The two paradigms of faith: reflections on the visits of Patriarch Kirill to Ukraine and Pope Francis to Rio de Janeiro
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d86f/1d86f57b916eb7f60dd95222614c581dd6725ba4" alt=""
The Christian world saw two events last week, which drew the attention of the world community: the visit of Patriarch Kirill to Ukraine and celebration of the Baptism of Rus’, and marking World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro. It should be noted that we debated this issue very much on the newspaper’s pages and at the Summer School. We asked our “lecturers” about the importance of the visit of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) head accompanied by the Russian political leadership, looking at this event from various – political, cultural, and, finally, Christian – angles. Unfortunately, the Christian context, from which we should have begun the debate, was the last to be taken up. The other event – the visit of Pope Francis to Rio de Janeiro – in fact remained unnoticed by the Ukrainian mass media, which is also bad because the attitudes and actions of Church leaders during such visits can form a basis for analyzing the challenges we are facing today.
“CHURCH WITH ‘ADMISSION BY INVITATION’?”
The media community remembers very well the embarrassing scandal that erupted last year, when Patriarch Kirill visited Ukraine: a FEMEN activist “welcomed” the ROC head in the way they usually do so. This went down in history as “Kill Kirill action.” A number of Ukraine’s most readable websites posted scandalous photos, thus raising their rating and, accordingly, profits. Analyzing this incident in a conference speech abstract, I wrote that I did not approve of this behavior of the Ukrainian media because, firstly, it is unethical and, secondly, it is childishly mindless to get caught in a well-known trap. Yet, in my opinion, journalists should analyze critically, not only in one context, an event that occurred recently – the 1,025th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’.
Examining the Ukrainian-Russian relations in various historical epochs, we can point out that the Church accompanied and in some cases initiated certain political processes, such as events in the era of Zaporozhian Cossacks, particularly during the rule of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, the late-16th-centuty polemics on the Union of Brest, or, more recently, an odious celebration of the 1,000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’ in Moscow, when a Ukrainian historian said: “It is mindless to celebrate this event, for when Volodymyr the Great was baptizing Rus’, there were only bears in what was later Muscovy.” Given the time the aforesaid events took place, it is not strange for us that a political, rather than religious, emphasis is being put on today’s celebration of the Rus’ Baptism jubilee. What remains the most painful for me in the context of these reflections is the fact that the situation repeats: 25 years ago Moscow was the center of a high-profile celebration of this spiritual and historical event, and today, in the conditions of Ukrainian independence (!), the scenario is the same and only the venue is different – Moscow is in Kyiv.
Still, I believe that the most important feature of this event is a dialogue between the Church and its flock. Firstly, covering these events, journalists emphasized the pomp of Patriarch Kirill’s arrival: social networking sites and news agencies spread photos of the scandalously-known armored train, the numerous guards, and even the prohibitively expensive I-Pads of the Orthodox clergy. And very few saw beyond the pompous celebrations a few ordinary women church-goers who wanted to take part in the spectacle but were kept outside because they had no invitations. Why did it happen? And who did the patriarch come to see, after all, if most of the believers failed to attend the too-closed celebrations? I do not mention representatives of the other Orthodox churches that also come from the font of Volodymyr’s baptism. The Church can only live a true inner live if it is in contact with every believer, when there are no elect, when all are equal. If these principles are betrayed, then the very ideas are misplaced and, unfortunately, the Church loses its underlying spiritual sense.
“CHURCH FOR THE POOR”?
Once in three years the Catholic Church marks World Youth Day. Incidentally, venues differ from year to year – each time they choose a different city to which young people come from all over the world. This time young pilgrims were received in Rio de Janeiro. The approximate number of the participants who arrived in Brazil’s most popular city was one and a half million. It was one of the first foreign journeys of Pope Francis to his flock. After, and, for that matter, before the official enthronization the Pope became a toast of the journalistic community. You could see on international and Ukrainian websites the Pope strolling unguarded around Rome, blessing children, washing the feet of prisoners, riding in a metro train, and even refusing to wear new custom-made shoes. In one of his first messages to the Christian world, the Pope emphasized that it was not a mere coincidence that he had chosen the name of Saint Francis, for the Church should be a community for the poor. So let us analyze the main points in the pontiff’s visit to Rio. The Pope traveled on a regular passenger airplane. In the airport, he was welcomed by Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff. In his comment to the press, Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes noted that the Pope could do anything he deemed necessary. “We are not going to ban him from anything. He can even ride a bicycle, walk around, or use an open-air car,” Paes stressed.
It seemed in the course of World Youth Day that the Pope tried not to forget anybody. High on his agenda were meetings with not only “heroes of the occasion,” but also prisoners, slum dwellers, drug- and alcohol-dependent persons, politicians, and athletes. But, in my view, what became the most illustrative fact of the meetings, is a photo that shows a small boy running up to the Pope and saying, with tears in his eyes, that he was dreaming to become a priest. Then the Pope hugged the child and assured him that he would pray for him.
Without extolling or criticizing anybody, we suggest that readers themselves draw a conclusion. Undoubtedly, these reflections must not be considered as a snide remark about some or a panegyric to others. No. There have been all kinds of incidents on both sides. The point is not in this but in the fact that the actions of such influential hierarchs may be of a motivating as well as a demotivating nature. Therefore, we should only wish them and us to make the right choice.
Newspaper output №:
№43, (2013)Section
Society