Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

clergy who persisted in resisting the new order and who had been active in the suppression of liberal ideas, were voluntarily handed over to the authorities. In many convents and monasteries had been stored large quantities of reactionary literature; this was destroyed, in some instance the burning was made a fete occasion by the religious.

When the change came Orthodoxy freed itself from its autocratic incubus, thereby repudiating the charge of corruption and atoning, in some measure at least, for its persecution of those who labored for a liberal government.

Since then has come the anarchy of the Bolshevik reign, and certain classes have been reveling in a debauch of license. But it is not the first time this has happened nor can the situation last interminably. Meantime I believe that the strongest, steadiest, most promising element in the Russian chaos to-day is the Orthodox Church. Not because it is wealthy, for it is not, the Bolsheviki having stripped its very altars; but because it is the vessel of the faith of the people and the one force which can safely be inherited from the past and made available in the future development of Russia.

From the purely personal side of the clergy the change in government made little or no difference. The average village Pope was "on the town" even in the prosperous days of the autocracy, and the state of his larder fluctuated with economic conditions in his locality.

As a corporation receiving subsidies from the State, the material position of the Church has doubtless altered radically. No facts are available, but rumors have reported the total seizure of Church properties and monies by the Bolsheviki. It is also not unlikely that the Church has suffered from mob raids, for the temper of the Russian masses has been such of late that even the wearing of a white collar is considered sufficient justification for a mob to murder a man on the ground of his being a capitalist! However, total seizure is inconceivable because the sphere of Bolshevik influence does not cover the entirety of Russia, and certainly not all of its 180,000,000 population is so utterly drunk as to commit irreparable sacrilege.

In addition to the limitation of its material income, the Church has been obliged to clear away a lot of dead wood from its records. Until about 1900 these records showed an amazing list of adherents to Orthodoxy, but so soon as the Edict of Toleration was promulgated and men could openly confess to their belief with any degree of safety, the ranks of paper communicants began to thin out. The Raskolniki, or Old Believers, showed large figures and the various Protestant sects began to grow apace.

This growth of the non-Orthodox is a story all in itself, for the Russian peasant is as fecund of sects as a Chicago University professor. He loves long, haranguing sermons and congregational singing and gives way to religious emotion much as our negro does. After the Edict of Toleration the Church began to appreciate the value of preaching-an art that had sadly been lost-though it was greatly on the increase when the war started.

It is the usual custom of those unfavorably disposed toward Orthodoxy to belittle the religion of the peasant and to claim that he went to church only because his priest forced him. This would be interesting were conditions otherwise. As matters stand, the average village pope is the least feared man in the community and often the least respected. If he were accorded one-tenth the respect shown the average minister in the average small American town he would count himself extremely fortunate. No, the peasant did not go to church because his spiritual masters forced him; he went because his innate sense of devotion drew him there. He certainly received no enlightening instruction, for the village clergy of Russia were notoriously ignorant; but he did receive that indefinable consolation and strength which is given a man when he is willing to bend the knee and worship. These are things which cannot be written down in tables of statistics nor are they peculiar to Russia; they are merely facts that any man anywhere can prove for himself.

But if the Church had this hold on the masses, why does it not exercise it in these times of anarchy and chaos?

First, we must read all reports from Russia with reservation, and there has been very little but bad news about the Russian

Church since the overthrow of the Tsar. Reports come to us censored by the Bolshevik Government which, in its autocracy, is much more rigid than the old regime every dreamed of being. We are hearing from Russia only such news as Lenine, Trotsky & Co. want us to hear. To quote one example: among the innovations made by Trotsky was a bureau where divorces could be obtained by the simple expedient of registering the fact. Hitherto divorces were granted only by the Church and very few were authorized. The report from Petrograd has it that in the first week after the establishment of the bureau, 38,000 applications for divorce were received, among them one from Nicholas II. himself! Even the most credulous must find such news hard swallowing.

Second, because those who were violently opposed to Tsardom still hold the Church under suspicion as an arm of the bureaucracy and its active upholder. There are ample reasons for this. It must be remembered that the Church was often a willing party to the detection and arrest of revolutionists, and the village priest in all too many instances was an active aid of the gendarmerie and the Third Division. Moreover, any priest who showed sympathy with the liberal cause was promptly unfrocked or banished to virtual imprisonment in a monastery. It is natural then that the revolutionists should argue that the leopard cannot change his spots. However, the Church is somewhat different from a leopard and, as we have seen, it has been changing its spots as fast as it can.

Third, the Bolshevik Government, being headed by Semitics, has permitted the ascendancy of the Jews who, as objects of persecution by Orthodox reactionaries, the Black Hundred, have accumulated quite a large score to pay off. One can scarcely blame them for not feeling sympathetic with the progress of the Church.

Apropos of this, however, it might be noted that this ascendancy of the Jews in Russia is a topic that, for obvious reasons, our press has not considered worthy of elaborate comment. The fact remains that when revolutionary troubles in Russia have been sifted to the bottom, the Jewish element was there. In the revolution of 1905-7 it was discovered that of the rev

olutionists as many as ninety per cent were Jews. Of the Russians in América who have caused labor troubles during the past decade quite a comparable percentage have been Semitics. Under law the Jew is constitutionally litigious; remove the law, and his liberty tends toward license. But from this it must not be inferred that all the revolutionists in Russia to-day are Jews. Under his hide the Russian himself is constitutionally revolutionary. Combine these two, and one can readily see why the Russian masses have become so completely intoxicated with their freedom.

This brings us to the fourth reason for the apparent helplessness of the Church. So long as the masses remain in this intoxicated state the Church is unable to appeal to their senses. They even refuse to listen to such popular revolutionary heroes as Prince Kropotikn, Prince Lvoff and Madame Breshkovsky who have suffered exile and all manner of evil for the freedom of their people. Gradually, however, the masses will sober up and their natural recourse, even as with a man after a debauch, will be to that source which gave them strength to work out their hard lives and the peace with which they so valiantly faced death. This source was the Church.

Despite their much advertised freedom, the people of Russia have still to face the rigors of reconstruction. No matter what form of government they adopt, their way is going to be very hard and it cannot be traveled on such meager fare as socialism promises. Before Russia attains her place in the world again she will have to get down on her knees and pray. Make no mistake about that.

And make no mistake in thinking that she will not do it. Archbishop Tikhon, the Metropolitan of the Russian Church, who once lived in America as Archbishop of Orthodox congregations here, is an enlightened man of great spiritual force. He knows western ideals and he knows his own people. He knows their capacity for facing the terrible dawn of reconstruction with hearts steeled. He knows their power of repentance. We can only hope that strength will be given him to lead his people out of their darkness, lead them as the Blessed Dionissi led Russia through the chaos of the False Dmitris to the salvation of Muscovy, through prayer and repentance.

The Power of the Pope and the Peace of the World

W

BY A. PHILIP MCMAHON, PH.D.

ILL the Pope share in the Peace Council? Ought not the world's supreme moral authority to be heard in that conference which will ensure a just and durable peace? May not the sovereign whose claims exceed those of any earthly allegiance expect representation at the court where the interests of so many of his subjects will be involved?

Many people think that the Pope ought to be and will be one of the parties to that final adjustment of conflicting aims which is to eliminate the early recurrence of so vast a calamity, through a settlement established in the broadest spirit of Christian justice. Not only would the foremost spiritual authority lend a binding command to this settlement, but certain of the Pontiff's own grievances ought to be considered and rectified in the course of so tremendous a decision. The unity of Christendom in every aspect would thus be assured when all sound cause for disagreement were removed.

I.

There are many issues involved in this apparently simple and acceptable proposition. The theoretical or legal phase is being again revived abroad, although it receives little attention in America. The present is a time of transition, of fluid conditions, when the aspirations and aims of many causes suppressed for generations are aroused by the hope of sharing in the final victory. This is especially true of the Vatican. In a world whose standards and habits have been so violently dislocated, it is possible that a society such as the Roman Church, which has stood fixed and immovable for centuries, will be able to prevail by its self-reliance and firm confidence over the weakened resolution and disheartened spirits of secular nationalisms, all of recent creation and inexperience compared with its own visible continuity.

« AnteriorContinuar »