In English:
Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria: Traditional and liberal values in the debate between Christianity and secularismRemembering the Pope with Words of Reconciliation
En français:
La délégation du Patriarcat de Moscou a pris part aux obsèques du pape Jean-Paul II
L’évêque Hilarion a rencontré à Bruxelles des personnalités religieuses et politiques pour délibérer de la participation de l’Église orthodoxe russe dans les processus politiques et sociaux
Auf Deutsch:
Patriarch Aleksij von Moskau und der ganzen Rus’: Beileidsschreiben anlässlich des Ablebens Seiner Heiligkeit des Papstes von Rom Johannes Pauls II.
Bischof Hilarion von Wien und Österreich: Papst Johannes Paul II. zum Gedenken
Traditional and liberal values in the debate between Christianity and secularism
Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Vienna and Austria, Representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions
The main question in the contemporary dialogue between civilizations is that of values. The present and future of humanity depend on the answer to this question.
The discussion on values acquires special relevance and urgency in the context of globalization, which is affecting more and more of the world’s population. Globalization is a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted and multi-level process. It exerts influence on the world as a whole and on separate countries and regions, on the entire human community and on concrete human beings. It affects politics and economics, morals and law, the sciences and arts, education and culture. Globalization leaves its imprint on practically all areas of human endeavour, with the possible exception of one: religion. Today only religion is systematically resisting the desperate attack of globalization, entering into an unequal battle for the defence of those values which it considers fundamental and which are being challenged by globalization. Only religion is able to counter the ideology of globalization with its own system of spiritual and moral orientation based on the centuries-long experience of generations acquired during the pre-globalization age.
In the modern battle for values people find themselves more often than not on opposite sides of the barricades, with those inspired by religious ideals on the one side and those whose world-view is formed by secular humanism on the other. At the core of the modern globalization ideology is the humanistic idea of the absolute dignity of man and of the existence of universal, “common human” values, which should serve as the foundation of a single world civilization. By “common human” values, however, are understood not only those spiritual and moral tenets which are common to all religions or which are equally obligatory for both religious and non-religious people (“thou shall not kill”, “thou shall not steal”, “thou shall not bear false witness” etc.), but also many ideas that are questionable from the religious point of view and which are rooted in liberal-humanistic morality.
To this latter group belong, in particular, the affirmation of the right of each individual to his/her own way of life, which extends insofar as it does not cause harm to others (cf. The Humanist Manifesto of 2000, ch. V). From the viewpoint of humanistic morality the only limitation on human freedom is the freedom of other people: the moral person is one who does not harm the interests of others, while the immoral person is one who infringes upon their freedom. The idea of absolute moral norms as well as the notion of sin are completely absent from modern humanistic ethics. In the religious tradition, on the contrary, there exists the concept of an absolute, divinely-established moral law, as well as of the deviation from it, known as sin. From the viewpoint of the religious person, by no means is everything that does not directly infringe on the interests of other people morally permissible. For the believer true freedom is not the permissibility of everything, but the liberation from sin, the overcoming in oneself of everything that hinders spiritual perfection.
It is not by chance that modern liberal humanism is closely connected with globalization. In its foundation, just as in the foundation of the project of globalization, lies the idea of its universality and its being the only alternative. Of course, humanists will acknowledge in word the right of the person to belong to any religion or belong to none at all, since it would not be politically correct to totally deny religion the right to exist. However, in practice humanism is inspired first and foremost by an anti-religious pathos and thus strives to weaken religion as much as possible, drive it into a ghetto, force it out of society and minimize its influence on people, especially on the youth. The secular, worldly, anti-churchly and anti-clerical orientation of modern humanism is obvious. It is precisely because the humanist ideology is acquiring increasingly clearer characteristics of militant secularism that the conflict between it and religion becomes ever more similar to a battle for survival – a battle not unto life, but unto death.
Liberalists and humanists themselves like to depict this battle as a clash between – on the one hand – an outdated world-view based on pre-scientific ideas, on “metaphysical and theological speculations of the past” (The Humanist Manifesto of 2000, ch. II), and on the other – a progressive, scientific and modern view of life. They inculcate this idea into the minds of people through the mass media and the state systems of primary, secondary and higher education, which are in their hands in most Western countries. The youth are brought up with the idea that we are living in a “post-Christian” age, that religion is something for the hopelessly backward and elderly. Liberal humanism actively fights for the hearts and minds of the young, knowing that the outcome of the world-wide debate over values, which the humanists try to pass off as a conflict of generations, will depend on the value system of the next generation.
In reality the secular ideology has not at all come to replace the religious world-view, since the religious value system will continue to exist alongside the liberal-humanistic one. It would be incorrect to talk here about the succession of value systems in their historical development: the question is rather about their opposition to one another, which sometimes leads to political, religious and armed conflicts.
The potential explosiveness of today's inter-civilizational situation is to a significant degree caused by the fact that the Western liberal-humanistic ideology, acting on the idea of its own universality, is imposing itself on people who were raised in other spiritual and moral traditions and have different value systems. These people see in the total dictate of the Western ideology a threat to their identity. The clearly anti-religious character of modern liberal humanism brings about non-acceptance and rejection by those whose behaviour is religiously motivated and whose spiritual life is founded on religious experience. The question here is not only about individuals for whom faith is a matter of personal choice, but also about entire nations, cultures and civilizations formed under the influence of religious factors. It is at the international, inter-cultural and inter-civilizational levels that the opposition between secularism and religion can grow into an open conflict.
There exist several variations of the religious answer to the challenge of totalitarian liberalism and militant secularism. The most radical answer is given by Islamic extremists, who have declared jihad against the “post-Christian” Western civilization with all its so-called common human values. The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism cannot be understood without comprehending the reaction brought forth in the contemporary Islamic world by the attempts of the West to impose its world-view and behavioural standards on it. We are used to hearing statements on how terrorism has neither nationality nor denomination, and nobody doubts that unsolved problems of an ethnic or political nature are the main causes of terrorist acts. But it is impossible to deny the fact that the most aggressive perpetrators of modern Islamic terrorism are inspired by a religious paradigm, viewing their acts as an answer to the total hegemony of Western secular thinking. And as long as the West continues to lay claim to a world-wide monopoly on world-views, propagating its standards as being without alternative and obligatory for all nations, the sword of Damocles of terrorism will continue to hang above the entire Western civilization.
Another variation of the religious answer to the challenge of secularism is the attempt to adapt religion itself, including dogma and morals, to modern liberal standards. Some Protestant communities have already gone this path, single-mindedly instilling liberal standards into their doctrine and church practice over the course of several decades. The result of this process has been an erosion of the dogmatic and moral foundations of Christianity, with priests being allowed not to believe in Christ’s Resurrection, the justification or conducting of “same-sex marriages”, members of the clergy themselves entering into such marriages, and theologians rewriting the Bible and creating countless versions of politically correct Christianity oriented toward liberal values. The revision of centuries-old church tradition to please the feminist movement has led to the introduction of the institution of female priesthood in the above-mentioned communities, which has drawn an additional line of demarcation between them and representatives of traditional Christianity.
Finally, the third variation of the religious answer to secularism is the attempt to enter into a peaceful, non-aggressive, though obviously unequal, dialogue with it, with the aim of achieving a balance between the liberal-democratic model of Western societal structure and the religious way of life. Such a path has been chosen by Christian Churches that have remained faithful to tradition, namely the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well as several non-Christian religions such as Judaism, Buddhism and moderate Islam. The recognition of the necessity of dialogue with Churches and religious communities is also spreading among liberal politicians, who are coming to the realization that conflict can arise when religious communities are deprived of their right to public self-expression. More and more politicians are seeking contact with religious leaders, understanding that the opinion of Churches and religious communities should not be ignored during the process of elaborating those values which will serve as the foundation of the “new world order”.
A characteristic example of such an understanding is the European Union – one of the main catalysts of the process of integration and globalization in the modern world. As far as its Weltanschauung is concerned, the European Union is essentially a secular super-state founded on humanistic principles inherited from the Age of Enlightenment. Until recently the attempts of Churches and religious organizations to conduct dialogue with the institutions of the European Union were almost exclusively the initiative of the Churches themselves, which did not receive any clear response from the European Institutions. There did not and still do not exist to this very day a structure that might allow Churches to carry out a systematic and constructive dialogue with the European Union. However, after the adoption of the new European Constitution, such a structure should appear, since the project of the constitution stipulates an “open, transparent and regular dialogue” of the European Union with Churches and religious organizations (Constitutional Treaty for the European Union, article I-52). The inclusion of this point into the constitution, as well as the recognition of the fact that the “universal values” on which the EU is founded are inspired by the “cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe” (Constitutional Treaty for the European Union, preamble), can open up new possibilities for dialogue between religion and secular liberal humanism.
Today both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the capability to conduct such a dialogue at a high intellectual level. In the social doctrines of both Churches, the problems concerning the dialogue with secular humanism on the question of values have been profoundly examined from all angles. The Roman Catholic Church has dealt with these questions in many documents of the Magisterium, of which the most recent is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, compiled by the Pontifical Commission “Justitia et Pax” and published in 2004. In the Orthodox tradition the most significant document of this kind is the Bases of the Social Conception of the Russian Orthodox Church, published in 2000. Both documents maintain the priority of religious values over the interests of the worldly life of the person. The Compendium acknowledges the presence of “universal values”, but understands by this term those values which are “drawn from Revelation and human nature” (ch. 85), i.e. values which result from both anthropological and religious premises.
Today the world needs a serious and thoughtful dialogue, and not the continuation and deepening of the conflict between the religious and humanistic world-views. It is precisely this dialogue that is proposed by traditional Christianity. The latter does not oppose humanism as such, but is against humanism’s liberal, atheistic version. The Church does not accept that version of humanism which, according to its founders, “excludes mysticism and religion” (The Humanist Manifesto of 2000, foreword). The Church opposes religious humanism to atheistic humanism, the former being guided by spiritual values (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ch. 98). By this is means a humanism “that is up to the standards of God’s plan of love in history”, an “integral and solidary humanism capable of creating a new social, economic and political order, founded on the dignity and freedom of every human person, to be brought about in peace, justice and solidarity” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ch. 19).
The values just quoted wholly correspond to those which ideologues of modern secular humanism, liberalism and globalization define as “common human”. The Church, therefore, does not reject these values but gives them a different content. The essence of the opposition of the two humanisms – the religious and the atheistic, the churchly and the secular, the traditional and the liberal – lies in the different, sometimes diametrically opposed understanding of such values as dignity and freedom of the person. This question will be examined in more detail in the next issues of Europaica.
Remembering the Pope with Words of Reconciliation
Vladimir Simonov
Pope John Paul II has left this world. Candles for the repose of his soul have been lit across Russia both in Catholic cathedrals and Orthodox churches.
In his message of condolences, Vladimir Putin called the late pontiff an “outstanding figure of our times” and praised his pursuit of a noble goal: “to establish society on the principles of humanism and solidarity.”
The Kremlin has come a long way since the fall of 1978, when the archbishop of Krakow was elected the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Brezhnev’s ideologists immediately saw a new instrument of imperialism in the Polish-born pontiff that could shake the foundations of the communist camp.
If we disregard the conspiracy theory, their political predictions were largely prophetic. In one of his first speeches, John Paul II boldly attacked the iron curtain. He called on mankind “to open the door to Christ.” “Open the borders of states, political and economic systems, wide expanses of civilizations and cultures to His grace,” the pope appealed. “Do not be afraid!”
The totalitarian rulers of Russia, on the contrary, started to fear Catholicism even more. It was driven underground and was treated as a conservative sect. Roman Catholic churches destroyed in the 1920s only saw a glimpse of their future revival in April 1991, at the height of perestroika, long after Russia had tasted the forbidden fruit of democracy.
Two years earlier, right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the pope received a Communist Party leader for the first time in the Vatican’s history: Mikhail Gorbachev.
Many Western theologians hurried to call that meeting a long-awaited capitulation of scientific atheism before religion in their long rivalry for the right to be considered the main driving force of human evolution.
This was an erroneous conclusion as far as Russia was concerned. Seven decades of Communist Party rule had instilled the gene of atheism in the nation. Curiously, even today, in a country that has gone through drastic changes, atheist views are regarded as another attribute of the freedom of conscience.
The real significance of Gorbachev’s historical meeting with the pope was that it started the revival of the Roman Catholic Church in Russia. Moscow established official diplomatic relations with the Vatican during John Paul II’s papacy. In February 2002, the pope’s office assigned a higher status to Catholic missions in Russia, transforming them from apostolic administrative offices, or, essentially, temporary structures, into fully-fledged dioceses.
At present, Bishop Joseph Werth, the president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Russia heads a community uniting 300 Catholic congregations with more than 500,000 Catholics, including Russia’s most prominent Catholic, Minister of Economic Development German Gref.
Today, the bishop is as welcome in the Kremlin as Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II, Mufti Gainutdin, Chief Rabbi Lazar and head of Old Believers Church Metropolitan Andrian. The Russian authorities see a foundation of Russia’s unity and an antidote to religious extremism in tolerance among various denominations.
“[Our] relations with the Russian state have improved significantly, in general, thanks to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who often defends the Catholic Church from attacks,” Bishop Josef Werth says.
Normally, the Catholic Church has to defend itself from the attacks of the Russian Orthodox Church, the predominant denomination in Russia. The Orthodox Church accuses Catholics of disrespectful proselytizing, or simply “stealing” parishioners from the Orthodox Church on its territory.
Another apple of discord between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church is the tension around Greek-Catholics in Ukraine (they are also called the Uniates) that has been growing for decades. The Uniates plan to establish their own patriarchy in Kiev and have appealed for the Vatican’s blessing.
These antagonisms to a great extent prevented John Paul II from visiting Russia and meeting with Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II. The spiritual leader of 800 million Catholics, who made 250 foreign visits, passed away never having celebrated Mass on Red Square.
Nevertheless, there is a less sorrowful side to grief, as it brings people closer together. The pope’s death inspired thoughtful words of reconciliation from the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church. In his message of condolences, Patriarch Alexy II expressed hope that “the new period in the history of the Roman Catholic Church will help re-establish mutual respect and fraternal Christian love between our Churches.”
Facing new evils, the world’s two largest Churches do not have the right to reject dialogue, to reject the idea of Christian unity. This is part of unwritten legacy left to us by a great man of virtue who has left our world.
Posted by RIA Novosti
La délégation du Patriarcat de Moscou a pris part aux obsèques du pape Jean-Paul II
Le métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad, président du Département des relations extérieures du Patriarcat de Moscou, était arrivé à Rome le 6 avril pour prendre part aux obsèques du pape Jean-Paul II. La délégation du Patriarcat de Moscou comprenait également l’archevêque Mitrophane de Péréiaslavl-Khmelnitski, l’administrateur de l’Église orthodoxe ukrainienne, le prêtre Igor Vyzhanov et le hiéromoine Philippe (Vassiltsev).
Dès son arrivée à Rome le métropolite Kirill s’est rendu à la basilique Saint-Pierre où le corps du pape Jean-Paul II était exposé pour le dernier adieu. Le métropolite est allé ensuite au chantier de l’église orthodoxe Sainte-Catherine sur le territoire de l’Ambassade de Russie.
Le soir du même jour, la veille de la fête de l’Annonciation, le métropolite Kirill a célébré les vigiles dans l’église de Saint-Nicolas. Dans son discours à l’issue de l’office le métropolite Kirill a annoncé aux fidèles qu’il venait de la part du patriarche de Moscou Alexis II assister aux obsèques du pape Jean-Paul II. «Le décès d’un chef de l’Église est toujours source d’une grande douleur pour les fidèles, car il et pasteur avant tout. Le départ d’un pasteur est toujours difficile pour les croyants. Pour cette raison nous nous joignons à la douleur des catholiques et leur exprimons nos condoléances sincères», a dit Mgr Kirill.
Le même jour l’ambassadeur de la Fédération de Russie en Italie, A. Mechkov, a organisé un dîner en l’honneur du métropolite Kirill.
Le 7 avril 2005, le jour de la fête de l’Annonciation, le métropolite Kirill a présidé la divine liturgie dans l’église du Patriarcat de Moscou, dédiée à saint Nicolas. Dans l’après-midi Mgr Kirill a rencontré les cardinaux Camillo Ruini et Walter Kasper pour leur exprimer au nom de l’Église orthodoxe russe les condoléances pour le décès du pape Jean-Paul II et leur faire part de l’espoir que la question du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe sera une des priorités dans l’activité du Saint-Siège.
Le soir du même jour le Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de l’unité des chrétiens a organisé un dîner pour les représentants des diverses Églises et organisations chrétiennes qui étaient arrivés pour les obsèques du pape Jean-Paul II.
Le 8 avril 2005 la délégation du Patriarcat de Moscou, présidée par le métropolite Kirill, a pris part aux obsèques du pape Jean-Paul II. Trois primats orthodoxes ont également participé à l’office funèbre: le patriarche Bartholomée de Constantinople, l’archevêque Christodoulos d’Athènes et de toute la Grèce et l’archevêque Anastase de Tirana et de toute l’Albanie, ainsi que de nombreux représentants des Églises orthodoxes locales et d’autres Églises chrétiennes.
Après l’office des obsèques le métropolite Kirill s’est entretenu avec M. Fradkov, le premier-ministre de la Fédération de Russie, qui dirigeait la délégation de l’État russe et a rencontré les présidents d’Azerbaïdjan et de Lituanie. Dans l’après-midi les représentants des Églises et des organisations chrétiennes internationales ont été salués par le cardinal J. Ratzinger, le doyen du Sacré-Collège.
L’évêque Hilarion a rencontré à Bruxelles des personnalités religieuses et politiques pour délibérer de la participation de l’Église orthodoxe russe dans les processus politiques et sociaux
Le 6 avril 2005 l’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche, représentant de l’Église orthodoxe russe près les Institutions européennes, a rencontré le directeur de la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe de Grèce auprès de l’Union européenne, l’évêque Athanase d’Achaïe. La conversation entre les deux évêques orthodoxes a porté sur lordre du jour de la rencontre des représentants religieux avec le président de la Commission européenne, M. José Manuel Barroso, prévue pour le 22 avril.
Le 7 avril l’évêque Hilarion a présidé la divine liturgie de la fête de l’Annonciation dans l’Église de la Représentation à Bruxelles. Le même jour Mgr Hilarion a rencontré T. A. Zdanoka, députée de la République de Lettonie au Parlement européen et dirigeante de la formation politique «Pour les droits de l’homme dans la Lettonie unie», pour parler de la situation de la minorité russophone dans les pays baltes, de la participation de l’Église orthodoxe dans les processus sociaux et politiques, notamment dans la création du parti russe européen. Le secrétaire de la Représentation, le prêtre Antony Iliin et le vice-maire de la ville de Daugavpils, M. Mitrofanov, ont également pris part à la rencontre.
Le 8 avril l’évêque Hilarion a visité le Centre des recherches politiques, organisation sociale indépendante consacrée à l’étude des problèmes de l’intégration européenne. Mgr Hilarion rencontra le directeur du Centre, M. John Palmer, afin de lui faire part du travail de la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe auprès des Institutions européennes. Le même jour l’évêque Hilarion s’est rendu à la Mission permanente de la Fédération de Russie auprès des Communautés européennes où il a été reçu par le chef provisoire de la Mission M. I. Petrakov et examiné ensemble avec lui le programme de l’organisation des conférences communes, consacrées aux questions européennes et religieuses.
Le soir du même jour l’évêque Hilarion et le prêtre Antony Iliin ont rencontré le député du Parlement de la Fédération de Russie A. Klimov, président du sous-comité pour les questions de la politique régionale et des relations entre les régions et vice-président du parti «Russie unie».
Patriarch Aleksij von Moskau und der ganzen Rus’: Beileidsschreiben anlässlich des Ablebens Seiner Heiligkeit des Papstes von Rom Johannes Pauls II.
Am 3. April 2005 sandte Seine Heiligkeit der Patriarch von Moskau und der ganzen Rus’ Aleksij II. anlässlich des Ablebens Seiner Heiligkeit des Papstes von Rom Johannes Pauls II. ein Beileidsschreiben in den Vatikan. Der Wortlaut des Schreibens wird anschließend zur Gänze wiedergegeben.
Seiner Eminenz Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger, Dekan des Heiligen Kardinalkollegiums
Vatikanstaat
Eure Eminenz!
Erlauben Sie mir, Ihnen und in Ihrer Person der ganzen Fülle der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche mein tiefes Beileid anlässlich des Ablebens Seiner Heiligkeit des Papstes von Rom Johannes Pauls II. auszudrücken. Zusammen mit Ihnen trauern wir über den Verlust, der die Römisch-Katholische Kirche getroffen hat.
Den verstorbenen Vorsteher des altehrwürdigen Bischofssitzes von Rom haben Treue zu dem in seiner Jugend gewählten Weg und ein glühender Wille zum christlichen Dienst und Zeugnis ausgezeichnet. Trotz seiner sehr schweren Krankheit blieb er seiner Pflicht weiterhin treu und betreute seine Herde bis zu den letzten Tagen. Das Ertragen seiner Leiden ohne Murren, das von Gebet und Hoffnung auf den Willen des allbarmherzigen Herrn begleitet war, hat ihn für viele Menschen zu einem anfeuernden Beispiel werden lassen.
Der Pontifikat Seiner Heiligkeit Johannes Pauls II. wurde zu einer ganzen Epoche im Leben der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche sowie in der gesamten Gegenwartsgeschichte. Die Persönlichkeit des verstorbenen Papstes, seine Werke und Ideen übten auf den Lauf der Weltgeschehnisse großen Einfluss aus.
Ich hoffe, dass die nun beginnende neue Periode im Leben der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche helfen wird, die Beziehungen der gegenseitigen Hochachtung und brüderlichen christlichen Liebe zwischen unseren Kirchen zu erneuern.
Ich sende mein Gebet zum Sieger über den Tod und Gebieter des Lebens, zu unserem Herrn Jesus Christus, empor, dass Seine Heiligkeit Papst Johannes Paul II. Seelenfrieden an den Wohnstätten der Gerechten finden möge. Ewiges Gedenken!
+ Aleksij
Patriarch von Moskau und der ganzen Rus’
Übersetzung aus dem Russischen: DDr. Johann Krammer
Papst Johannes Paul II. zum Gedenken
Bischof von Wien und Österreich HILARION (Alfeyev), Vertreter der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche bei den Europäischen Institutionen
Er war ein großer Papst, vielleicht einer der größten in der gesamten Geschichte der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche. Es besteht kein Zweifel, dass er durch die Kirche, der er sein ganzes Leben geweiht hat, bald selig und heilig gesprochen werden wird.
Er war der einflussreichste religiöse Führer der Gegenwart und leistete ein Beitrag zur gesamten Menschheitskultur. Sein Einfluss reichte tatsächlich weit über die Römisch-Katholische Kirche hinaus, deren Oberhaupt er mehr als ein Viertel Jahrhundert war. Seine Botschaft wurde von Millionen von Menschen überall auf der Welt gehört und geschätzt, nicht nur von Katholiken, sondern auch von Orthodoxen, Protestanten, Anglikanern, Juden, Muslimen, Anhängern anderer Religionen und – was vielleicht am bemerkenswertesten ist – auch von ungläubigen Menschen. Durch seine Präsenz, durch seine Worte, durch sein Lächeln und durch seine außergewöhnliche Offenheit war er imstande, Christus Millionen von Menschen näher zu bringen.
In einer Zeit, in der säkulare Politiker in den meisten Ländern des Westens sich intensiv bemühen, die Religion aus der Öffentlichkeit zu vertreiben, sie auf den Bereich der privaten Frömmigkeit zu beschränken und sie von Schulen, Universitäten und aus den Massenmedien zu verbannen, war Johannes Paul II. eine Person der Öffentlichkeit von solcher Größe, dass über jede seiner Reisen ausführlich berichtet und jede seiner Aussagen weltweit durch die Massenmedien kommentiert wurde.
Er war ein „orthodoxer“ Papst im Sinn der Bewahrung der traditionellen Haltung seiner Kirche zu Dogma und Moral. Sein Einsatz für moralische Werte – wie in Bezug auf Ehe und Familie, Abtreibung, Verhütung, Euthanasie und vieles andere – rief sehr oft die Kritik derjenigen hervor, welche die traditionellen Werte durch säkulare ersetzen wollten und sich bemühten, den Humanismus der Religion entgegenzustellen. In seiner Traditionalität war der Papst jedoch keineswegs weniger human, da er fähig war, einen universalen Humanismus im Gegensatz zur atheistischen Version des Humanismus auf geistlichen Werten zu begründen. Viele Jahre leistete er Widerstand gegen den Atheismus in seinem eigenen Land Polen und spielte eine Rolle beim Zusammenbruch der atheistischen totalitären Regime in Osteuropa, aber er leistete auch einen enormen Beitrag zur Wiederentdeckung des Glaubens durch viele von denen, die ihn wegen des in den westlichen demokratischen Gesellschaften vorherrschenden Liberalismus und Relativismus verloren hatten.
Sein Leben fiel mit gewaltigen geopolitischen Umwälzungen zusammen, die das Antlitz Europas für immer veränderten. Diese Veränderungen führten unglücklicherweise nicht nur zur Einführung der Religionsfreiheit in jenen osteuropäischen Ländern, wo sie vormals verletzt worden war, sondern auch zu einer Verschärfung der interkonfessionellen Situation in einigen Regionen Osteuropas. Es entstand eine Reihe von Problemen, speziell zwischen Orthodoxen und Katholiken in Russland und in der Ukraine, welche die Führer der Orthodoxen Kirche in beiden Ländern von einem Treffen mit dem Papst abhielten. Diese Probleme warten noch auf ihre Lösung.
Ich habe den Papst zweimal getroffen, bei beiden Gelegenheiten hatte ich ihm eine Botschaft vom Patriarchen von Moskau Aleksij II. zu übermitteln. Bei unserer zweiten und letzten Begegnung am 25. Januar 2002 war ich mit der etwas delikaten Aufgabe betraut, dem Papst die Bedingungen zu erklären, unter denen ein Treffen mit dem Vorsteher der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche möglich gewesen wäre. Er war sich dieser Bedingungen, aus denen niemals ein Geheimnis gemacht worden war, natürlich voll bewusst. Zu ihnen gehörten der explizite Verzicht auf alle Formen des Proselytismus auf dem kanonischen Territorium des Moskauer Patriarchats sowie die Anerkennung der Tatsache, dass der Uniatismus weiterhin nicht mehr als Weg zur christlichen Einheit gelten dürfe. Es ist zu hoffen, dass diese Prinzipien in einer gemeinsamen Erklärung der Oberhäupter der Römisch-Katholischen und der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche reflektiert werden, sobald ein Treffen zwischen ihnen stattfinden wird. Ein solches Treffen könnte den Weg zu einer neuen Seite in den Beziehungen zwischen diesen beiden traditionellen Kirchen ebnen, deren gemeinsames und geeintes Zeugnis für die Welt so extrem wichtig und zeitgemäß wäre.
Die letzte Krankheit und der Tod des Papstes waren so außergewöhnlich wie sein Leben und Dienst. Durch mehrere aufeinander folgende Tage, von Minute zu Minute, berichteten alle führenden Massenmedien der Welt über den Verlauf seines Todeskampfes, wobei sie gleichzeitig seinen langen Dienst an der Menschheit kommentierten. Sogar als Johannes Paul II. still auf seinem Totenbett lag, konnte er weiterhin die christliche Botschaft der Hoffnung und Auferstehung verbreiten.
Möge seine Seele in Frieden ruhen und sein Gedächtnis ewig währen.
Übersetzung aus dem Russischen: DDr. Johann Krammer