En français:
Le patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie a rencontré le Commissaire du Conseil de l’Europe pour les droits de l’hommeLe Patriarcat de Moscou salue les paroles prononcées par le pape Benoît XVI à BariLa conférence de Dom Michel van Parys à la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe à BruxellesLe patriarche de Moscou a rencontré le catholicos des ArméniensLa réunion du Conseil pour la collaboration avec les associations religieuses auprès du Président de la Russie Les Églises européennes face au résultat du Référendum sur le Traité constitutionnel en France
In English:
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: Message on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War
Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin: Russian Orthodox Church and Economic Ethics at the Turn of the Millennium (I)
Auf Deutsch:
Bischof Hilarion von Wien und Österreich: Der militante Säkularismus und das Christentum. Die religiösen und „allgemeinmenschlichen“ Werte
Le patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie a rencontré le Commissaire du Conseil de l’Europe pour les droits de l’homme
Le 26 mai 2005 le patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie a reçu dans sa résidence le Commissaire du Conseil de l’Europe pour les droits de l’homme, M. Alvaro Gil-Robles qu’il avait rencontré il y a un an, le 24 mai 2004, lors de sa précédente visite à Moscou.
En saluant M. Gil-Robles, le patriarche a affirmé: «Je suis heureux de vous rencontrer de nouveau. Pendant votre activité en tant que Commissaire du Conseil de l’Europe vous avez souvent visité la Russie et avez, je crois, bien étudié la situation dans notre pays. Nous avons étudié le rapport que vous avez présenté sur la mise en pratique des droits de l’homme en Russie. Bien que certaines affirmations du rapport puissent être remises en question, il reflète en général bien fidèlement la situation existante, est positif et, contrairement à beaucoup d’autres rapports sur la Russie, laisse une bonne impression. Je pense que vous avez bien étudié la question de la liberté religieuse dans notre pays. Je ferai remarquer que dans ce domaine la situation en Russie évolue de manière stable et positive; le dialogue inter-religieux est poursuivi; il n’existe pas d’opposition entre les religions. Cependant, il existe quelques problèmes avec les sectes totalitaires dont nous observons le déferlement en Russie. Les cultes totalitaires exercent souvent une influence néfaste sur la santé psychique et physique de la personne, détruisent les familles, opposent les parents aux enfants et conduisent parfois leurs adeptes au suicide. En déployant des affaires financières et violant les lois de notre pays, les chefs de ces organisations pseudo-religieuses accusent l’État de ne pas soutenir leur activité. <…> En même temps, nous entretenons un dialogue actif et mettons en place une collaboration avec les forces religieuses saines qui contribuent à la consolidation de la société et oeuvrent pour le bien du peuple».
De son côté, M. Gil-Robles a insisté sur la nécessité de la formation religieuse: «L’ignorance de l’histoire des religions me semble un facteur très négatif dans l’éducation des enfants. Les personnes non croyantes devraient, elles aussi, avoir des notions de la culture religieuse. Il est également important que l’enseignement des fondements de la culture religieuse puisse cultiver la tolérance».
Le Patriarcat de Moscou salue les paroles prononcées par le pape Benoît XVI à Bari
La réaffirmation par le pape Benoît XVI de son engagement de promouvoir l’unité des chrétiens, faite dans son homélie du dimanche 29 mai 2005 à Bari à la clôture du Congrès eucharistique, a été immédiatement saluée par le Patriarcat de Moscou. «Les Églises orthodoxes et les autres Églises ont appelé et appellent toujours à l’unité des chrétiens», a annoncé le prêtre Vsevolod Tchaplin, vice-président du Département des relations extérieures du Patrarcat de Moscou, à l’agence Interfax. Mais pour cela, a-t-il remarqué, «il est nécessaire que les chrétiens occidentaux reviennent à la foi de l’Église indivise». Le père Tchaplin a exprimé son espoir de voir ce retour aux racines communes se réaliser de la part de l’Église catholique. «Je ne crois pas, dit-il, que les différends puissent être réglés rapidement et facilement, mais nous continuons à espérer qu’il existe la possibilité de les dépasser par le dialogue et l’étude des questions controversée».
La conférence de Dom Michel van Parys à la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe à Bruxelles
Le cycle des conférences annuelles à la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe auprès des Institutions européennes s’est poursuivi le 17 mai 2005 avec l’ntervention de Dom Michel van Parys sur «L’Europe des moines». Le Père Michel van Parys a été pendant 27 ans abbé du monastère de Chevetogne et est actuellement consultant de la Congrégation pontificale pour les Églises orientales. Il est également fondateur du Groupe de Chevetogne, association de supérieurs monastiques catholiques et orthodoxes qui deux fois par an se réunissent pour discuter de la place du monachisme au sein de l’Europe et de la contribution que les moines et les moniales peuvent apporter à la réflexion sur l’unification européenne.
Le Père Michel van Parys a discerné quatre modalités du témoignage monastique en Europe, tout en soulignant qu’il n’est possible que si, d’une part, l’Europe apprend à donner sa juste place aux communautés religieuses, en tenant compte des diversités nationales et, d’autre part, si les communautés monastiques elles-mêmes restent fidèles à leur vocation et préservent leurs charismes. Les quatre modalités sont a) l’action et la contemplation, b) la réception, c) la célébration et la transmission et d) le sens des valeurs. Selon le père Michel, «moines et moniales n’ont pas pour vocation d’être gardiens de musée, des mannequins dispensant la couleur locale <…>. S’ils répondent à l’appel du Seigneur à le suivre dans la voie monastique, c’est qu’ils se savent saisis par un amour absolu, celui de Dieu, à aimer gratuitement». Le sens de l’hospitalité, l’accueil et la gratuité sont les valeurs les plus chères du monachisme dont la richesse spirituelle cherche un dialogue avec les cultures européennes qui lui doivent, d’ailleurs, beaucoup. Pour le père Michel van Parys, les moines «peuvent devenir des hommes et des femmes de plusieurs cultures, des plurilingues spirituels». Ce sont les moines qui peuvent aider l’Europe à renouer avec le passé non par «des fragments d’expériences esthétiques», mais par la mémoire du geste rituel, des expressions symboliques vivantes, des «rites qui mettent en relation».
Le patriarche de Moscou a rencontré le catholicos des Arméniens
Le 31 mai 2005 le patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie a reçu le patriarche et catholicos des Arméniens Garégin II. Les deux primats ont parlé de la renaissance spirituelle dans les anciennes républiques soviétiques. Le catholicos Garégin a déploré le manque d’églises dans son pays: ainsi, à Erevan, qui compte 900 mille habitants il n’existe que 16 églises et trois autres sont en construction. Par ailleurs, la catholicos arménien a tenu à annoncer personnellement au patriarche Alexis que les autorités d’Erevan ont fait don au Patriarcat de Moscou d’un terrain pour la construction d’une église orthodoxe russe. Après la rencontre avec le patriarche Alexis, Garegin II est parti pour les Etats-Unis où habite la majorité des fidèles de l’Église arménienne.
La réunion du Conseil pour la collaboration avec les associations religieuses auprès du Président de la Russie
Le 1er juin 2005 le Conseil pour la collaboration avec les associations religieuses auprès du Président de la Russie s’est réuni à nouveau sous la présidence du chef de l’Administration du Président de la Fédération de Russie, V. A. Medvedev. La réunion a été consacrée à la question de la collaboration des organes d’État avec les associations religieuses dans le domaine de la tolérance, de la cohésion sociale et du développement du dialogue inter-religieux. Le Conseil a examiné également quelques aspects de l’élaboration de la législation concernant l’activité des organisations religieuses.
L’Église orthodoxe russe a été représentée au Conseil par le métropolite Juvénal de Krutitsy et de Kolomna, le métropolite Clément de Kaluga et de Borovsk, administrateur du Patriarcat de Moscou, l’archevêque Eugène de Vereia, recteur de l’Académie de théologie de Moscou, et le prêtre Vsevolod Tchaplin, vice-président du Département des relations extérieures du Patriarcat de Moscou.
Le Conseil a adopté une déclaration dans laquelle il a réitéré la condamnation de la xénophobie et de la haine religieuse qui «représentent une menace sérieuse à l’intégrité de la société russe multinationale et à l’existence même de notre pays». «Nous rejetons, affirment les membres du Conseil, toute inimitié religieuse et ethnique, parce qu’elle contredit dans son essence l’esprit pacifique et philanthrope des religions qui existent dans notre pays et la tradition vieille de plusieurs siècles de la coexistence paisible des confessions en Russie».
Les Églises européennes face au résultat du Référendum sur le Traité constitutionnel en France
Le résultat négatif du Référendum français sur le projet du Traité constitutionnel est un sérieux défi pour les Églises de l’Europe. En son temps le projet de la Constitution avait été l’objet des critiques justifiées de la part des communautés religieuses à cause du refus de ses rédacteurs de mentionner dans le Préambule les racines chrétiennes de l’Europe. Toutefois, le texte définitif du Traité a inclus un article important au sujet du dialogue régulier de l’Union avec les Églises et les communautés religieuses. Si l’Union Européenne continue à fonctionner sur le fondement des traités existants, cela signifie que la perspective d’un tel dialogue est reléguée à l’avenir indéterminé. Dans ces circonstances, sans attendre la résolution de la crise constitutionnelle, les Églises de l’Europe doivent engager des consultations multilatérales avec les Institutions de l’Union dont l’objectif serait l’inclusion du dialogue avec les organisations religieuses dans le cadre de celui qui existe déjà entre l’U. E. et les partenaires de la société civile.
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: Message on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War
Most Reverend Archpastors; All-Honourable Fathers; Beloved in the Lord Brothers and Sisters:
From the bottom of my heart I congratulate you on the significant jubilee - the 60th anniversary of the Victory of our people in the Great Patriotic War. For us all it is a common and very precious feast. The disaster that befell our homeland in those remote 40s rallied our people who, in one impulse, stood up in the defence of our Motherland. The crucible of trials purified and tempered the soul of the people. As it happened many times in our history, the world witnessed the examples of the noblest self-sacrifice and selfless commitment to the homeland. In those hard years, a great many people turned to the faith of their forefathers - Holy Orthodoxy and drew from its depository strength and courage, fulfilling in deed the commandment of Christ: 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends' (Jn. 15:13).
The feat performed by our people in war and labour during the Great Patriotic War became the height of Russia's military glory. In former times too, our warriors set examples of true heroism, courage and valour. They fought under the leadership of the Holy Princes Alexander Nevsky and Dimitry Donskoy, Citizen Minin and Prince Pozharsky, great military commanders Suvorov and Kutuzov, the Holy Righteous Warrior Fyodor Ushakov and Admiral Nakhimov, defeating powerful enemies who had seemed unconquerable. Yet the War of 1941-1945 became an unprecedented trial.
The entire country stood up at the defence of her sacred boundaries. The war was waged not only in the front; through misfortunes and deprivations, death notifications and bitter sufferings, it entered every home and every family. The Victory was won at the price of tremendous sacrifices and efforts. It was forged not only by the war feat of military commanders and soldiers who defended the Motherland with arms in their hands. It was also forged by the feat of those who, under bullets and shells, carried the wounded from the battlefield and nursed them in frontline and base hospitals; who, working in plants round the clock, brought the Victory nearer by their work; who cultivated the war-parched land so that soldiers and their wives and children might not starve. In the days of hardships, the people of our country, rallying into one family without ethnic, religious or ideological differences, manifested the striking unity of spirit and will.
Our soldiers were united by a lofty goal. They defended not only their Motherland, their families and homes, they defended the whole world from a lethal threat that hovered over it. A strong and cruel enemy armed with the anti-Christian ideology of Nazism, wage a war for world dominion. In that bloody war for the salvation of humanity from total enslavement we suffered the greatest losses, and today we bow down our heads before the memory of those who fell in action in the fronts of the Great Patriotic War and behind enemy lines, who died of wounds and hunger, who died during the siege, who were tortured to death and killed in captivity.
The Russian Orthodox Church firmly believed in the coming Victory and, on the very first day of war, blessed the army and the whole nation for the defence of the Motherland. Our soldiers were guarded not only by the prayers of their wives and mothers, but also the everyday church-wide prayer for the Victory. Responding to the call of the Church, millions of believers took part in the raising of funds for building the Dimitry Donskoy Tank Column and the Alexander Nevsky Fighter Squadron.
In the fiery crucible of hardships, many found or strengthened their faith. There were not a few soldiers who, having fulfilled their duty of the military service of the Motherland, came after the war to serve God and their people in holy orders.
My dear ones! The common past unites us, and we should be worthy of the sacrificial feat performed by our fathers and grandfathers during the war years. We should not forget what price was paid for the Great Victory and that we gained it fighting side by side so that our children and grandchildren could live in peace and friendship. The new generations should cherish the brotherhood that was bequeathed to us as it was sealed by the blood shed in the battlefields of the Great Patriotic War. However many years pass since that remote day, the memory of it should live in the soul of the people so that the link of times may not be disrupted. I call upon our youth to be worthy of the memory of their fathers and grandfathers and learn to be committed and courageous from those who have survived all the war burdens and trials and won peace for the whole world.
On this great day I address with a special feeling those who lived and fought in those remote fiery years. Dear veterans! You gave to the world an example of sacrificial service of the Motherland and the people. May the Lord grant you many more years of life so that, strong and healthy, you may give joy to your families and to all of us who honour your feats and efforts with gratitude.
Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin: Russian Orthodox Church and Economic Ethics at the Turn of the Millennium (I)
The state of economy and social sphere in the post-Soviet states in the 1990s and 2000s has become an object of close attention for the Russian Orthodox Church in the persons of her Supreme Authority, clergy and laity, including those united in church public organizations. It is small wonder considering the stormy economic and social changes which have been experienced by societies in Russia and other countries of the Commonwealth of the Independent State in the post-totalitarian period and which have affected literally every citizen. Called to be concerned for the spiritual and material welfare of every person, the Church has responded to the developments by seeking to answer numerous questions asked by her spiritual children. While in the early 1990s the Church’s response to the new developments in the economic and social sphere focused primarily on particular pressing problems, by the end of this decade and especially in the beginning of the 21st century the Orthodox socio-economic thought has addressed the profound ethical issues involved in this field.
1. The shock of the early 1990s: Economic transformations against the background of a moral crisis
The collapse of the Soviet economy in the end of the 1980s, followed by the disintegration of the then political system, forced the state authority and society to undertake a difficult task of reforming the economy of this vast superpower focused as it was on heavy industry, mainly armaments. This task had no precedent in world history. Most of Orthodox Christians were enthusiastic about the end of the Soviet political regime not only because of the state atheism it implanted but also because of the extremely ideologized economic policy which had been imposed on society against its will and which had destroyed by force of repression the Russian traditional order of economic life. In the beginning of the last decade of the 20th century, the post-Soviet societies came to a consensus that the unsustainable Soviet economy should be reformed according to the market patterns adopted in other countries.
Such were the patterns put in the basis of the radical changes introduced in the beginning of the 1990s. The Soviet economic control structures were abolished; market mechanisms were activated; the state property was privatized en masse. The reformers sincerely believed in the power and truth of Western neo-liberal economic doctrines. Their favourite term was “shock therapy”, which was to bring Russia to prosperity in a matter of a few years. They relied on “the invisible hand of the market”. The leader of the first reformists’ government, Yegor Gaidar, maintained even ten years after the beginning of the radical changes that “if we manage to build a basis for economic growth, the economic growth will itself change society’s idea of what is happening and what will happen to it” (http://www.gaidar.org/rech/vcera.htm).
The view of economy as a sphere determining the entire life of a society, including its spirituality, morality and policy, liken the Russian liberal reformers to their chronological predecessors – the communists. Both accorded little value to non-economic factors in the life of the country and state. As a result, the reliance on market as “putting everything in order” led to a disastrous crisis of public morality both in politics and in economics. In the first half of the 1990s, the slogan of enrichment by all means prevailed in Russia and other post-Soviet states. The vast opportunities opened up for private initiative was not seized first of all by honest workers, who found it difficult to adjust in no time to the rapidly and repeatedly changing “rules of the game”, but by people not overburdened with conscience or any principles whatsoever. The privatization carried out by dubious methods enriched those who were only recently the Soviet economic bureaucracy as well as apt manipulators and criminals. Multi-million fortunes were built thanks to one’s closeness to high state leaders or to illegal use of force. The “rules” adopted in the criminal world sometimes proved to be the only regulators of economic relations locally.
The economic transformations were accompanied by a tremendous social tragedy. While a handful achieved a rapid and blatant enrichment, dozens of millions were slipping into poverty. Most people’s pensions and salaries were enough only to buy meagre food and even these means were paid out casually or not at all. The savings accumulated in the Soviet period depreciated completely. Those who worked at gigantic defence plants became legally or practically jobless. There appeared an army of homeless children, which still numbers hundreds of thousands – the figures the country did not know of since the 1918-1920 Civil War. The system of free education and medical care began to weaken and rapidly disintegrate.
The rapid departure from a stable social state, to which the people of the Soviet Union were accustomed, generated mass disillusionment in the reform policy and utter demoralization of society. A considerable part of people demanded a return to the Soviet economy, thus encouraging left-wing radicals and creating a threat of return to totalitarianism. The nouveau riche, the “masters of life”, openly spat from TV screens in the faces of those who had worked all their lives for the welfare of the country and found themselves as a result not only deprived of any share of state property, but any adequate livelihood. Polls conducted among schoolchildren showed that the “professions” they favoured most were bandit and prostitute as these characters were associated with “high life” in large cities.
It cannot be denied that the architects of the economic reforms have managed to accomplish the impossible as the radical reconstruction they carried out has laid a legal and political foundation for market economy in a country completely unadapted to it. In doing so, they managed to avoid a disintegration of the country, civil war and mass social outbreak. The changes however proved to be not as easy as the liberal politicians of the early 1990s imagined them to be. Ten years later, Yegor Gaidar admitted, “The most important thing we succeeded in doing, in my view, was that we ensured the appearance of a state and an economy in our country. The state and the economy are imperfect, but they have appeared and begun to function without a disastrous collapse of all the institutions of a civilized society. What have we failed to achieve? We have failed to carry out the reforms quickly and consistently; we have failed to cover within 5 years the path we traversed within 10 years, as we wished to do” (http://www.gaidar.org/rech/vcera.htm).
However, it is the moral decay of society that appears to be the most negative result of the early post-perestroika decade. The ruin of the social justice ideal, personal tragedies of most citizens, spite and social apathy, helplessness in face of tycoons and criminals – all this, like a heavy burden, lay on the people’s conscience and could not therefore but troubled the Church.
2. Orthodox judgements on economic issues in the 1990s and early 2000s
The critical responses to the socio-economic situation and calls to return to the totalitarian past compelled the church hierarchy in the beginning of the last decade of the 20th century to be active in stating its position. Perhaps, the first major document raising economic problems was the Appeal of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which took place from March 31 to April 4, 1992.
This pastoral message stated in particular, “Our word addressed to the powers that be is about people who think with anxiety about their daily bread today. Orphans and the disabled, elderly people and large families, the jobless and those who had to leave their homes should be surrounded with care. Indeed, their suffering is the sufferring of all the people in which, like in a human body, “whether one member suffers, all the members suffer with it” (1 Cor. 12:26). It should not be forgotten that care for the poor and needy is the first and foremost duty of a society, a measure of the dignity and moral health of a nation. The state should not leave its citizens to the mercy of fate. Otherwise the bitter cup of suffering will inevitably spill over us all…
“We make our appeal to the peasants. Remember that your work is extremely important. Indeed, the stability of a society and harmony in the people’s life and the human life itself depend primarily on your work. Revive the spirit and tradition of our glorious husbandry; be diligent masters of the land, working individually or together with others for your welfare and the welfare of your neighbours. With love and care treat the land which has been cultivated by many generations of your ancestors and which, according to the Psamist, is the Lord’s.
“We make our appeal to businessmen – those who have committed their energy, talent and work to the cause of reviving the way of economic life destroyed during the decades of totalitarianism. Bear in mind that the path you have embarked on requires a solid moral foundation and the lack of it can lead to the sin of money grabbing. Do not forget about the works of charity, so that you may gain God’s blessing upon your work.
“We make our appeal to all workers. You hold in your hands the future of the people whose welfare depends today not so much on the system as on the personality, personal actions and the personality’s inner intension. Do not allow anybody to use you any longer for iniquitous political purposes. Protecting your vital interests, be concerned not only for your material welfare but also for the overall good of society” (Information Bulletin of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1992).
As is evident from this lengthy quotation, the Supreme Authority of the Russian Church addressed its call for moral behavior in the economic and social spheres to ordinary urban and rural workers, who sought to find their place in the new market economy, aking their way gradually through attempts at political manupulation, and to enterprisers, who rapidly gained economic and political weight in the new situation. This appeal to both workers and empoyers was to become a characteristic feature of the Russian Church’s documents on economic issues.
Among the serious problems that drove millions to the verge of physical survival in the 1990s was chronic and mass nonpayment of salaries and pensions by both the state and businessmen. Many of them sought to buy enterprises, sometimes just their facilities and lands, as cheap as possible and then to sell them with profit, but not to develop them in any way. On December 28, 1996, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a special statement on this problem of nonpayment of salaries and pensions. It stated, “The way of life, the political system and the economy of this vast country are going through rapid changes. The old economic structures, which existed for decades, have been destroyed; new ones are being built with great difficulty in the situation of a financial famine and sometimes lack of experience needed for such work… It is by no means everybody who support the developments in the country today; many feel growing discontent, which has been expressed in open confrontations, conflicts, demonstrations and strikes.
“In this situation the Church would like to remind us all how important freedom is for the fullness of human life. The freedom of self-expression, learning, search for the truth, choice of one’s life’s path, movement and real, not declared freedom of conscience – all this is a certain success of the developing Russian democracy. However, we should not apply the blind eye to the fact that for many the freedoms gained as a result of the changes becomes worthless if there is no economic basis for their realization. The freedom of movement, for instance, has proved to be freedom only for the rich as for most people a trip to visit their relatives or friends is a luxury they cannot afford. An education appropriate for one’s vocation is unobtainable for those many who have no means to pay for it. The situation in the country is such that only a limited number of people can enjoy the benefits while most of the people have found themselves below the poverty line. The gap between rich and poor has reached a critical proportion, which in fact can cancel out the equal rights of the people.
“In all times the Church has identified herself with the weak and underprivileged. Chist Himself identified with precisely these people as He came to the world as the Messiah of the poor, not a powerfull political leader… Therefore, when the voice of the Church ceases to be the voice of the poor and neglected, himilitated and aggrieved, disgraced and marginalized, when she identifies herself only with the rich and powerful, she loses faithfulness to her calling and loses confidence of the people… The Church reminds us all today that human life and health and the welfare of citizens should be an unconditional priority in distributing the material wealth and in working out the economic and social policy. The Church affirms that nonpayment of money earned by honest work is a crime against people and a sin before God. (DECR Information Bulletin, 1996; http://www.zavtra.ru/cgi/veil/data/zavtra/97/163/4_patr.html).
In his messages, addresses and interviews, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy has repeated addressed socio-economic problems, giving special attention to the suffering of ordinary people. Thus, in his Christmas Message in 1998, he wrote: “As before, my pastoral heart is pained at the sufferings of millions of people not having worthy nourishment and living conditions befitting modern man. The position of elderly people, invalids, large families, orphaned children, refugees and those forced to seek accommodation elsewhere remains unbearable. Economic difficulties and the fall in moral standards has told in the most disgraceful way on the birth rate and the health of the people” (http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/nr060181.htm; English version: (http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ne060181.htm).
In the period of intensive discussions on the future of Russian agriculture and various forms of ownership, the Primate of the Russian Church came out with a conceptual article entitled “The Land Is Entrusted to Man by God” in the Russian Federation Today magazine. In this text, reflecting on the spiritual and moral foundations of land ownership and agriculture, the First Hierarch distanced himself from the radicalism of both Soviet and post-Soviet periods. He described as obvious the crises that affected agriculture in Russia, saying, “Unfortunately, for the last several years, our country has lost many of her previous achievements in this field and is now facing a threat of turning into a perpetual exporter of food. In some places, modern methods of working on land have been replaced with manual work. Many farmers cannot sell the fruits of their work because of the dominance of various commercial middlemen and even openly criminal groups who control some markets. Finally, the very composition of those who work on Russian land has suffered an unprecedented quantitative and qualitative destitution. The departure of people, especially youth, to cities, the frightening growth of hard drinking and domestic crime among rural people has put the Russian village on the brink of demographic disaster.
“All this appear to be a consequence of the attempts to change radically the ages-long way of rural life at any price, and we know that such attempts were made both in the totalitarian period and in recent years… The authorities and all society should support by all possible means those farms that have proved to be efficient and responsible in nature management, be it a large agrarian community or a modest family farm. Those who are still unable to organize their work correctly but work diligently and selflessly should be helped by training for new methods, providing machines and technologies and lax credits. Finally, everything possible should be done to change the existing vicious system where a peasant who sells his products to middlemen for nothing receives scanty interest from their market value. Markets should be open for everyone, not for ‘the elected’…
“The issue of the forms in which land can be owned needs special care. Indisputably, a tiller of the soil should feel himself master of his land. If he is once deprived of his land, his confidence in his own work will be undermined for long, and our recent history is an eloquent testimony to this. That is why it is essential that the state should give the peasant firm guarantees of the stability of his work on land. At the same time, it would be utterly thoughtless and dangerous to tolerate speculative operations with land shares, their withdrawal from agricultural use, their sale for nothing to any persons or firms of either Russian or foreign origin who do not intend to use rich lands with some return to the people” (Russian Federation Today, № 6, 1998; http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/nr240781.htm).
The 1998 crisis, which put many enterprises out of business and threw the newly-born middle class back into poverty and millions of other people into destitution, demanded a church response. It was voiced in a variety of statements made by the hierarchy and clergy. Thus, the Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, stated in an interview to Segodnya (Today) daily: “It was not two weeks ago that today’s problems of Russian economy arose. They are a natural result of the economic policy pursued in the last few years. This policy began with unfair privatisation and was followed up by such measures as curtailing promising science-intensive productions, stifling medium-size and small businesses, the government’s speculation with debt instruments, inefficient tax policy. The government lulled by its own declarations of stability has proved incapable of clear and prompt actions. As a result, the inevitable has occurred. However, what hides behind all the comments by politologists and economists is the principal vice of the now bankrupt policy – the desire to solve problems of the state at the expense of the people” (Segodnya, September 25, 1998; http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/nr250982.htm).
The Jubilee Bishops’ Council, which took place in 2000, adopted a Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church – the document which, for the first time in the history of Orthodox world, codifies the view of one of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches on her relation with the state and society as well as many other problems of today. Economic issues are treated in the section of this document dealing with labour, its fruits and property. Thus, the document states: “From a Christian perspective, labour in itself is not an absolute value. It is blessed when it represents co-working with the Lord and contribution to the realisation of His design for the world and man. However, labour is not something pleasing to God if it is intended to serve the egoistic interests of individual or human communities and to meet the sinful needs of the spirit and flesh. Holy Scriptures points to the two moral motives of labour: work to sustain oneself without being a burden for others and work to give to the needy… The Church blesses every work aimed to benefit people. At the same time, she does not give preference to any form of human work if it conforms to Christian moral standards… Modern times, however, have seen the emergence of a whole industry intended to propagate vice and sin and satisfy such baneful passions and addictions as drinking, drug-addiction, fornication and adultery. The Church testifies to the sin of being involved in such activities as they corrupt not only workers, but also society as a whole” (Basic Social Concept [BSC] of the Russian Orthodox Church, VI. 4-5, http://www.mospat.ru/chapters/conception; English version: http://www.mospat.ru/chapters/e_conception/index.html).
The fruits of his labour should not belong exclusively to the worker himself. The document goes on to state: “A worker has the right to use the fruits of his labour. The Church teaches that refusal to pay for honest work is not only a crime against man, but also a sin before God… At the same time, by God's commandment workers are ordered to take care of those who for various reasons cannot earn their living, such as the weak, the sick, strangers (refugees), orphans and widows. The worker should share the fruits of his work with them, ‘that the Lord may bless thee in all the work of thine hands’ (Deut. 24:19-22). Continuing on earth the service of Christ Who identified Himself with the destitute, the Church always comes out in defence of the voiceless and powerless. Therefore, she calls upon society to ensure the equitable distribution of the fruits of labour, in which the rich support the poor, the healthy the sick, the able-bodied the elderly. The spiritual welfare and survival of society are possible only if the effort to ensure life, health and minimal welfare for all citizens becomes an indisputable priority in distributing the material resources” (BSC, VI, 6).
Property is perceived as something given by God not only to satisfy one’s needs, but in no lesser degree to serve one’ neighbour: “While calling to seek first ‘the kingdom of God and his righteousness’ (Mt. 6:33), the Church does not forget about people's the need for ‘daily bread’ (Mt. 6:11) and believes that every one should have resources sufficient for life in dignity. At the same time, the Church warns against the extreme attraction to wealth, denouncing those who are carried away by ‘cares and riches and pleasures of this life’ (Lk. 8:14). The Church in her attitude to property does not ignore the material needs, nor does she praise the opposite extreme, the aspiration for wealth as the ultimate goal and value of life. The status of a person in itself cannot be seen as an indication as to whether God is pleased with him…
“The Church urges Christians to see in property a God's gift given to be used for their own and their neighbours' benefit. At the same time, Holy Scripture recognises the human right to property and deplores any encroachment on it… The Church cannot approve the alienation and re-distribution of property with violations of the rights of its legitimate owners. An exception may be made only for the alienation of property based on the law, conditioned by the interest of the majority of people and accompanied by fair compensation” (BSC, VII. 1-3).
The Russian Orthodox Church has totally rejected any dispute imposed on her with regard to “more Christian” or “less Christian” forms of ownership understood by various secular forces as sometimes private, sometimes collective or public form. According to the Basic Social Concept, “The Church recognises the existence of various forms of ownership. Public, corporate, private and mixed forms of property have taken different roots in the course of historical development in various countries. The Church does not give preference to any of these forms. Any of its forms can produce both sinful phenomena, such as theft, money-grubbing, unfair distribution of wealth, and the proper and morally justified use of wealth” (BSC, VII. 3).
The BSC section on International Relations: Problems of the Globalisation and Secularism raises a number of issues concerning the state of the globalizing economy and the work of international economic actors. According to the document, “Those standing at the head of international economic and financial structures have concentrated in their hands a great power beyond the control of nations and even governments and beyond any limit, be it a national border, an ethnic and cultural identity or the need for ecological and demographical sustainability. Sometimes they refuse to reckon with the customs and religious traditions of the nations involved in the implementation of their plans. The Church cannot but be concerned also for the practice of financial speculations obliterating the dependence of income on the effort spent… Such changes in economy result in the loss of priority that labour and man have over capital and means of production…
“Many positive fruits of the globalisation are available only to nations comprising a smaller part of humanity, but having a similar economic and political system. Other nations to whom five sixths of the global population belong have found themselves on the margins of the world civilisation. They have been caught in debt dependence on financiers in a few industrial countries and cannot create dignified living conditions for themselves. Discontent and disillusionment are growing among them. The Church raises the question concerning the need to establish comprehensive control over transnational corporations and the processes taking place in the financial sector of economy. This control, aimed to subject any entrepreneurial and financial activity to the interests of man and people, should be exercised through all mechanisms available in society and state” (BSC, XVI. 3).
Since the mid-1990s the Orthodox socio-economic thought has begun to develop not only through the efforts of hierarchy and theologians, but also numerous lay persons, mainly representatives of the academic community and Orthodox public organizations. The Orthodox view of economy has been developed since that time particularly by the National Development Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Department for Economy (directed by Prof. Mikhail Gelvanovsky) and the Department of Economy of the Russian Orthodox University of St. John the Theologian directed by its dean, Prof. Eduard Afanasyev. Representatives of these two centers prepared for print several collections and a great number of articles on the moral foundations of economy and relationships between Orthodox Christianity and economic ethics. The Russian Orthodox University Department of Economy trains economists educated for Christian ethics and taught basic theology.
In October 2000, an international internet-conference took place through the Russian web-magazine “Sobornost” on the theme “Christian Principles of Economic Ethics” (its papers are published in the book entitled “Christian Principles of Economic Ethics”, Moscow 2001, and on the website http://www.sobor.ru/doctrina). Papers were presented by researchers from Russia, Byelorussia, Germany, USA, Netherlands and Switzerland. The participants discussed the Christian understanding of ownership, economy, labour, enterprise and ethical problems of market economy. The historical part of the conference dealt with the specificity of the Russian economic culture and development of economic ethics in the works of Russian religious philosophers.
The conference witnessed a confrontation between the Western and Russian approaches to Christian economic ethics and revealed the optimistic and pessimistic views of compatibility between market activity and the evangelical moral idea. Thus, Sergey Tarasevich, lecturer at the Non-Governmental Institute of Modern Knowledge, Vitebsk, Belarus, wrote in his paper, “Without discussing other temptations for a businessman-Christian, it is evident that his activity is far from the evangelical ideal. Moreover, the emancipation of secular structures from Christian ideas is obvious in market economy that brings a tragic duality into a businessman’s activity” (http://www.sobor.ru/doctrina/4Tarasevich_ru.asp, English version: http://www.sobor.ru/doctrina/4Tarasevich_en.asp); while Professor Eduard Afanasyev stated, “Now when a social concept of Russian Orthodox Church has been worked out and adopted by the Bishops’ Council, there is every reason to affirm that a new impulse has been given to the social service of religious people. The time when Orthodox Christians in Russia, unwilling to accept secular rules, refused to take part in ‘the affairs of darkness’ has passed. Now the time has come for active economic and creative actions, when, according to the famous saying, ‘it is better to light a small match than to curse darkness’” (http://www.sobor.ru/doctrina/4Afanasiev_ru.asp; English version: http://www.sobor.ru/doctrina/4Afanasiev_en.asp).
A certain tension between the ideal of “poverty in Christ” as radical contempt for earthly blessings, on the one hand, and desire for Christian influence upon the pragmatic order of the earthly world, on the other, continues and will probably continue to prevail in the Russian-speaking Orthodox discussion on socio-economic themes. This tension, which appeared in the Russian Orthodox thought as far back as the dispute between “the Non-Seekers” and “the Josephites” in the 16th century, needed and needs to be harmonized.
To be continued.
Bischof Hilarion von Wien und Österreich: Der militante Säkularismus und das Christentum. Die religiösen und „allgemeinmenschlichen“ Werte
Worin liegt der Grund jener Aggressivität, mit der die heutigen westlichen Säkularliberalen dem Christentum begegnen? Warum schließen die von ihnen geschaffenen Regeln der politischen Korrektheit, die schon lange zu einer Art „Moralkodex für die Errichtung des neuen Europa“ geworden sind, das Verbot der Islamkritik ein, aber fördern in jeder nur denkbaren Weise die Kritik des Christentums? Warum erlauben diese Regeln, über die Untaten der Inquisition im mittelalterlichen Spanien und über den Holocaust im nazistischen Deutschland zu sprechen, aber verbieten, über den Genozid an der Armenier und anderen christlichen Nationalitäten in der bereits erwähnten Türkei zu sprechen? Woher kommt eine derartige Voreingenommenheit und Einseitigkeit in der Behandlung der Geschichte? Warum ist jedes Mal gerade das Christentum der Sündenbock, wenn die Religion kritisiert wird? Warum fand sich gerade für das Christentum kein Platz in der Europäischen Verfassung, wogegen das „griechisch-römische Erbe“ und das Erbe der Epoche der Aufklärung als Grundlagen der europäischen Kultur dargestellt werden?
Die Antwort auf diese Fragen liegt, wie es mir scheint, in der Eigenart der historischen Entwicklung Westeuropas im zweiten Jahrtausend unserer Zeitrechnung. Für die Mehrheit der Westeuropäer – besonders in den Ländern mit überwiegend katholischer Bevölkerung – ist das Synonym des Christentums vor allem die Katholische Kirche, in deren Geschichte es nicht wenige dunkle Seiten gab. Im Mittelalter trug der Katholizismus einen totalitären Charakter, indem er das Monopol nicht nur auf dem Gebiet der Glaubenslehre beanspruchte, sondern auch in den anderen Sphären der Gesellschaft. Die Westkirche nahm Wissenschaft und Kunst unter ihre ideologische Kontrolle, mischte sich in staatliche Angelegenheiten ein, führte Kriegskampagnen und nahm aktiv an der Politik teil. Mit all dem gingen Verfolgungen Andersdenkender und die Unterdrückung religiöser Minderheiten Hand in Hand.
Als Antwort auf das totale Diktat des Katholizismus entwickelte sich im Rahmen des westlichen Christentums eine mächtige antikatholische Reaktion, die zur Entstehung des Protestantismus führte: Bis in unsere Tage bleibt die Polemik gegen den Katholizismus, das Streben nach Überwindung seines Einflusses die Haupttriebkraft der protestantischen Theologie. Eine weitere Antwort war die tendenzielle Entchristlichung (genauer „Entkatholisierung“) der europäischen weltlichen Kultur. Auch das philosophische Denken Europas distanzierte sich allmählich vom Katholizismus und emanzipierte sich in der Epoche der Aufklärung vollständig von ihm und legte damit das Fundament für den heutigen „postchristlichen“ (genauer müsste man sagen „postkatholischen“) Humanismus. Parallel damit erfolgte eine Schwächung der politischen Macht der Katholischen Kirche. Die Französische Revolution und die Napoleonischen Kriege versetzten den politischen Ambitionen des Katholizismus den entscheidenden Schlag. Der Vatikanische Zwergstaat ist das Einzige, was vom einst mächtigen, einen wesentlichen Teil des Territoriums Westeuropas umfassenden päpstlichen Reich übrig geblieben ist.
Die heutige europäische antichristliche Bewegung ist ihren Wurzeln nach vor allem gegen den Katholizismus gerichtet. Nichtsdestoweniger kämpft sie gegen alle christlichen Konfessionen, gegen das Christentum als solches. Sie protestiert nicht einfach gegen das Faktum der Existenz der christlichen Kirche, sondern dagegen, dass die Kirche Einfluss auf gesellschaftliche Prozesse, auch Politik, Kunst, Wissenschaft und Kultur ausübt. Der militante Säkularismus gesteht den einzelnen Individuen das Recht zu, im Rahmen des einen Europa eine beliebige Religion zu bekennen oder keine zu bekennen, aber er anerkennt die „Legitimität einer religiösen Weltanschauung als Grundlage für gesellschaftlich bedeutsame Vollzüge“ (Grundlagen der Sozialkonzeption der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche XVI.4) nicht. Darin liegt die Quelle eines schwelenden Konflikts zwischen der säkularen Gesellschaft und jenen religiösen Gemeinschaften, welche die „Festigung der christlichen Werte bei gewichtigen gesellschaftlichen Entscheidungen sowohl auf nationaler als auch internationaler Ebene“ (Ebd.) zum Ziel haben.
Aber was verstehen wir unter den christlichen Werten und worin stimmen diese Werte nicht mit den sogenannten „allgemeinmenschlichen“ Werten überein, die das Fundament des säkularen Humanismus bilden? Vor allem muss man hier darüber sprechen, dass der eine Gott, der sich in der Person Jesu Christi der Welt geoffenbart hat, der höchste und absolute Wert im Christentum ist, das Hauptkriterium der Wahrheit. Gott selbst gilt für die Christen als Ursprung der rechtlichen und gesellschaftlichen Normen, und die Gebote Christi gelten als unverbrüchliches ethisches Gesetz. Die christliche Wertskala ist theozentrisch und christozentrisch. Der säkulare Humanismus ist demgegenüber anthropozentrisch, denn er lässt den Menschen als „Maß aller Dinge“ gelten, als absoluten Wert und Maßstab der Wahrheit (Ebd. XVI.3). Das Christentum geht von der Vorstellung aus, dass die menschliche Natur durch die Sünde Schaden genommen hat und der Korrektur, Erlösung und Vergöttlichung bedarf. Eben deshalb kann die Kirche „keine Struktur einer Weltordnung akzeptieren, in der die durch die Sünde verdunkelte menschliche Person ins Zentrum von allem gestellt wird“ (Ebd. XVI.4). Im Humanismus fehlt der Begriff der Sünde, und das Einzige, was nach den Vorstellungen der Humanisten die Freiheit des Individuums beschränken darf, sind die Rechtsnormen, welche die Freiheit der anderen Individuen verteidigen.
Wenn man über „christliche“ und „allgemeinmenschliche“ Werte spricht, bin ich mir der Strittigkeit und Unschärfe beider Begriffe bewusst. Kann man von allgemeinmenschlichen Werten sprechen, wenn jede Zivilisation, jede Kultur und jedes Volk ihre eigenen Wertrichtlinien haben, die nicht immer mit den in anderen Zivilisationen, Kulturen und bei anderen Völkern geltenden Werten übereinstimmen? Wie kann man andererseits von christlichen Werten sprechen, wenn ein bedeutender Teil der heutigen protestantischen Gemeinschaften selbst die Grundlagen der christlichen dogmatischen und moralischen Lehre einer Revision unterzieht und diese Lehre zu Gunsten der Normen der politischen Korrektheit modifiziert? In diesem Sinn wäre es vielleicht richtiger, die „traditionellen“ Werte den „liberalen“ gegenüberzustellen, wie das in einigen offiziellen Dokumenten des Moskauer Patriarchats geschieht. Noch allgemeiner kann man über den Konflikt zwischen Glauben und Unglauben, über den fundamentalen Widerspruch zwischen der religiösen Weltanschauung und den Normen des humanistischen Säkularismus sprechen.
In den „Grundlagen der Sozialkonzeption der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche“ – einem Dokument, das die Priorität der traditionellen Werte vor den liberalen Werten konsequent und auf verschiedenen Ebenen bestätigt – ist eine große Zahl konkreter Beispiele eines solchen Widerspruchs enthalten. Meinerseits möchte ich zur Illustration des genannten Widerspruches einige Beispiele aus der Geschichte und der heutigen Lage der menschlichen Gemeinschaft anführen.
Vom Standpunkt des heutigen säkularen Rechts zählen die Verletzung des menschlichen Lebens, des persönlichen und staatlichen Eigentums und die Störung der gesellschaftlichen Ruhe zu den schrecklichsten Verbrechen. Eben diese Verbrechen werden am strengsten geahndet. Dabei verteidigt jedoch dasselbe Gesetz, das den Verbrecher für den Mord an einem anderen Menschen verurteilt, das Leben des Mörders, da es von der Vorstellung vom absoluten Wert des menschlichen Lebens ausgeht.
In der religiösen Tradition dagegen wird das Leben des Menschen keineswegs als absoluter Wert verstanden; und als schrecklichste Verbrechen gelten nicht jene, die gegen den Menschen, sondern gegen Gott und den Glauben gerichtet sind. Nicht zufällig wurden in alten Zeiten bei vielen Völkern Gotteslästerung und Sakrileg am strengsten bestraft: Sowohl in der griechisch-römischen wie auch in der jüdischen Tradition wurde jemand, der ein Heiligtum entehrt hatte, in der Regel zum Tode verurteilt. Gleichzeitig konnte bei vielen Völkern ein Verbrecher oder Verurteilter Asyl im Altarraum einer Kirche suchen. Obwohl es für das moderne Recht fast absurd klingt, wurde die Unantastbarkeit eines in den Altarraum geflüchteten Verbrechers durch dasselbe Gesetz geschützt, das diesen Verbrecher zum Tode verurteilt hatte. Überdies galt die Verhaftung im Altarraum als schweres Vergehen.
Für die erwähnte Gesetzesnorm gibt es keine andere Erklärung, als dass sie auf der Vorstellung von der Priorität der religiösen Werte vor den „allgemeinmenschlichen“ Werten beruhte. Vom Standpunkt der modernen Jurisprudenz aus ist die Todesstrafe für die Entehrung eines Heiligtums eine in ihrer Härte absurde Maßnahme, eine dem verübten Verbrechen nicht entsprechende Strafe. Aber unsere Vorfahren hatten dazu eine andere Meinung. Die Verunglimpfung religiöser Symbole galt als Anschlag auf das Allerheiligste im geistlichen Leben einer Nation – auf ihren Glauben, ohne den sich eine Nation nicht als Nation empfand. Eben deshalb ahndete das mittelalterliche Recht sogar die Zerstörung des menschlichen Lebens nicht mit jener Strenge, mit der sie die Verunglimpfung des Glaubens betrachtete.
Ein anderes Beispiel stammt aus dem Bereich des Städtebaus. In Byzanz und im mittelalterlichen Westen wurden Befestigungsanlagen in der Regel in der Weise errichtet, dass im Falle eines Angriffs die Kirche als letzter Verteidigungsschutz blieb: In ihr sahen die Belagerten ihre letzte Hoffnung, und in ihr wollte der Rest der belagerten Bevölkerung den Tod finden. Vom Standpunkt der heutigen Kriegskunst aus kann es als Unsinn erscheinen, die Kirche als letzte Verteidigungslinie zu verwenden, da sie das für einen Kampf ungeeignetste und unpassendste architektonische Gebäude ist. Aber unsere gläubigen Vorfahren dachten anders.
Die herausragendsten Werke der Architektur der Vergangenheit waren Gott geweiht und waren Früchte des lebendigen und feurigen Glaubens ihrer Erbauer. Solange die religiöse Weltanschauung vorherrschte, baute man keinen einzigen Palast, der seinen Maßen und seiner Großartigkeit nach das Gott geweihte Gebäude übertroffen hätte. Der großartigste Bau des Byzantinischen Reiches war die Sophienkathedrale, und auch in jeder russischen Stadt stand das schönste Gebäude – eine Kirche – auf dem hervorragendsten Platz. „Das Beste für Gott, das Übrige für uns“, sagten unsere Vorfahren, und in diesem tiefsinnigen Satz war das Wesen ihrer weltanschaulichen Einstellung enthalten.
Die heutige säkulare Welt mit ihrem Konsumkult, mit ihrer Ausrichtung auf den materiellen Wohlstand kann die religiöse Motivation jener immer schwerer verstehen, welche die großartigen mittelalterlichen Kathedralen errichtet haben, die bis heute das Beste darstellen, was es in der europäischen Architektur gibt. Übrigens baut man auch in unseren Tagen wunderbare Kirchen, aber das geschieht in der Regel nicht in dem durch den militanten Säkularismus bedrängten Westeuropa, sondern jenseits seiner Grenzen. Vor einigen Jahren wurde an der Elfenbeinküste – einem Land, wo das Problem des Hungers noch weit von seiner Lösung entfernt ist – eine katholische Kirche gebaut, die ihren Maßen nach die Peterskirche in Rom übertrifft. Der Bau dieser Kirche wurde von heftigen gesellschaftlichen Debatten begleitet, in deren Verlauf unterstrichen wurde, dass in einem so armen Land die Errichtung einer so großen Kirche ökonomisch unzweckmäßig sei. Ähnliche Diskussionen begleiteten den Bau der Christus-Erlöser-Kathedrale in der Hauptstadt Russlands – eines Landes, wo viele akute ökonomische Probleme ungelöst sind und wo ein Viertel der Bevölkerung bis jetzt unter der Armutsgrenze lebt. Aber denjenigen, die ihre Kräfte und Mittel für den Bau der erwähnten Kirchen einsetzten, stellte sich die Frage der ökonomischen Zweckmäßigkeit des Projekts nicht. Ihre Haupttriebkraft waren der Glaube an Gott und das Bemühen, Gott das Beste zu geben, was sie hatten.
Menschen, für welche die religiösen Werte den Hauptinhalt ihres Lebens darstellen, gibt es nicht nur an der Elfenbeinküste und in Russland. Nicht wenige solcher Menschen gibt es auch in Westeuropa. Nach den Ergebnissen soziologischer Umfragen bekennen sich in den meisten europäischen Ländern noch 60 bis 90 Prozent der Bevölkerung zum christlichen Glauben. Dagegen sinkt die Zahl der „praktizierenden“ Christen unaufhörlich. Der militante Säkularismus bemüht sich seinerseits mit allen Kräften darum, dass das Christentum aus der Mode komme, dass es als „Überbleibsel der Vergangenheit“ gelte und dass es „fortschrittlicheren“ weltanschaulichen Konzepten Platz mache. Aktiv wird um die Jugend geworben: Die heutige – von säkularen Ideen beflügelte – Jugendkultur wird immer antikirchlicher und antichristlicher. Die Soziologen sagen nicht unbegründet in ein bis zwei Generationen ein bedeutendes Sinken der Zahl der europäischen Christen voraus – bei einer gleichzeitigen ständigen Zunahme der Zahl der Anhänger des Islams.