Свіжий номер

Church building in Ukraine: between old ruthenian traditions and russian synodal layers

Час ставати сильнішими

Стати автором

Articles

The fate of Europe will always be crucial to the Christian project throughout the world

The following interview with EPPC Distinguished Senior Fellow George Weigel was recently published by the Ukrainian greek-catholic magazine “The Patriarchate” (July-August, №4, 2016)

Джордж Вайґель– Two years ago more than 100 Ukrainians died under the flags of Ukraine and the European Union. It was a very strong gesture of sacrifice. But today in Ukraine we have debates about what Europe is or must be and what a “European Ukraine” means. At the same time in Brexit we witnessed the immense euro-sceptic movement. You wrote a lot of texts on the issue of European identity. What makes Europe – “Europe”?

– “Europe” is less a matter of geography than of culture — a culture formed by the fruitful interaction of Jerusalem (biblical religion), Athens (faith in reason), and Rome (convictions about the superiority of the rule of law over the rule of brute force). One of the reasons that “Europe” is faltering today is that all three of those cultural pillars are wobbling. Perhaps Ukraine, through the experience of the Maidan and what followed, can help “Europe” rediscover the truth about itself.

– Speaking specifically about the modern European project – the EU: In his address during conferral of the Charlemagne prize, Pope Francis said that “Europe, rather than protecting spaces, is called to be a mother who generates processes,” and then he stressed that we must turn our eyes to the founding fathers of post-war Europe. And Cardinal Dziwisz recently made the same reference to the EU founding fathers. So, what has the EU lost from the core idea of its founding fathers during the last decades?

– “Europe” is losing — or, if you are feeling more somber, has lost — the idea of the human person and human society that shaped the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, which was crucial in forming the vision of de Gasperi, Adenauer, and Schuman, among the founders of what is today the EU. And that view of the dignity of the human person and the organic nature of society was what sustained the Catholic social-ethical idea of “subsidiarity” — the ideas that society is a complex of social institutions that includes government but is not limited to government, and hat the free associations of civil society are crucial to public life. There’s a lot of talk today about Europe’s “democracy deficit,” meaning the Brussels bureaucracy’s ignoring the principle of subsidiarity. I’d argue that the “democracy deficit” is really a “God deficit,” for when a culture abandons the God of the Bible it also tends to abandon the idea of the human person and society that inspired the founders of the EU. And the unhappy result is what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger called, in 205, the “dictatorship of relativism.”

– Pope Francis also has mentioned the role of the Church in “the rebirth of a Europe weary, yet still rich in energies and possibilities.” Then the Pope speaks about the “new European humanism.” There is a lot of speculation about the term “humanism” in contemporary European societies and Ukraine also. What does this “new European humanism” mean from the point of view of the Catholic Church today?

– It means the vision of the human person, human community, human origins, and human destiny that was first born in the Bible — the idea of life as journey and pilgrimage, not randomness or endless, meaningless cycles — and that was given modern social and political form in Catholic social doctrine from Leo XIII through John Paul II. What Europe most needs today is the Christian humanism of John Paul II, and a good place to start exploring that is by reading (or re-reading) his 2003 apostolic letter, Ecclesia in Europa [The Church in Europe], which was a kind of papal “report card” on how “Europe” was doing in the decade and a half after the Revolution of 1989.

– From my point of view, contemporary European society doesn’t wait for answers to its different problems from the Church’s side. Am I right, or is this skepticism about the possible role of the Church in the renewal of Europe real in today’s Europe?

– “Europe” still imagines that it can live off the social and cultural capital of its past. But if the Christian sources of that social and cultural capital aren’t renewed, the account may be bankrupted and the entire edifice may fall.

– Do you believe that as Fr. Jozef Tischner once suggested, the Catholic Church in Europe, having overcome Communism, is on a collision course with secular liberalism?

– I’d put it this way: the entire project of “Europe” is on a collision course with a radically secularized form of liberalism that ends up destroying faith in reason and in the rule of law. In fact, the collision is happening right now. And we’ve got the same issues in North America, I might add. The entire West is now faced with the paradox first formulated in the 1960s by the German legal philosopher Ernst-Friedrich Böckenförde: the liberal democratic project is based on premises that it cannot itself generate.

– I follow some discussions about religion in public life in the North American context. And I’ve read some texts about the so-called “Benedict option” based on Alasdair MacIntyre’s book “After Virtue.” For many communities, this option seems very attractive. What do you think about it in the context of all the challenges and threats to European society?

– In its present form, it’s romantic nonsense, because, first, the battle for the culture isn’t over and, second, the forces of the dictatorship of relativism won’t allow those intentional, small communities of conviction to be formed and sustained. A far more thoughtful variant on this is found in my colleague Yuval Levin’s book, The Fractured Republic.

– You have written eloquently about both the secularization of Europe and the revival of the Catholic faith in places like Poland. Yet even in Poland, at least according to statistics, religious practice as well as adherence to Catholic moral teaching are declining. How do you see the future of the Church in that country?

– Poland could be one engine of Europe’s self-renewal, but it won’t be until the bishops of Poland demonstrate that they understand the social doctrine of John Paul II and until Polish politics stops re-fighting the internal wars of the 1920s.

– What about Orthodox European countries like Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria? Some voices say that countries with an Eastern Christian tradition are more “spiritual” and could help to find a spiritual compass for Western societies. Is this true? Do you see any prospects of the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe working with that region’s Orthodox Churches for the re-evangelization of Europe?

– There is nothing in the theology of Orthodoxy to suggest that it has a coherent proposal for building the free and virtuous society in the twenty-first century. The Byzantine “symphonia” inevitably leads to the subordination of the Church to the state — at least that seems to be the verdict of history. So we need a new and serious conversation between the Eastern Christian traditions and the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. Happily, at least some Orthodox thinkers are proposing just that. There are some hopeful signs, but for so long as Russian Orthodoxy is tied to Putinesque nationalism, it’s unlikely.

– In Eastern European countries religion is very close to nationalism; in some periods it helped them to resist, but is it a good thing for today’s situation? For example, in Poland, Ukraine or other countries?

– Christian conviction can form a patriotism that is not xenophobic, but that comes to appreciate others’ national and cultural patrimonies through an affirmation of one’s own. That’s very different from xenophobia, which is the temptation faced by certain forms of Christian nationalism today.

– What could Europeans and East Europeans learn from US Catholics in the face of modern challenges? Because our present discussions in the public sphere are not unknown to your experience, such themes concerning moral principles and the place of religion in the public square, and its influence on social processes, are not new to American Catholics.

– I’d like to say that “Europe” could learn from America some lessons about building and sustaining genuinely pluralistic democracies, but given the current crisis in American political culture, which has produced two utterly unacceptable presidential candidates, I would be very reluctant to say that, at least without a lots of qualifiers.

– Today, as in the interwar period, we see a number of authoritarian governments in Eastern Europe and beyond seeking (and sometimes obtaining) the support of Christian churches. One can see this phenomenon in Hungary, Poland, and Russia, for example. What is your view of this development?

– Hungary, Poland, and Russia are three very different situations that ought not be taken as three expressions of the same phenomenon. Russia, for example, is an authoritarian kleptocracy, which is not true of either Hungary or Poland. The real question at issue in Hungary and Poland is whether democratic commitments can co-exist with a rejection of the lifestyle libertinism of Brussels, which is the most aggressive form being taken by European laicite today.

– With Pope Francis, the focus of the Catholic Church has moved to the Africa, Asia and Latin America. It seems to me that this focus is disproportional in relation to the European situation, and we might “lose” Europe in the end. Or does Europe not need such a focus now, being able to deal with its problems relying on its own resources?

– The first inculturation of the Gospel was in Europe. That’s why the fate of Europe will always be crucial to the Christian project throughout the world. Losing the historic Christian heartland may be a possibility, but it certainly won’t be helpful in evangelizing the world.

Anatoliy Babynskyi, editor-in-chief of “The Patriarchate” magazine

George Weigel is the Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

This article represents the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the editors of “Patriyarkhat”

This article represents the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the editors of “Patriyarkhat”

Gaudete et Exsultate: A Call to Lay Action

Dr Andrew SOROKOWSKY

Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation “Gaudete et Exsultate: On the Call to Holiness in Today’s World” (19 March 2018) is addressed to all of us. Its purpose is “to re-propose the call to holiness in a practical way for our own time” (no. 2). Francis emphasizes that the call to holiness is for everyone. And while an apostolic exhortation does not have the dogmatic, defining quality of an encyclical, Francis’ intent here is not to define doctrine. Rather, it is to exhort us – to encourage each of us to aspire to holiness.

Pope Francis’ thinking has been described as typically Jesuit. Ukrainians have a negative historical memory of the Jesuits, whom they associate with centuries of Polish Roman Catholic colonization. But “jesuitical” casuistry was in fact a flexible and perhaps humane approach to moral and ethical problems, taking each case individually rather than imposing strict rules with unbending uniformity. In any case, according to one observer, a mark of Pope Francis’s thinking is that he favors practical discernment of situations over statements of abstract concepts – he has a “preference for situations over ideas.”[1]

 The exhortation is long (177 sections), but I would encourage everyone to read it in full. It might be best to take each of its five chapters separately. Chapter One, “The Call to Holiness,” introduces the subject. Chapter Two, “Two Subtle Enemies of Holiness,” discusses Gnosticism and Pelagianism – ancient heresies that represent two common and persistent errors in the human quest for salvation. Indeed, both are in full evidence today. Chapter Three, “In the Light of the Master,” discusses the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11), the first part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), which for Pope Francis are the core of the Christian message (nos. 65-94). Indeed, the title of the exhortation, “Rejoice and be Glad,” comes from the conclusion to the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:12). Francis focuses next on the conclusion of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matthew 25:31-46), which he terms “the Great Criterion” (no. 95-99). This leads to a brief discussion of two false ideologies of our time regarding social engagement, one of which over-emphasizes it, while the other neglects it (nos. 100-103). In Chapter Four, “Signs of Holiness in Today’s World,” Pope Francis comments on five expressions of the love of God. Finally, in Chapter Five, he discusses “Spiritual Combat, Vigilance, and Discernment.”

While every human being should find this exhortation of relevance to his life, several passages seem particularly relevant to Ukraine and Ukrainians. One in particular is striking. In Chapter Three, discussing the Beatitudes, Francis says:

In living the Gospel, we cannot expect that everything will be easy, for the thirst for power and worldly interests often stands in our way. Saint John Paul II noted that “a society is alienated if its forms of social organization, production and consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to establish this solidarity between people.” In such a society, politics, mass communications, and economic, cultural and even religious institutions become so entangled as to become an obstacle to authentic human and social development. As a result, the Beatitudes are not easy to live out; any attempt to do so will be viewed negatively, regarded with suspicion, and met with ridicule. (no. 91)

The quotation from Saint John Paul II refers to his encyclical Centesimus Annus at no. 41 (cited in note 78 of the exhortation). The Polish pope’s encyclical was issued in 1991, the hundredth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum novarum (the first of the great modern papal documents on the social doctrine of the Church[2]) and, as it turned out several months later, the year of the collapse of the USSR.

In the passage from which the quote is taken, St. Pope John Paul II discusses the concept of “alienation” as a reversal of means and ends. Alienation is a result of an inability to find one’s true nature as a human being created in the image of God. Only by discovering this true nature can one transcend oneself, making a “free gift of self” to others. It is the inability to make this gift that causes alienation in the individual. The same, he continues, applies to society. Thus, an alienated society is one that cannot create solidarity through the “free gift of self.”

Is Ukrainian society “alienated”? Do its “forms of social organization, production and consumption” prevent it from establishing social solidarity? Do its “politics, mass communications, and economic, cultural and even religious institutions,” in Pope Francis’ words, form a tangled “obstacle to authentic human and social development”?

There is evidence that they do. While a full discussion would require a monograph, for our purposes four brief examples, chosen almost at random, should suffice. They come from the fields of agriculture, labor, ecology, and culture.

Agriculture is an area where the forms of production and consumption are changing radically. The traditional Ukrainian rural way of life, based on the village economy, was disrupted first by the imposition of serfdom, then, under the Soviet regime, by collectivization and forced famine. In western Ukraine, small farming survived through the organization of cooperatives, until postwar Soviet rule destroyed that system too. Today, circumstances often compel small farmers to sell their land to enormous multinational agribusinesses in return for supposedly steady wage labor, which turns them into employees rather than proprietors and producers. Moreover, these new latifundias often produce crops not for Ukraine, but for export, while the profits chiefly benefit not the producers, but international shareholders. Thus, the system of small farmers producing for their families and for the local market – a system which builds social solidarity – is destroyed.

Many villagers, unable to compete with agribusiness, go abroad as guest workers. Here again, the traditional forms of social organization and production are disrupted. Husbands and sons leave to labor in agriculture or industry, wives and daughters to work as domestics or caregivers, in places like Italy, Portugal, or France; children are often left with only one parent or neither. The family, the community, the society itself is disrupted. People become “trans-national,” without firm roots in either their country of birth or their country of employment; many, indeed, remain in illegal status. Under such conditions, there can be no social solidarity, no “authentic human and social development.”

Meanwhile, the natural resources of Ukraine fall prey to oligarchs who use political levers to extract economic gains, often illegally. Thus, the Carpathian Mountains have been denuded of a considerable portion of their forests. The degradation of the environment prevents authentic human development because man is called to live in harmony with God’s creation, exerting stewardship over natural resources and sharing them with others, rather than exploiting them in an unsustainable manner for private profit.

Ukraine has attracted international attention in its attempts to counter Russian influence in mass communications and “popular” culture. The problem, however, is broader than that. Church leaders have long noted the negative moral effects of Western as well as Russian entertainment products – to call them “culture” would hardly be appropriate – on the general public and on youth in particular. Meanwhile, the native film industry, for example, languishes. Liberal cultural and media policies threaten authentic human and social development because they effectively favor well-funded “entertainment industries,” which specialize in violent and sexually exploitative products, over genuine art and culture.  

Can the church do anything to overcome the resultant alienation of individuals and society itself, to re-establish social solidarity and authentic human development? This is not the place to provide more than a hint of an answer in the four problem areas we have cited. In agriculture, for example, foreign investment could be beneficial. But laws and policies that protect the small farmer as well as the village community should be designed and implemented. In labor, radical economic reform is needed to provide jobs at a family wage for Ukraine’s workers, removing the temptation to seek higher wages abroad. Effective enforcement of environmental regulations – admittedly easier said than done – is a matter of national economic as well as social survival. In the area of mass media, various tax, tariff, and other legal and economic tools could restrict the import of morally toxic entertainment products, while affirmative policies could foster the growth and development of authentic culture. These answers are not, of course, sufficiently specific or complete, and they may be altogether wrong. The point, however, is that answers can be fashioned and put into practice – not by the church hierarchy or clergy, of course, but by the broader church in the full sense – that is, by an active and engaged laity. 

Of course, such answers inevitably call forth the objection that in Ukraine’s present condition, defending itself from foreign aggression while remaining in the grip of a rapacious oligarchy with no concept of the common good, they are simply unrealistic. Certainly, this author, as a citizen and resident of the United States, is in no position to judge their likelihood of success. But the point is that all such initiatives – political, legislative, economic — are the task of the Catholic laity — not just as Ukrainian citizens who happen to worship in a Catholic church, but as Catholics who seek holiness through social action as well as personal sanctification. For it is a false though common idea that separation of church from state means that the church, as the entire body of believers, cannot take positions on public affairs, or that its workaday civic and economic life is separate from its faith. Pope Francis emphasizes that faith without practical action is not true holiness. Catholic faith, as reflected in the Beatitudes, must inform the laity’s civic, political, economic, social and cultural activity.

Centered on the Beatitudes, holiness as described by Pope Francis requires social as well as personal transformation. This transformation is akin to the metanoia of the Byzantine tradition, but applied to society as a whole. It cannot happen by words, thoughts, or ideas alone. It requires action.

[1] Andrew M. Haines, Talking with Jesuits, Ethika/Politika, June 7, 2018). https://ethikapolitika.org/2018/06/07/talking-with-jesuits

[2] For a commentary on Centesimus Annus, see Thomas Storck, An Economics of Justice and Charity: Catholic Social Teaching, Its Development and Contemporary Relevance, Kettering, Ohio, 2017, chapter five and appendix II).

This article represents the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the editors of “Patriyarkhat”