The author was Special Advisor to the
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs under Ronald Reagan, director of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Moscow bureau and now Partner at Global
Strategic Communications Group, a firm devoted to governmental relations and
public advocacy.
Some in
the US and western media have suggested that in meeting with Kirill, Patriarch
of Moscow and All Russia, Pope Francis allowed himself to be used by the
Kremlin, which allegedly is able to deploy the Patriarch for its own political
purposes. (Never mind that Patriarchs of Moscow since Gorbachev have had
no trouble putting the kibosh on Papal visits to Russia and encounters of the
sort that occurred yesterday in Havana.)
There
is not the slightest evidence that the Vatican (or the Patriarchate) allowed
itself to be used. The meetings and subsequent communiqué were very much
in the interest of all concerned.
The
meeting is the fruit of decades of Vatican diplomacy going back to the fall of
the Berlin Wall, in which event the Holy See played a not inconsiderable role
in the form of Pope John Paul II’s several pastoral visits to his
homeland. It was also a key objective of Benedict XVI who notably
eschewed any talk of reunification in favor of approaching the Moscow Patriarchate
on the level of friendship and solidarity stemming from the threats faced by
both churches – secularism , moral relativism, consumerism, the demographic
crisis of the pan-European world, hedonism, official agnosticism, and the
rise of radical Islam, including efforts to impose Sharia on people who want
nothing to do with it.
The
Holy See has long understood that the crisis of Western civilization – the
upheavals of the 19th and 20th centuries, the rise of ideology, and
the descent into quasi-atheism of much of the Euro-Atlantic world – stem
directly from the rupture between Rome and the East in 1054 AD.
[This was always the thesis of John Paul II]
When
Francis and Kirill met yesterday in Havana -- the first such meeting
between any Pope and a head of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1,000 years – Francis’s
first word to Kirill was, simply, “finally,” as if to suggest that the
purpose of the history of the past millennium was this very moment. The
Pope then kissed the Patriarch three times in the Russian manner for the
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
None of
this suggests someone who had allowed himself to be naively manipulated into
doing something he really did not want to do and now regretted it.
Such
allegations reflect the priorities of those in the West opposed to friendship
and reconciliation with Russia, who seek instead to drive a wedge between the
two parts of the old Continent, which, as John Paul II was fond of saying, is
an organism that breathes with two lungs: the Latin West and the Byzantine
East.
Thus,
the final communiqué’s strong and moving expression of concern for the
plight of Christians in the Middle East is highly inconvenient for the
perpetrators of Western policy in the region: If Syrian Christians uniformly
support Bashir al-Assad, why is the West supporting radical Islamist forces
that seek to overthrow him?
Regarding
Ukraine, the communiqué calls for reconciliation – for the overcoming of the
“schism” among Orthodox Ukrainian Christians through “existing canonical
norms,” and for Catholic communities to contribute to peace and harmony
in the face of on-going tensions. This is not a message proponents
of Western global hegemony, who fear reconciliation will put an end to
anti-Russian sanctions, want to hear.
Over
and above regional issues in Syria and Ukraine, various Russian leaders (Putin,
Lavrov, Medvedev) have put forward a grand vision for a reformed world order
centered on a new, pan-European entente, a new architecture of economic and
security cooperation spanning the continent from Lisbon to Vladivostok and embracing
North America based on shared (Christian) values. It is one of the
ironies of the post-Cold War era that Russia has emerged as the defender of the
faith, protector of Christians. The West has abdicated this role in favor
of a radical secularism it deems progressive, but it is actually regressive.
Many
have said that little of substance was achieved, that the most important thing
to happen at Havana is that the meeting took place at all. I believe it
is true to say that the most important thing about the meeting is that it
occurred; nevertheless there were elements in the communiqué that went farther
that anything I was expecting.
For
example, it is significant that the first substantive point in the communiqué
(point 5) decries the absence of inter-communion (i.e., the ability of
Catholics and Orthodox to mutually receive the Holy Eucharist in each other’s
liturgy). If this is an indication of the Churches’ priorities in
ecumenical discussions in the years ahead, this is a good thing.
Point 5
goes on to say that “we have been divided […] by differences inherited from our
ancestors, in the understanding and expression of our faith in God, one in
three Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” This implies that the Pope
and the Patriarch do not regard the differences between the Churches as
insurmountable (not that the surmounting of them will happen anytime soon).
And
then there is the final point of the communiqué in the form of a prayer:
“May the Blessed Virgin Mary, through her intercession, inspire
fraternity in all those who venerate her, so that they may be
reunited [emphasis added], in God’s own time, in the peace and harmony of
the one people of God…”
The
only thing to be said to that is amen.
Tony
Salvia
No comments:
Post a Comment