is not the evil that is justified, but the good derived from it that is compromised. It is not the end that justifies the means, but the means that condemn the end. Any teleological rationalization of the historical process is an immoral enterprise.

Rationalist theodicy is morally unfit for man. But is it fit for God? After all, does it provide “justification of the Deity?”

N. A. Berdyaev’s remarkable article on theodicy in Vol. 7 of the present journal. It contains two main ideas:

1. Denial of false theodicy, of abstract monotheism, of the idea of ​​a motionless, blissful, Eleatic and non-tragic God, creating the world and all the tragedy in it, while remaining isolated and passionless. Such a God should not be justified – this is an evil demiurge, and atheism is right in relation to him (pp. 56-57).

2. Confirmation of a possible theodicy, as a tragedy of God himself, as God’s sacrifice – suffering of God, Lord’s passions. God is love and God is freedom, and love and freedom are sacrifice and are suffering. Such a conception presupposes, of course, the God-humanity of Christ and the idea of ​​the godlikeness of man.

In what sense is positive theodicy presented here? Properly – in only one way: God is protected from the reproach that he “left the bliss for Himself, and the suffering for the creation” (p. 55). Here God loves man and suffers with him.

Can such a decision be recognized as exhaustive? In the negative part, it seems to sound a strong thought: perfection cut off from the world is impossible. Perfection alongside the world, which lies in evil, and in the capacity of the original source and Creator of this world, is, of course, imperfection. If it (perfection) rejoices in its self-sufficiency, it is the worse for it, the more imperfect it is. Of course, perfection here is completeness and completeness (τέλος and πλήρωμα), and it cannot leave anything beyond itself, it must take everything upon itself and receive within itself. Perfection has to accept in its heart, to contain all the evil and suffering and tragedy of the world.

But here comes the difficulty – perfection filled with imperfection! Fullness filled with deficiencies! God, who took evil into Himself! And finally suffering, dying, experiencing tragedy! All these negative values ​​(evil, suffering, death) turn out to be contained in the positive value of the Absolute Good – of God as perfection! But isn’t the tragic-suffering God an absolute contradiction? Is the category of tragedy applicable to God?

One thing is certain: in Christianity there is an idea of ​​a “suffering God” and of the tragedy of God and man. The remarkable thing here is that every tragedy is divinely human and there is simply no other tragedy in its own sense. It is tragic that man is eternally united with God and eternally separated from Him (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?) – eternally carrying within himself the holy and divine, and eternally falling away and losing. Such is the nature of the ideal world, of the idea. (“Sie ist nur da, inwiefern man Sie nicht hat und sie entflieht, inwiefern man sie fassen will” – Fichte).

Plato’s Eros is neither just a god nor just a man, but a “god-man” and therefore tragic and his fate is the tragic fate of Psyche. It is tragic for God to unite with human nature and it is tragic for man to unite with God. The complete absence of tragedy would be the separation of man from God, the absolute self-sufficiency of man who does not suspect God, and the absolute self-sufficiency of God who does not look at man. In the mixing and joining of the incompatible lies the tragedy. That is why, for the gnostic Basilides, the tragedy of the world process ends with an absolute separation, isolation of the spheres: the being separated from God will not suffer, because it is wrapped in the “veil of great ignorance”.[1]

Suffering and tragedy have their source in the all-pervading oneness. If we leave the opposites alone, without connecting them with threads (Plato), if we do not gather them into one, the phenomenon of incompatibility, contradiction, tragedy would not exist. The tragic contradiction can be formulated differently: enemies in love (Romeo and Juliet), innocent guilt (Oedipus), the destruction of what is worthy of life and happiness. But the main tragedy is the accusation and punishment of the sinless and innocent. This tragedy is, so to speak, unbearable, and the question arises: how does God tolerate it? Here the question of theodicy is posed anew: why should the world become a tragedy?

To answer, we must first of all see that the world is truly a tragedy, experience and intuitively penetrate the essence of the tragic. Is it necessary to prove that the world is a tragedy, that life is a tragedy? Moral experience convinces us that the whole world lies in evil, and yet the life of the world is of supreme value, the cosmos is beauty, and all created, all truly existent, is too good. Here is the tragic contradiction experienced from all sides by the human spirit: with the logical, ethical and aesthetic consciousness. It would be better if the world didn’t exist! And, along with that: No, it better be! To be – that’s more than anything! Being is wonderful!

The life of the animal and plant world is full of cruelty, suffering, self-sacrifice, heroism – it is tragic in its essence, because it is hideous and, at the same time, beautiful. The tragedy of nature is in its indifference, and it would not be a tragedy if it did not have the strange radiance of eternal beauty, if it did not awaken in the soul the involuntary recognition (so be it! – And let it…).

However, if we rise to the highest levels of being known to us – to our own life, to the fate of the free man, to the fates of history, then here the essence of life is revealed as a tragedy more vividly than anywhere else. Buddha saw it, Socrates experienced it, Christ raised it to the ultimate god-human height. And each person in his own destiny in some way repeats that of the Son of Man – in not recognizing Him as the Most Beautiful, in the “legalistic” accusations, in the enmity of the Pharisees, in the betrayal of the disciple, in the Way of the Cross of life. History is tragic – both in personal biography and in the biography of nations.

If there are other higher superhuman degrees of being, as all religions presuppose, the world of angels, demigods, titans and heroes, even there the highest category of achievement in their lives is tragedy, as is clear from the tragic fate of the most beautiful of angels . Tragedy is the main historical category and, at the same time, the highest category of life in its greatest fullness and richness. Because history must be the history of all life, with all its sides and in all its fullness. If the life of each “I”, of each spiritual being, is a strange combination of necessity and freedom, as we know from our own experience, then the tragedy of history is necessarily the fate of freedom, or freedom under the power of fate. Only a free being can be under the power of fate, only a tragic hero has fate in the full sense of the word. Biological, causal necessity is not fate.

So, we don’t need to prove that life is a tragedy – everyone knows that from experience. Even the experience of happiness does not cancel the tragedy, because it is a moment of the tragedy (for example “Romeo and Juliet”). The demise of supreme and wonderful happiness is tragic, and history, human destiny, knows no undying happiness. Perhaps they will object to us that everyday life is rather comical than tragic, and the very history of nations reveals the “irony of fate” at every step. That is right. But the point is that comedy is also a possible moment of tragedy. He finds a place for himself in every tragedy embracing the fullness of life; after all, the essence of the tragic and the comic, as Plato also hints in his “Pyrrhus”, is the same. The irony of fate is often tragic and the history of nations is a tragicomedy.

And yet it is necessary to prove this statement, it is necessary to assess all its depth and seriousness, because humanity in its significant part is excited by the desire to avoid tragedy by any means, to prove to itself in any way that everything in nature and in history goes well, improves, progresses, evolves, unerringly arrives at the final earthly paradise. The tragedy-free philosophy of history is very widespread and very diverse. Here in the first place is the atheistic theory of the continuous evolution and progress of mankind. Comte, Feuerbach and Marx fully follow this line, which has been pushed since Epicurean materialism and Titus Lucretius Carr. Quite frankly, Epicurus and Lucretius state that the driving nerve of Epicureanism is the desire to destroy every tragedy in life, and above all the tragedy of the encounter with the other world and its forces. On this basis is built the naive optimism of self-sufficient humanity, which has imagined that everything is going for the better and happens by itself by virtue of some immanent laws of development.

Hegel’s formula that history is progress in the consciousness of freedom is also an attempt at a non-tragic philosophy of history – along the path of rationalistic and pantheistic monism, which regards humanity and its science and statehood as the highest degree of absolute spirit, such a philosophy inevitably leads to the atheistic “religion for humanity”, to Feuerbach and to Marx. With the same optimistic rationalism, she assures us that the atrocities in history are only “sacrifices before the altar of freedom”, and by freedom here is meant the celebration of the rational regulation of all life – this is precisely the kind of “freedom” that Marx also understood. Everything is going well, towards a “conscious” and socially well-arranged humanity. How much deeper, and more serious, and closer to tragic reality is the modern form of irreligious understanding of history, such as we see in Spengler: everything grows, blossoms and withers, everything tends to sunset!

However, there are not only atheistic constructions of the non-tragic philosophy of history, which we may call non-tragic anthropodicys; there are also non-tragic theodicies that originate from the understanding of the Deity, but which in their essence are still strikingly close to the first in their naive optimism and rationalism. Teleologically acting nature, teleologically developing humanity, teleologically progressing economy, all this Providence without God, or more precisely, Providence carried out by false deities – all this is replaced by the teleologically acting Providence of the Godhead in the world and in history. The philosophical coincidence is precisely in naive rational teleologism: the causa finalis is also the causa efficiens. Under such conditions, of course, there can be nothing particularly tragic, and in the end everything works out for the better in this best of all worlds.

The rationalistic theodicy of the Stoics was adopted in principle by Leibniz. Providence is basically rational – every aporia and every tragedy is resolved to the end. Only at first sight many things in nature and in history seem to us inexpedient; in fact, Providence has foreseen everything and turned every evil into a means of achieving a greater good. The petty-naive rationalism of the Stoics, who asserted that bugs exist to keep people from sleeping too long, and mice to prevent them from keeping their belongings in disorder, is in principle no different from the grandiose universal rationalism of Leibniz, forced to admit that the guilt of Judas is a “blessed guilt” (beata culpa, qui talem redemptorem exiguit).

In fact, instead of a theodicy, we arrive at the most terrible moral accusation against a Deity, operating on the principle that the end justifies the means, building its kingdom on sin, tears and suffering. If this is how things stand in the “best of all worlds”, all that remains for us, together with Ivan Karamazov, is to reject all worlds – both the bad and the good. Schopenhauer is right: the attempt to bypass tragedy leads theodicy to the most vulgar optimism: all is well in this best of all worlds! The story turns into a moral vaudeville with a happy ending.

Roman Catholic rationalism builds its doctrine of Providence on the foundations of Aristotelian teleologism and the Stoic doctrine of providence. Added to this is the juridical theory of atonement, turning the greatest of all tragedies – Golgotha ​​– into a rationally proceeding and successfully concluding process between humanity and God. Here all tragedy is radically removed: both God is justly satisfied and humanity is redeemed and saved.

The destruction of tragedy here is achieved mainly through the application of legal categories. Tragedy, however, eludes all legal categories: try to think legally about the affairs of Othello or Macbeth and you will arrive at a series of flat platitudes. This shows that the category of tragedy is infinitely higher, more complex and, therefore, irrational than that of law. Perhaps tragedy is the truest expression of the ultimate irrationality of being – concentration and condensation of the greatest and ultimate aporias, because if this incomprehensible impasse (aporia) is not there, then in its own sense there is no real tragedy.

In this sense, science is tragic, in its aporias, and philosophy – in its extreme antinomies (such as Riche’s exclamation in his Metaphysics: “Yes, it is absurd, but what of it, since it exists”), ethics is also tragic – in the endless clashes of values, in its “pereat mundus, fiat iustitia” [let there be justice, even if the world perish], art is tragic – if only because its summit is tragedy, religion is also tragic – in its mysterium tremendum ( it is terrible for man to fall into the hands of the living God), in constant proximity to God and in infinite detachment from Him – in God-forsakenness. The tragedy of all life and of the entire history of the world – the universal, religious, divine and God-human tragedy – contains within itself, as in a focus, the concentration of all impasses, incomprehensibility and contradictions of the world. Here is the problem of problems, the point of collision and incomprehensible unity, here is the point of reconciliation of incompatible opposites. God Almighty holds in His hand that which is irresistibly pushed away. And this reconciliation of the incompatible is experienced as amazement, horror, tragedy; and together with this the hand of God is most strongly felt in him. That is why it is scary to fall into the hands of the living God, and in this fear is the most ancient experience of tragedy.

Only here does that strange spiritual experience find its explanation, that in suffering, in impasse and God-abandonment, the presence of God is felt most strongly – here, in extreme tragedy, the true theodicy is hidden, because this is where God is revealed – in the incomprehensibility of His Providence.

“From my depth (de profundis) I cried to You, Lord!”

Wer nie sein Brot mit Trähnen as,

Wer nie die kummervollen Nächte

Auf seinem Bette weinend sas,

Der kennt euch nicht, ihr himmlsche Mächte!

[2]

The fate of Job clearly reveals that it is precisely in the experience of the deepest tragedy that man’s meeting with Providence takes place, that precisely here – in this last why? – man stands face to face with God, but cannot see His Face. It can be said: where God acts, there everything is incomprehensible to man, and where everything is understandable, there is no encounter with God – there is the immanent world of human calculations and predictions (of a kind of “providence”). A fully unraveled and rationalized “Provision” would cease to be divine – its rational expediency reveals most unequivocally that there is human intent here. In their pretended consolations, Job’s friends are representatives of the world of rational theodicy: they seek to “justify” the Deity, to conceal the gaping abyss of tragic injustice of rational arguments, to find justice and expediency in Job’s fate according to their reason. However, it turns out that there is more truth in Job’s accusations directed at God than in the “justifications” of rational theodicy invented by his friends. Who is it that obscures Providence with meaningless words? This is what God says about all these “theodicies”.

In his tragic experience, Job felt clearly the injustice of these theodicies, and God Himself confirmed the absolute rightness of this feeling. After the categorical condemnation of human “theodicies” obscuring Providence, what does He say to Job? He unfolds before him a series of problems and mysteries of heaven and earth; He reveals Himself, or rather, hides Himself, as the problem of all problems; and then the tragic aporia of Job turns out to be one of the moments in the great crown of divine mysteries. The story of Job cannot be understood and “justified” through the immanent logos of this world, according to the method of Hegel and Leibniz – it has a prologue and an epilogue in heaven, in the other world. And what is happening there (a command given by God to Satanael) is incomprehensible to man and unacceptable to human ethics. This is not a solution, as it may seem to us, but a deepening of the tragedy and problematism – here God is not defined by human concepts of good and evil. After all, for Job, this otherworldly theodicy remains absolutely unknown; God didn’t tell him about her.

The tragedy of Job, as our Church teaches, is indeed a type of Golgotha, because Golgotha ​​is the ultimate expression of the tragedy that can overtake the Son of Man and the sons of men. To see rational expediency and even juridical justice here is to really obscure Providence with meaningless words, and even worse – to obscure the judgment of good and evil (beata culpa!). Any rational and holy will can desire rational expediency and justice. However, this cannot be desired by the most reasonable and most holy will – that of the God-man. For this, the highest human wisdom and holiness, despite all the “theodicies”, was only able to say: let this cup pass me by! Does this mean that Christ failed to see that all is well in this best of all worlds? Or are these words of human weakness? Such a supposition would be most superficial and irrelevant, and it is refuted by: but Thy will be done. The acceptance of God’s will, of Providence, is not due to an awareness of its rational expediency by human reason. In the prayer for the cup, there is no weakness of the will, no limitation of human knowledge, but on the contrary – an absolutely true judgment of a holy will for man: we cannot wish for the God-man to be crucified, we cannot accept that Justice is crucified on the cross, to desire this crime, even in full readiness for suffering and self-sacrifice. Job prayed all the time: let this cup pass from me! Just like Christ – and not because of weakness, but out of awareness of his absolute right. We should not desire a suffering and humiliated righteousness.

The tragedy of Calvary disappears if we recognize one will in Christ (the Monothelite heresy) – only human or only divine. The tragedy is revealed in full depth only in the affirmation of the two wills: human and divine; a statement for which one of the greatest fathers of the Church – Maxim the Confessor – was martyred. If in this cup passing from me the will is expressed, the holy will of the Son of Man, then in your will, not mine, the divine will of the Father is present (I and the Father are one). The actual aporia of tragedy is that human will can be absolutely valuable and holy even when it contradicts the will of the Father, of Providence, when it will not be fulfilled. This is what Job’s friends cannot understand.

(to be continued)

Source:  Vysheslavtsev, B. “Tragic Theodicy” – In: Put, 9, 1928, pp. 13-31 (in Russian).

Notes:

[1] Karsavin, L. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church, Paris 1927, p. 31.

[2] Who has not shed tears over his bread

Who by his bed, as by a grave

In sleepless nights he did not cry –

He does not know you, oh higher powers!

(Goethe, Wilhelm Meister).

Migration and Asylum: Roadmap on way forward agreed

By
European Parliament
-
0
Migration and Asylum: Roadmap on way forward agreed | News | European Parliament

Parliament and five rotating Council Presidencies commit to work together to adopt the reform of the EU migration and asylum rules before the 2024 EU elections.

On Wednesday, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, Chair of the Civil Liberties Committee Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Asylum Contact Group Chair Elena Yoncheva and the Permanent Representatives of Czechia, Sweden, Spain, Belgium and France signed an agreement regarding the conduct of negotiations between the co-legislators with a view to reforming EU migration and asylum rules by February 2024.

They adopted the following joint statement:

“This is undoubtedly a historical moment. After a couple of months of exchanges on the Roadmap, the European Parliament and the upcoming Council Presidencies are committing themselves to make all efforts to finalise the reform of the Asylum and Migration legislative framework before the end of the current political cycle.

The Common European Asylum System and the New European Pact on migration and asylum represent a top priority in the work of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union and both sides should make the necessary efforts and work together as closely as possible, in a spirit of sincere cooperation, towards the adoption of the legislative proposals before the end of the 2019-2024 legislative period.

To achieve the common commitment to conclude the reform during the current legislative cycle, the negotiations on the respective files should be concluded by February 2024. This would require that the negotiations between the co-legislators should start at the latest by the end of 2022. The effective implementation of the timetable agreed will be subject to follow-up meetings between the Members of the Asylum Contact Group and rotating Council Presidencies.

We believe that by combining our efforts the Union can make real progress and deliver before the end of the current legislature. We should be able to deliver a new legislative framework on one of our most challenging policy areas, which is one in which only a common EU answer can provide a sustainable system. This roadmap is a clear sign of our commitment that we will conclude the work.”


Background

The European Commission proposed the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020 in order to improve the procedures and reach an agreement to share responsibility fairly among member states and act in solidarity when dealing with migration flows.

The agreed roadmap comprises the following legislative proposals: Regulation for Asylum and Migration Management – rapporteur Tomas TOBÉ (EPP, SE), Regulation for Crisis and Force majeure – rapporteur Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR (S&D, ES), Screening Regulation – rapporteur Birgit SIPPEL (S&D, DE), Qualification Regulation – rapporteur Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), Reception Conditions Directive (recast) – rapporteur Sophia IN ‘T VELD (Renew, NL), Amended Asylum Procedures regulation – rapporteur Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), Return Directive (recast) – rapporteur Tineke STRIK (Greens, NL), Amended EURODAC Regulation – rapporteur Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), Union Resettlement Framework Regulation – rapporteur Malin BJÖRK (The Left, SE).

What is a Fatwa? A Scholar of Religion Strips the Word of its Stereotypes

By
WRN Editorial Staff
-
0
What is a Fatwa? A Scholar of Religion Strips the Word of its Stereotypes

When the late Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued an Islamic edict against Salman Rushdie on February 14, 1989, an Arabic word, fatwa, the cleric used to call on Muslims to execute the author reverberated across the world.

The fatwa was issued in retaliation for The Satanic Verses, a 1988 book by Rushdie that Khomeini deemed blasphemous to Islam.

With that chilling Valentine’s Day decree, the two-syllable word, fatwa, inserted itself into the popular lexicon of the West, and has appeared more tenaciously than perhaps any other Middle Eastern term.

It came immediately to the minds of millions of people when they learned that a man wielding a knife last month attacked Rushdie at the Chautauqua Institution, a retreat for artists in New York State.

A fatwa, however, “rarely calls for death,” writes Miriam Renaud, a faculty member in the Department of Religious Studies at DePaul University, in an August 17 article in The Conversation, an independent, nonprofit news organization.

Various Islamic religious authorities can issue fatwas. Most of them are in response to questions about a range of issues posed by individuals or a group of people within a Muslim community.

Fundamentally, the word fatwa means “explanation” or “clarification” about issues surrounding Islamic law, says Renaud. “The process of issuing a fatwa usually begins when a Muslim, confronted with a problem of life, belief or law, is unsure what to do.”

Generally, Muslim individuals solicit fatwas from a local cleric or a group of Islamic law scholars when they are unsure about how to conduct themselves or when they are concerned that they might be “deviating from God’s dictates,” writes Renaud. “They may believe that straying from the path of righteous conduct could jeopardize their entry into heaven. For them, the stakes are high.”

Because fatwas cover a wide range of topics—everything from personal hygiene and marital relations to inheritance law, lifestyle and national allegiance—they require a thorough grounding in Islamic law as well as a sound knowledge of past fatwas.

Muslims cannot simply consult the Quran for answers to religious questions, Renaud explains, because the holy book is either silent on certain issues or various passages in it are subject to different interpretations, making it difficult for believers to decipher the correct reading.

Despite their authoritativeness, fatwas are nonbinding—that is, Muslims are under no compulsion to obey them. “The force of a fatwa derives from the authority, trust and respect accorded to the clerics, scholars or institutions who issue them,” says Renaud. “With this authority comes the power to shape the religious and social norms of the fatwa-requesting community.”

Although fatwas are often solicited by ordinary Muslims, they can also be issued in response to certain situations. For example, a leading seminary in India, the Dar al-Ulum Deoband, issued a fatwa in 2010 against the Islamic State after deeming the terrorist group to be un-Islamic.

“Rare are the fatwas like the one against Rushdie that call on Muslims to kill a particular individual,” Renaud concludes. “But for now, the fatwa against Rushdie stands.”

From its beginnings, the Church of Scientology has recognized that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. In a world where conflicts are often traceable to intolerance of others’ religious beliefs and practices, the Church has, for more than 50 years, made the preservation of religious liberty an overriding concern.

The Church publishes this blog to help create a better understanding of the freedom of religion and belief and provide news on religious freedom and issues affecting this freedom around the world.

The Founder of the Scientology religion is L. Ron Hubbard and Mr. David Miscavige is the religion’s ecclesiastical leader.

For more information visit the Scientology website or Scientology Network.

This article was originally published on scientologyreligion.org.

Ukraine: de-escalate the situation around the embattled Zaporizhzhia

By
United Nations News
-
0
the need to de-escalate the situation around the Zaporizhzhia
UN Photo/Loey Felipe - Secretary-General António Guterres addresses UN Security Council members on threats to international peace and security.
Briefing the Security Council on Tuesday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres again underlined the need to de-escalate the situation around the embattled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

Guterres gravely concerned 

Europe’s largest nuclear plant has come under repeated shelling in recent weeks, sparking fears of a potential nuclear disaster.   

Highlighting his continued grave concern over the situation, the UN chief again warned that any damage to Zaporizhzhia, or to any other nuclear facility in Ukraine, could result in a wide-reaching catastrophe.  

“All steps must be taken to avoid such a scenario. Common sense and cooperation must guide the way forward. Any action that might endanger the physical integrity, safety or security of the nuclear plant is unacceptable,” he said. 

Demilitarized perimeter 

The Secretary-General stressed that efforts to re-establish the plant as purely civilian infrastructure are vital. 

“As a first step, Russian and Ukrainian forces must commit not to engage in any military activity towards the plant site or from the plant site. The Zaporizhzhia facility and its surroundings must not be a target or a platform for military operations,” he said. 

The second step would entail securing an agreement on a demilitarized perimeter. 

“Specifically, that would include a commitment by Russian forces to withdraw all military personnel and equipment from that perimeter and a commitment by Ukrainian forces not to move into it. Operators at the plant must be able to carry out their responsibilities, and communications must be maintained”. 

The Secretary-General called for commitment to support inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stationed at the plant. 

Following months of negotiations, a 14-member team from the nuclear watchdog arrived there last week.  Two will remain at the site, which has been under Russian control since the early days of the conflict. 

“I trust that the IAEA experts now deployed to Zaporizhzhia will be able to carry out their work without hindrance and contribute to ensuring lasting nuclear safety and security at the plant.  All of us have a stake in the success of their critical mission,” he said. 

‘Historic’ IAEA mission 

IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi, who led the mission, had described it as “historic”. The fact that staff are now there is “unprecedented”, he added.  

Citing nuclear disasters in Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the conflict in Iraq, he recalled that while agency inspectors had experienced “difficult circumstances,” it had always been in the aftermath. 

“We in this case have the historical, ethical imperative to prevent something from happening. And by having established this presence, and by agreeing to a special safety and security protection zone…we have the opportunity to prevent this from happening.” 

Unsplash/Yehor Milohrodskyi

The Dnieper hydroelectric power station in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine.

‘Playing with fire’ 

The mission report, published on Tuesday, provides concrete recommendations to address the seven pillars of nuclear safety that Mr. Grossi had outlined at the beginning of the war. 

Although the first pillar calls for not violating the physical integrity of nuclear facilities, “this happened, and continues to happen,” he said.  

“The hits that this facility has received and that I could personally see and assess together with my experts is simply unacceptable. We are playing with fire and something very, very catastrophic could take place,” he warned. 

The report proposes setting up a nuclear safety and security protection zone that would be limited to the perimeter and the plant itself. 

Other recommendations call for removing all military vehicles and equipment from nuclear buildings at the site and ensuring the return to clear and routine responsibilities for staff, in addition to re-establishing an “appropriate” work environment.

Pollution and climate change upsurge the risk of ‘climate penalty’

By
officialinstitutions
-
0
man and woman walking on road

A rise in the frequency, intensity and duration of heatwaves will not only increase wildfires this century but also worsen air quality – harming human health and ecosystems, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) launched on Wednesday, the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies.

“As the globe warms, wildfires and associated air pollution are expected to increase, even under a low emissions scenario,” saidWMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

“In addition to human health impacts, this will also affect ecosystems as air pollutants settle from the atmosphere to Earth’s surface”.

‘Foretaste of the future’

The annual WMO Air Quality and Climate Bulletin warned that the interaction between pollution and climate change would impose a “climate penalty” for hundreds of millions of people.

In addition to reporting on the state of air quality and its close interlinkages with climate change, the Bulletin explores a range of possible air quality outcomes under high and low greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

The impact of last year’s wildfire smoke has served to augment this year’s heatwaves.

Mr. Taalas pointed to 2022 heatwaves in Europe and China, describing stable high atmospheric conditions, sunlight and low wind speeds as being “conducive to high pollution levels”.

“This is a foretaste of the future because we expect a further increase in the frequency, intensity and duration of heatwaves, which could lead to even worse air quality, a phenomenon known as the ‘climate penalty’”.

The “climate penalty” refers specifically to the increase in climate change as it impacts the air people breathe.

Air pollutants

The region with the strongest projected climate penalty – mainly Asia – is home to roughly one-quarter of the world’s population.

Climate change could exacerbate ozone pollution, which would lead to detrimental health impacts for hundreds of millions of people.

Because air quality and climate are interconnected, changes in one inevitably causes changes in the other.

The Bulletin explains that the combustion of fossil also emits nitrogen oxide, which can react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrate aerosols.

In turn, these air pollutants can negatively affect ecosystem health, including clean water, biodiversity, and carbon storage.

Looking ahead

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report provides scenarios on the evolution of air quality as temperatures increase throughout this century.

If greenhouse gas emissions remain high, such that global temperatures rise by 3° C from preindustrial levels by the second half of the 21st century, surface ozone levels are expected to increase across heavily polluted areas, particularly in Asia.

This includes a 20 per cent jump across Pakistan, northern India and Bangladesh, and 10 per cent across eastern China. 

Fossil fuel emissions will cause ozone increases that will most likely trigger heatwaves, which in turn will amplify air pollution.

Therefore, the heatwaves that are becoming increasingly common due to climate change, are likely to continue degrading air quality.

© UNICEF/Habibul Haque

Air pollution in Dhaka, Bangladesh, is leading to a series of health problems for the city’s inhabitants.

Low-carbon scenario

To avoid this, the IPCC suggests a low-carbon emissions scenario, which would cause a small, short-term warming prior to temperature decreases.

A future world that follows this scenario would also benefit from reduced nitrogen and sulfur compounds from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface, where they can damage ecosystems. 

WMO stations around the world would monitor the response of air quality and ecosystem health to proposed future emissions reductions.

This could quantify the efficacy of the policies designed to limit climate change and improve air quality.

Orthodox Church of Ukraine applies for membership in CEC

By
News desk
-
0
blue and gold cathedral with glass windows

CEC Member Churches have been greatly shaken by the impact of the Russian aggression on Ukraine. Ecumenical solidarity has emerged in force among European churches, with our members and ecumenical partners responding with an outpouring of prayers for peace. A flood of appeals and statements are urging for a diplomatic solution through dialogue, strongly advocating for reconciliation, and encouraging political decision-makers and church leaders to play their crucial roles. European churches have also supported and continue to implement humanitarian projects, offering aid and an open door to those fleeing the conflict.

Response from CEC

Response from CEC member churches and partners

For more information or to coordinate an interview, please email [email protected].

Czech Presidency outlines priorities to EP committees

By
European Parliament
-
0
Czech Presidency outlines priorities to EP committees
©European Parliament

Czechia holds the Presidency of the Council until the end of 2022. A first series of hearings took place from 11 to 13 July. A second set of hearings to presents outlines priorities to EP committees will happen during the first week of September.


Agriculture and Rural Development

The impact of Russian aggression against Ukraine on food security is a key priority, according to Agriculture Minister Zdeněk Nekula on 11 July. The Presidency will seek an early start for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to provide member states with flexibility and temporary exceptions to handle the crisis. The Presidency will also prioritise negotiations on the sustainable use of plant protection products.

A number of MEPs called for the way in which solidarity corridors for agricultural exports from Ukraine work to be improved and for a balance between EU food production and the proposed reduction in the use of pesticides. Some MEPs agreed that some derogations from CAP rules will be needed, while others warned against weakening the CAP and called for organic farming to be supported instead.

Development

On 12 July, Jiří Kozák, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, highlighted a three-fold challenge caused by Russia’s war against Ukraine: the distribution of grain from Ukraine; securing sufficient humanitarian relief; and breaking the Russian narrative that the food security crisis is the EU’s fault. Mr Kozák also said that, for the Post-Cotonou Agreement, the Presidency is determined to conclude the remaining steps as fast as possible.

MEPs agreed on the importance of dealing with the immediate and longer-term impacts of the war on global food security. They also raised the question of refugees in Ukraine and its neighbours. Others questioned the Presidency on their priorities in the Sahel, on the migration issue on the EU’s southern border, and the integration of humanitarian relief and long-term development policy.

Transport and Tourism

On 12 July, Transport Minister Martin Kupka, and Deputy Prime Minister for Digitisation and Minister of Regional Development Ivan Bartoš, stressed that the Presidency will focus on measures to decarbonise transport, promote railways, make sure solidarity lanes for Ukraine are working and increase the resilience of the tourism sector. Minister Kupka promised MEPs that the work on new rules on the Single European Sky, alternative fuel infrastructure, sustainable fuels for aviation and maritime sectors, intelligent transport systems and TEN-T revision would advance.

Transport Committee MEPs urged the Presidency to put more efforts into addressing mobility poverty and road safety, make sure EU countries would unite in response to any possible new COVID-19 pandemic and asked for the option of providing EU financial support for solidarity lanes in Ukraine to be explored.

Fisheries

On 12 July, Zdeněk Nekula, Minister of Agriculture, said that the Presidency’s top priority will be to ensure food security in the EU and improve the competitiveness of the sector compared to third countries. Despite being a landlocked country, the Czech Presidency will also focus on fishing quotas, reaching agreements on EU fishing possibilities with third countries, as well as fisheries-relevant initiatives related to the Green Deal.

MEPs stressed the need to help fishers due to the impact of the war in Ukraine. They welcomed the intention to make fisheries more competitive but stressed the need to strike a balance between the socio-economic and environmental aspects of the initiative. Finally, some reaffirmed the idea of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, even if the Commission is reluctant to do so.

Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Industry and Trade Minister Jozef Síkela told MEPs that the Presidency will pay special attention to better enforcement of Single Market tools and services, deeper market integration and high consumer protection, including raising consumer awareness on sustainable consumption and online risks. The Presidency will work to move forward on negotiations with MEPs on machinery products and consumer credits and to reach a common position in the Council on the General Product Safety Regulation, the Artificial Intelligence Act, and Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising.

MEPs quizzed the Presidency on empowering consumers in light of the twin transition, the implementation of rules on dual quality of products, the update of travel package rules in light of the pandemic and the ongoing digital priorities (including the new Chips Act and European Digital Identity).

Women’s Rights and Gender Equality

Marian Jurečka, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, said the Czech Presidency will strive to achieve progress on the pay transparency directive. On an EU strategy for care, they will focus on long-term care and providing refugees from Ukraine with high-quality care. Member states’ diverse positions on preventing violence against women need to be respected, he said, although the definition of online sexual violence will be discussed in November. There will be Council conclusions on gender equality, and the Presidency will look into economic parity for men and women with a focus on youth.

Several MEPs asked if Czechia is planning to ratify the Istanbul Convention. Many welcomed the objective to reach a deal on pay transparency, stressed that LGBTI rights and sexual and reproductive health and rights must be protected, and highlighted Parliament’s call to add the right to abortion to the EU Charter of fundamental rights.

Employment and Social Affairs

On 11 July, Marian Jurečka, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, identified as key issues: managing the influx and integration of refugees, food and energy affordability for the most vulnerable and the fight against child poverty. Further priorities include reaching a common position in the Council on improving conditions in platform work, and progressing on the pay transparency directive.

MEPs asked for the Social Climate Fund to be made operational to protect the most vulnerable during the green transition. Some MEPs urged for the SURE instrument for the preservation of employment to become permanent and for a more ambitious use of the Child Guarantee. Finally, MEPs asked for an extraordinary Social Summit to address the impact the energy and inflation crisis and the recession are having on employment.

Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

On 11 July, Environment Minister Anna Hubáčková told MEPs the priorities are: reaching agreements on the Fit for 55 files; nature restoration law; protecting vulnerable households during the green transition; and global cooperation on climate and environment. MEPs questioned the minister on preparations for the UN conferences on climate change (COP27) and biodiversity (COP15), as well as the Russian war’s impact on the environment.

On 12 July, Health Minister Vlastimil Válek said the Presidency will focus on the fight against cancer; disinformation on vaccination and vaccines for new variants; progress on Council’s position regarding the European Health Data Space (EHDS), and healthcare services for Ukrainian refugees. MEPs quizzed the minister on fair prices and access to vaccines, the impact of the war, rare diseases and the impact of climate change on population health.

Later that day Agriculture Minister Zdeněk Nekula highlighted food security, sustainable agriculture, animal health, and achieving progress on “Farm to Fork” and agreeing on the “Deforestation” regulation. MEPs questioned the minister on the sustainable use of pesticides, the Russian war’s impact on food security, genomic technologies, the financing of the green transition of the agricultural sector, and meat production.

Regional Development

On 12 July, Deputy Prime Minister for Digitisation and Minister of Regional Development Ivan Bartoš said the Presidency will focus on the future cohesion policy, analysing which instruments are helping to converge EU regions best and ensuring green and digital transitions, while at the same time providing for the necessary flexibility to face new developments.

MEPs stressed cohesion funds should be used to develop a capacity that ensures safe transit of food and supplies, in current time of war. They also warned that cohesion policy principles should not harm the environment. MEPs also urged the Presidency to support the idea of setting-up a new generation Just Transition fund and reviving the EU Cross Border Mechanism.

Economic and Monetary Affairs

Russia’s war in Ukraine and rising inflation will be the backdrop for most of the Presidency’s priorities, Finance Minister Zbyněk Stanjura told MEPs on 13 July. The Presidency would be prioritising reaching agreements on EU rules for a global minimum tax on large multinationals, green bonds, anti-money laundering rules and energy taxation. It would broker discussions on integrating Repower EU into the Recovery and Resilience Facility to remove Russian influence from the EU economy, and on the update of the EU’s fiscal rules.

MEPs focussed their questions on what the Presidency was concretely planning to do to save the rules on a global minimum tax, and how it would orient talks on a revision of the fiscal rules, and to what extent it is possible to address inflation without impinging on the independence of central banks. The looming economic difficulties and the debate around unanimity voting in the area of taxation were also raised by a number of MEPs.

Culture, Education and Youth

On 13 July, Culture Minister Martin Baxa said the Presidency will focus on finalising the EU’s 2023–2026 Work Plan for Culture. He also promised to work to open negotiations on boosting funds for the Creative Europe programme, as the current funding does not meet the sector’s needs. Minister of Education, Youth and Sports Vladimír Balaš focussed in his presentation on digital education, intergenerational dialogue and active support for the European Year of Youth, with a conference on the latter planned for 6 December 2022.

MEPs asked about plans for the Media Freedom Act, due to be announced in September, ways to include Ukrainian students in the EU student mobility programme, and integrating Ukrainian refugee children and young people into the EU education system. They also raised issues around sporting activities, the implementation of the Copyright directive, and completing the European Education area.

International Trade

“Free trade agreements are the core tasks of the Czech Presidency,” said Trade Minister Jozef Síkala on 13 July, a statement that Trade Committee members welcomed. They urged the conclusion and ratification of free trade agreements with, among others, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Australia, India and the Mercosur countries, insisting that all trade deals must respect the EU’s values and sustainability goals.

Trade Committee members asked the presidency to work towards reaching a Council position on the review of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences and the anti-coercion instrument and to finally conclude the Post-Cotonou agreement. Several MEPs urged the Council to intensify cooperation with Africa and to consider gender equality when working on trade.

Foreign Affairs

Foreign Affairs Minister Jan Lipavský on 13 July outlined five priorities: Ukraine, energy, defence, economy and democracy. Stressing the need to continue standing by Ukraine, he warned against the dangers of “Ukraine fatigue”, and called for weapons to be supplied to Kyiv more quickly and for greater efforts to facilitate the country’s post-war reconstruction. He also stressed the need for a strong transatlantic partnership and for discussing how the EU should reassess its relations with Russia in the long term.

MEPs quizzed Mr Lipavský on a range of subjects, including on the EU’s long-term vision for relations with Russia, how to move ahead with the EU enlargement process, in particular on Bulgaria’s blockade of North Macedonia, the necessity to grant EU visa liberalisation to Kosovo and the need to counter Russian false narratives in countries south of the EU, including Africa.

Industry, Research and Energy

Ivan Bartoš, Deputy Prime Minister for Digitisation and Minister of Regional Development, said that the Presidency will work on the digital agenda, communication resilience, sustainable digital ecosystems, cybersecurity in the EU, security of ICT supply chains, and digitalisation of public services. The Presidency will aim to secure a Council position on the AI Act, a general approach on the eID regulation, and to continue work on the Data Act. It will also work to reach an agreement in Council on the proposal to reinforce cybersecurity in the EU before the end of November, he said.

On industry and energy, Jozef Síkela, Minister of Industry and Trade, said that the Presidency will work to reduce the EU’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels as set out in the RepowerEU plan, continue work towards climate neutrality, while securing affordable energy for citizens. The Presidency will work on fast-tracking permitting procedures in renewables, improving energy efficiency and energy savings, as well as on the transition to low-carbon and renewable energy sources. It will also focus on diversifying supplies and assist the Commission with the EU’s energy platform for joint purchasing, to ensure that all member states have enough energy supplies for the winter.

On research and innovation, Vladimír Balaš, Minister of Education, Youth and Sports, said that the Presidency will work to advance the development of the European Research area and the EU research ecosystem. It will focus on synergies in research and innovation funding, on the enhancement of the European research infrastructure ecosystem, and the development of a new European innovation agenda. It will also aim to finalise the legislation on the Horizon Europe joint undertakings with regards to semiconductors, and the conclusion of association agreements with third countries on Horizon Europe.

On space policy, Martin Kupka, Minister of Transport , said that the Presidency will remain committed to ensuring that the EUSPA agency for the Space Programme, based in Prague, has the best conditions and provides the best standards. The main priority will be the programme for secure connectivity, and the Presidency is looking to start talks with MEPs as soon as possible. The Presidency will also focus on innovation and the use of data and services from EU space systems, and to extend existing capacities to protect the EU’s satellite systems.


Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

The Presidency strongly supports EU responses to Russian aggression, including the fight against impunity and collecting evidence on war crimes, Justice Minister Pavel Blažek told MEPs on 5 September. He said that Eurojust and its new mandate can play a key role, while stressing that ongoing work on cracking down on sanctions violations will continue.


European Affairs Minister Mikuláš Bek said that the work on the rule of law will play a major role and announced that the next discussion on the issue will focus on Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. The Presidency will also work on the ongoing procedures on Poland and Hungary, in dialogue with the national governments.

MEPs encouraged the Presidency to produce country-specific recommendations on the state of rule of law. MEPs also called for more engagement on e-Privacy and e-Evidence, asked for a stronger stance on revelations about spyware being used and raised the issue of media monopolisation in certain countries.

On the same day, First Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Vit Rakušan said the Presidency is ready to start negotiations on the Screening and Eurodac regulations and work on structural solutions for solidarity and legal migration. Online child sexual abuse, the mandate of the EU drug addiction monitoring centre, the political governance of the Schengen area and Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria’s inclusion in it, are also priorities.

MEPs asked for more details on the Council’s timetable on migration files, on data protection concerns in relation to fighting online child abuse as well as on pushbacks and human rights violations at the EU’s external borders.


Legal Affairs

On 5 September, Justice Minister Pavel Blažek identified progress on the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law and the digitalisation of justice systems as key issues. Further priorities include corporate sustainability due diligence, the directive to tackle abusive lawsuits targeting critical voices, so-called SLAPPs, and legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI).

MEPs stressed the importance of a liability regime for AI. Some MEPs urged for progress on the revision of EU geographical indications. Finally, MEPs asked for an ambitious approach on the SLAPPs directive, underlining that it is of vital importance for freedom of expression, fearing Council might weaken the initiative.


Constitutional Affairs

Following the presentation by European Affairs Minister Mikuláš Bek on 5 September, MEPs inquired on the follow-up to the Conference on the Future of Europe, including the revision of EU Treaties and the reform of electoral rules, already initiated by Parliament. They also called on the Presidency to focus on the fight against foreign interference and disinformation, and the protection of the EU’s legal order from breaches of the rule of law.

Minister Bek replied he intends to have a political discussion on a Convention to revise the Treaties in October, aiming to have a vote in November and pass on the matter to the European Council. Electoral law reform will be debated in October, but he warned MEPs the process will be politically complicated. The Presidency will seek a common approach on European political parties and foundations by the end of the year. On the rule of law, he promised that the topic will feature prominently in all General Affairs Council agendas.

Church and church organization

By
Guest Author
-
0

The proposed article was originally printed in the Church Gazette (issues 15, 17 and 19) – an edition of our diocese, as a review of the book of Fr. M. Polsky[1] The canonical position of the supreme church authority in the USSR and abroad (from “Typography of Rev. Iov Pochaevsky in St. Troitskom monastry”, 1948, 196 p.), and it is reprinted here without any significant changes. In it I touch, as far as it is possible for me, only one of all concerned in the book of Fr. M. Polish questions, namely about the church organization abroad.

Based on a detailed analysis of facts and documents, in his book prot. Polsky comes to the following definite conclusion: “Today, the only canonical authority in the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole, both for its overseas part and – after 1927 – for Russia itself, is the Abroad Synod of Bishops” (p. 193). It is hardly possible to say more clearly. Therefore, if only out of respect for the author’s personality and work, we must treat his evidence carefully and try to put and understand the question on its merits. There is no room for controversy here. Or Fr. M. Polski is right – and then, convinced by him, all those who until that moment have thought otherwise are obliged to accept his conclusions and harmonize their church life according to them – or he is not right, but in such a case it is not enough to simply say this, but to reveal where the justice lies. There can be no relativism in the church. And the fact that so many people these days “don’t pay attention” to the question of church organization and consider it unimportant, some “business of the bishops”, is only a sign of a deep illness and loss of church consciousness. There cannot be multiple equally valid ways of understanding the Church, its nature, task and organization.

The book of Fr. M. Polski demands from us a clear and definite answer to the question: what is our specific disagreement with the Overseas Synod and where do we see the norm of the canonical structure of our church life? I am convinced that the time has come when these questions must be posed and considered in substance, that is, in the light of the Tradition of the Church, instead of in the fruitless form of “jurisdictional polemics”. Of course, just one article is not enough for this purpose. The concerted effort of the entire church consciousness is necessary. The task of this article is only to ask the question and try to evaluate the book of Fr. M. Polski in some comprehensive relationship. It goes without saying that the article has no official character and is only a private attempt – according to one’s own strength – to ecclesiastically approach some of the painful difficulties of our church life.

1. Canons and canonicity

All disputes over ecclesiastical organization usually boil down to the question of canonicity and non-canonicality, in which the ways of defining both are infinitely varied. Thus, at the basis of his judgments, Fr. M. Polski takes Apostolic Rule 34: “The bishops of each nation must know which of them is first and recognize him as the head.” And let them not do without his opinion anything that exceeds their power: let each do only that which pertains to his diocese and to the lands belonging to it. But the first should not do anything without the opinion of all. Because in this way there will be consensus and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit – Father and Son and Holy Spirit”.[2] However, we can ask: why, as the main criterion, Fr. M. Polsky proclaims just this and not some other rule? Take, for example, Rule 15 of the First Ecumenical Council. It prohibits bishops and clerics from moving from one diocese to another. At the same time, both in Russia and abroad, the relocated bishops were and continue to be not an exception to the rule, but a common practice, and the Abroad Synod itself was composed in its majority of bishops who abandoned their chairs. Therefore, if we take this rule as the main criterion, then under the concept of “non-canonicality” we can include the entire episcopate of the synodal period of the history of the Russian Church, not to mention emigration. We cite this example not to simplify the controversy, but only to show the arbitrary nature of the one used by Fr. M. Polish method, the application of which would make all modern disputes about canonicity meaningless. Because on the basis of individual canonical texts, arbitrarily selected and interpreted ad hoc, absolutely everything that pleases us can be proved, and in the émigré church-polemical literature, curious examples can be found of how with the help of the same canons one can prove and justify two diametrically opposed points of view. Thus, it becomes clear that before we use the canons, we must establish the norm of their use itself, i.e. try to clarify what a canon is and what its action is in the life of the Church.

It is known that the Church compiled the canons at different times and on different occasions, in the general case with the aim of correcting the distortions of church life or in connection with a change that occurred in the conditions of church life. Thus, in their origin, the canons were determined by the historical setting in view of which they were composed. From this, some “liberal” Orthodox people make the hasty and erroneous conclusion that, as a rule, the canons are “inapplicable” because the conditions of life for which they were created have changed, and therefore all disputes about canonicity are a fruitless and harmful casuistry. Opposing the “liberals” are those who can be called zealots of canonical formalism. Usually ill-informed in theology and in the history of the Church, they see in the canons only the letter and consider as heresy any attempt to see meaning behind that letter. Indeed, at first glance, the implementation of the canons faces great difficulties. So what relation to our lives could have some of the canons, for example, of the Council of Carthage, determining how to divide the dioceses with bishops who switched to the heresy of the Donatists (Council of Carthage, Rule 132)? And at the same time, the Church has repeatedly and solemnly confirmed the “indestructibility” and “unwaveringness” of the canons (Seventh Ecumenical Council, Rule 1; Council of Trulli), and the promise of fidelity to the canons is part of our bishop’s oath. In reality, however, this contradiction is apparent and based on a theological misunderstanding. The deepest error of both “liberals” and “zealots” is that they see in the canon a statute of a juridical nature – a kind of administrative rule that is automatically applicable if only a suitable text can be found. In this approach, some who find such a text try to use it to justify their position (which, in fact, is usually determined for completely different reasons), and others simply reject any reference to the canons as obviously “outdated” legislation.

The thing is, however, that the canon is not a legal document, that it is not a simple administrative rule that can be applied purely formally. The canon contains an indication of how, under the given conditions, the eternal and unchanging essence of the Church can be embodied and manifested, and precisely this eternal truth expressed in the canon – although on a completely different occasion, radically different from our historical situation – represents the eternal and unshakable content of the canon and it is she who makes the canons an invariable part of the Tradition of the Church. “The forms of historical existence of the Church – writes an Orthodox canonist – are extremely diverse. To anyone with even a little knowledge of Church history, this is so self-evident that it requires no proof. One historical form is replaced in this process by another. And yet, for all the diversity of the historical forms of church life, we find in them a constant core. This core is the dogmatic teaching of the Church, or in other words, the Church itself. Church life cannot take arbitrary forms, but only those that correspond to the essence of the Church and are able to express this essence under the specific historical conditions”.[3] Therefore, it is the canon that is the norm for how the Church embodies its immutable essence in changing historical conditions. And therefore to use the canons means, first of all, to be able to find in the text of the canon that eternal core, that side of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, which are precisely contained in it, then to update this eternally – again and again – in life. However, for such use of the canons, as for everything else in the Church, the dead knowledge of the Book of Rules is not enough,[4] but a spiritual effort is required, since the canons cannot be separated from the entire Tradition of the Church, as this people using them as absolute legal rules often do. Fidelity to the canons is fidelity to the entire Tradition of the Church, and this fidelity, in the words of Prof. Prot. Georgi Florovski, “does not mean fidelity to the external authority of the past, but is a living connection with the fullness of the Church’s experience. The reference to the Tradition is not only a historical argument, and the Tradition is not reduced to ecclesiastical archaeology”.[5]

And so, the yardstick for the ecclesiastical structure turns out to be not the bare canonical text, but the testimony contained in it about the Tradition of the Church. This is the only understanding of the canons that gives us an objective and ecclesiastical criterion for determining the applicability or non-applicability of one or another canon to a given situation, and thus also tells us the way of its use. Therefore, in our effort to determine the canonical norm of our ecclesiastical organization in these new conditions in which God has condemned us to live, we are obliged first of all to recall what the Church has always and everywhere embodied but with its external arrangement and what is that main thing to which the canons point.

2. The essence of the Church

The essence of the Church can be expressed with a single word – unity. The Greek term itself ἐκκλησία (church) means, according to the definition of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “a gathering of all together in unity.” “And the fact that, from the very beginning, this term closely related to Old Testament terminology was taken to denote the Christian Church, speaks clearly of the consciousness of unity that was present in the primal church” – so he writes in his Essays on the History of Dogma for the Church V. Troitsky (subsequently Solovetsky confessor archbishop Hilarion).[6] However, what is the essence of this unity, what is expressed or should it be expressed?

With sadness we have to admit that if we continue to profess the unity of the Church, as well as other dogmas with our mouths, then in our consciousness this unity has become an almost hijacked concept, or almost subconsciously we have replaced its original meaning with our own concepts. While at the same time the unity of the Church is not just a “negative” sign, which means that the Church is united when there are no obvious disagreements in it, but represents the very content of church life. Unity in Christ of people with God and unity – in Christ – of the people themselves among themselves, according to the words of the Lord: “I am in them, and You in Me, so that they may be in complete unity” (John 17:23). “The church – writes Fr. G. Florovsky – is a unity not only in the sense that it is one and only, but above all because its very essence consists in the rejoining into one of the divided and fragmented human race”.[7] In the fallen and sinful world, everything divides people, and therefore the unity of the Church is supernatural. It requires a re-gathering and renewal of human nature itself – things that were accomplished by Christ in His Incarnation, in His death on the cross and Resurrection – and which are graciously given to us in the Church through the sacrament of Baptism. In the fallen world, Christ has begun a new being. “This very new being of humanity St. Ap. Paul calls the Church and characterizes it as the Body of Christ”,[8] that is, such an “organic unity of all believers that even the life of the regenerated person becomes unthinkable outside of this organic unity”.[9]

However, just as in the sacrament of Baptism we receive all the fullness of grace, but we ourselves must grow in it by being filled with it, so in the Church – all the fullness of unity is given in Christ, but each of us is required to fulfill or realize this unity, manifestation of this unity in life. In this way, the life of the Church represents a “creation of the body of Christ, until we all reach the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to the state of a perfect man, to the full age of Christ’s perfection” (Eph. 4:12-13). “Only then will the head, that is, Christ, be fulfilled, when we are all united and fastened in the most permanent way”.[10] The way to realize this unity in Christ with a view to the creation of His Body is love. “Paul demands from us such a love – says St. John Chrysostom – that would bind us together, making us inseparable from one another, and such a perfect union as if we were members of the same body”.[11] And finally, in the Liturgy – the highest and final embodiment of the Church’s unity in Christ – only after we have “loved one another” can we pray: “All of us – partakers of the one Bread and the one Cup – unite one to another in the one Spirit of Holy Communion…” (From the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great).

Thus unity turns out to be a real content of church life. Given to the Church from the very beginning, it is also the goal of each of us and of all together – that fullness to which we are obliged to strive at every moment of our ecclesial existence.

3. The Catholicity of the Church: local and universal

Here is this unity, which is the dogmatic essence of the Church, represents in reality the norm of its organization, i.e. it is precisely what is embodied in both the external and internal organization of the Church throughout its earthly history – it is also pointed to it is invariably protected by church canons. “This unity, i.e. the church itself, does not seem like something desired and only expected. The church is not only a conceivable magnitude, it is a real historically tangible phenomenon… In the natural world, Christ has laid the beginning of a special, supernatural society, which will continue to exist alongside natural phenomena”.[12] And because of this, the historical forms of the church organization, although they change depending on the external historical conditions, change only because in these new conditions the same eternal essence of the Church and, above all, its unity is invariably embodied. That is why, under the diversity and difference of all these forms, we always find a basic core, some permanent principle, the betrayal of which or the violation of which would mean to change the very nature of the church. We have in mind the principle of the locality of the ecclesiastical structure.

The locality of the Church means that in one place, that is, in one territory, only one Church can exist, or in other words, one church organization, expressed in the unity of the priesthood. The bishop is the head of the Church – in the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who said: “The Church is in the bishop and the bishop is in the Church.” That is why in a Church there can be only one head – a bishop – and this bishop, in turn, heads the whole Church in the given place. “The Church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2) – here the history of the Church begins with such church units scattered all over the world. And if subsequently this unit and its territory undergo development – from a small municipality in a given city to a diocese, from a diocese to a district and from a district to a huge patriarchate, the principle itself remains unchanged, and at its foundation always remains the same indestructible cell: the one bishop heading the one Church in the particular place. If we delve into the essence of the canons that refer to the authority of the bishop and to the distinction of this authority between the individual bishops, it will not be subject to any doubt that they protect precisely this primordial norm, demanding its embodiment regardless of the specific conditions.

Why is this so? This is so precisely because of this unity of the Church in each specific place, which is also the first concrete embodiment of that unity in which the very essence of the Church and its life consists – the unity of the people whom Christ has regenerated for new life and for who “is one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). And therefore there can be no other principle of organization of the Church than the local and the territorial, because any other principle would mean that some other natural feature – national, racial or ideological – has replaced the supernatural, supernatural, grace unity in Christ. The Church opposes the natural divisions in the world to the supernatural unity in God and embodies this unity in its structure.

The same meaning is also contained in the other name of the Church – in naming it New Israel. Old Testament Israel was the people of God and its religion was essentially national, so accepting it meant becoming a Jew “in the flesh”, joining the Jewish people. As for the Church, its designation as the “new Israel” meant that the Christians constituted a new and united people of God, of which the Old Testament Israel was a type, and in this new unity “circumcision or uncircumcision” no longer means anything – there is no Jew there, we are Greek, but all are already one in Christ.

This very principle of locality lies at the basis of the catholicity (i.e. collegiality) of the Church.[13] The Greek word catholicity means first of all wholeness and applied to the Church, it indicates not only its universality, i.e. that the Universal Church is simply a sum of all its parts, but also that in the Church everything is Catholic, i.e. that in each of its parts the whole fullness of the experience of the Church, its whole essence, is fully embodied. “The Catholic Church residing in Smyrna” – this is how the Smyrna Christians defined themselves in the middle of the second century (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16, 2). Every Christian is also called to this catholicity, i.e. to conformity with the whole. “The order for Catholicism – says Fr. G. Florovsky – is given to everyone… The Church is Catholic in each of its members, since the Catholic whole cannot be built in any other way than through the Catholicity of all members”.[14] And so every church, every ecclesiastical community, in any place, is always a living embodiment of the whole essence of the Church: not just a part, but a member living the life of the whole organism, or rather, the Catholic Church itself , residing at this location.

(to be continued)

* “Church and church structure. About books prot. Polish Canonical position of the highest church authorities in the USSR and abroad” – In: Shmeman, A. Collection of articles (1947-1983), M.: “Русский пут” 2009, pp. 314-336; the text was originally published in: Church Gazette of the Western-European Orthodox Russian Exarchate, Paris, 1949.

Notes:

[1] Protopresbyter Mikhail Polsky (1891-1960) was a graduate of the Stavropol Theological Seminary, a priest from 1920, and in 1921 he entered the Moscow Theological Academy, which was closed soon after. In 1923 he was arrested and exiled to the Solovetsky Islands, but in 1930 he managed to escape and cross the Russian-Persian border. At first he ended up in Palestine, then (from 1938 to 1948) he was the chairman of the London parish of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (OROC), and in 1948 he moved to the USA, where he served in the church of the ROCOR “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in the city of San Francisco. He is the author of a number of works on the situation of the church in Soviet Russia.

[2] Cited by: The rules of the Holy Orthodox Church with their interpretations, 1, S. 1912, p. 98.

[3] Afanasyev, N. “Unchanging and temporary in church canons” – In: Living tradition. Collection, Paris 1937.

[4] Literally the Book of Rules – Slavic bilingual canonical collection (with Church Slavonic and Greek text), published for the first time in the first half of the 19th century and including the creeds of the ecumenical councils, the so-called Apostolic Rules, the rules of the ecumenical and of the local councils and the rules of the holy fathers (note trans.).

[5] Florovsky, G. “Sobornost” – In: The Church of God, London 1934, p. 63.

[6] Troitskii, V. Essays on the history of dogma about the Church, Sergiev Posad 1912, p. 15. See also: Aquilonov, E. Church (scientific definitions of the Church and apostolic teaching from it as about the Body of Christ), St. Petersburg. 1894; Mansvetov, N. New Testament teaching from Tserkva, M. 1879.

[7] Florovsky, G. Cit. op. p. 55. See also: Antonius, Mitr. Collection Sochinenii, 2, pp. 17-18: “The being of the Church cannot be compared with anything else on earth, since there is no unity there, only division… The Church is a completely new, extraordinary and unique being on earth , a “unique” that cannot be defined by any concepts taken from the life of the world… The Church is a similitude of the life of the Holy Trinity – a similitude in which the many become one.”

[8] Troitsky, V. Cit. ibid., p. 24.

[9] Ibid., p. 7.

[10] St. John Chrysostom, “Interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians”, Sermon 2 – In: The Creation of St. Joanna Chrysostom in Russian translation, 2, pp. 26-27.

[11] Ibid., p. 96.

[12] Troitskyi, V. Cit. ibid., p. 24.

[13] The exact name of the Orthodox Church is the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church (for this see in: Prostrannyi khristianskii catechesis by Mitr. Philaret).

[14] Florovsky, G. Cit. same, p. 59.

A “dog” tax has brought 400 million euros to the German budget in 2021

By
Gaston de Persigny
-
0

The Germans’ love for their dogs is proverbial. Now an exact price can be put on this love, reports DPA.

In 2021, the total amount of tax paid by dog ​​owners in Germany rose by 5.4 percent to a record 401 million euros, according to data from the federal statistics office Destatis.

This is likely due to the pandemic-related increased purchases of pets, the agency said.

The tendency to increase the “love” for dogs was clearly manifested already in 2020. Then some wanted to have company while working from home, and others – to have a reason to go outside, at a time when this was not recommended.

The tax authorities, however, report a steady increase in dog tax revenue over the past decade. Compared to 2011, the increase in 2021 is nearly 46 percent.

Photo by Hilary Halliwell:

China blocks 100 billion dollars from Russia

By
Gaston de Persigny
-
0

Russia found itself in a Chinese trap. Before the war in Ukraine, it invested 17% of its gold reserves in yuan to protect itself from possible sanctions. Now, however, it turned out to be impossible to get them, because for their sale you need a special permission from China, which is difficult to obtain, writes Bloomberg(link is external). According to the Central Bank’s report, 105 billion dollars were invested in Chinese yuan.

This is clear from a presentation of the Central Bank of Russia, prepared for a meeting with members of the government on the further fate of reserves and plans to replenish them with the currency of “friendly countries”, held on August 30.

According to the document, Russian authorities are discussing the possibility of buying yuan and other “soft” currencies for $70 billion. “In the new situation, the accumulation of liquid reserves in foreign currency for future crises is extremely difficult and slow. The frozen 300 billion dollars not only does not help Russia, but is also a weakness, a symbol of missed opportunities,” says the presentation in a rare acknowledgment of the true impact of sanctions.

The Central Bank recognizes that because of the sanctions and the ban on operations with dollars and euros, this is not an easy task. The choice must fall on the few “friendly countries”. But the Turkish lira is collapsing – in 10 years it has lost 90% of its value. The UAE dirham is a “political risk” as it has increased visits by US officials to Dubai, who are insisting that the city does not become a hub for circumventing sanctions. There remains the yuan, but there is also a problem – it is easy to put money in, but it is almost impossible to withdraw it. “It is extremely difficult to obtain permission for the sale of Chinese yuan from the Chinese authorities in times of crisis,” the Central Bank wrote.

Officials first broached the idea of ​​buying “friendly” currencies to slow the ruble’s rise in June. At the time, Economy Minister Maxim Reshetnikov criticized the idea, saying it wouldn’t be enough to move the ruble rate much but would force the government to reduce spending sharply.

Citigroup economist Ivan Tchakarov called the plan for buying $70 billion by year-end “quite ambitious,” writing in a note that past purchases have been more modest. “In any case,” he added, “the government seems determined to finally engineer a weaker ruble into year-end.”

Russia’s last unfrozen reserves turned out to be in a Chinese “trap”. About half of the 640 billion dollars available to the Central Bank before the start of the war in Ukraine fell under the first wave of Western sanctions – these are investments in dollars, euros, Japanese yen, British pounds, Australian and Canadian dollars.

The Central Bank began buying yuan in 2018, when the US imposed sanctions on Rusal and began discussing measures against Russian sovereign debt. The largest investment of 44 billion was made in the spring of 2018, when the exchange rate of the Chinese currency was 6.2-6.4 yuan to the dollar. In 2021, the Russian Ministry of Finance transferred the dollar portion of the $17 billion National Welfare Fund into yuan at a rate of 6.4 yuan to the dollar. The Chinese currency is now trading at around 6.9 yuan to the dollar.

The Central Bank’s gold – 2.3 thousand tons, which is the fifth largest reserve in the world, came under separate US sanctions in April. And although gold bars are located in Russia and cannot be arrested, they cannot be sold secretly abroad – Russian gold has characteristic impurities that will immediately show the origin of the metal.

Photo by Pixabay:

1...307308309...1,546Page 308 of 1,546

© FRVS+MPCP 2022. The European Times® News is registered as an EU Trademark. All rights reserved. The European Times® and the logo of The European Times® are EU trademarks registered by FRVS+MPCP.

MADRID

Members/Partners of

GNS Press - The European Times

Google News

  

About Us

Popular Category

DISCLAIMER OPINIONS: The opinions of the authors or reproduced in the articles are the ones of those stating them and it is their own responsibility. Should you find any incorrections you can always contact the newsdesk to seek a correction or right of replay.

DISCLAIMER TRANSLATIONS: All articles in this site are published in English. The translated versions are done through an automated process known as neural translations. If in doubt, always refer to the original article. Thank you for understanding.

DISCLAIMER PHOTOS: We mostly used photos images that are readily available online, from free sources, or from the people promoting the news. If by any chance it happens that we have used one of your copyrighted photos, please do not hesitate to contact us and we will take it down without question. We do not make profits as this is a not for profit project to give voice to the voiceless while giving them a platform to be informed also of general news, and it is completely free.

Editor Picks