Talk:Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow

Views over abortion

This issue should also be mencioned, if he never opposed publicly the legality of abortion in Russia, the country of the world with more legal abortions, and pressured the russian orthodox politicians to back legislation that would restrict at least, this practise in Russia. Of course, this needs reliable sources.213.13.243.94 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexei was very vocally opposed to abortion. He openly called it "murder". Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally believe it´s true, but it needs sources. I also would like to see if he never pressured the russian Presidents, who have been all practising Orthodoxes, since Boris Ieltsin, for a law who, at least, would restrict abortion. I have this idea that the Orthodox Church isn´t very influencial in the orthodox countries in this issue.81.193.221.142 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I know Vladimir Putin had to be opposed to abortion to some extent. Putin had his own youth group called Nashi and they were very against abortion. The Orthodox Church is very against abortion, there is no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.160.81 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New "Controversies"

Termer has added two new "controversies", the first is "Apology to Germany." His new section reads:

":During Alexy II' first official visit to Germany in 1995 Patriarch publicly apologized for the Communist tyranny that had been imposed upon the German nation by the USSR. That resulted allegations of insulting the Russian nation and accusations of national treason by the Russian Communists and the Russian National Bolshevik Party.[45]"

I have followed events in the Russian Church very closely over the years, and I had never heard of this one. It may have been a controversy for the very small minority of people who are members of this political party in Russia. It is not noteworthy.

Then we have the section currently entitled: "Opposition in the Church" which begins with this paragraph:

"Alexy II wasn an active supporter of inter-Christian ecumenism and has publicly praised a Russian journal of religion and Christian philosophy The Messenger of the Russian christian Movement as the best Orthodox publication.[46]"

It is not even clear what is being said here. Is there a missing "T" here, and should it thus read that he "wasn't" an active supporter of inter-Christian ecumenism? Or do we have a stray "N" and he is said to be a supporter. Also, "Ecumenism" is a very loaded term in the Orthodox Church. It would probably be fair to say that he supported inter-Christian dialogue. It would not be fair to say that he supported the kind of "Ecumenism" that sees the Church as being divided into various denominational branches that just need to work out their differences. See this document approved by the 2000 All-Russian Council. He was criticized by some of the left for not being ecumenical enough... and he was criticized by some on the right for being too ecumenical. But most Orthodox think he had it juuuuust right.

The new text continues:

"A group of Russian Orthodox clergy headed by Alexander Shargunov, formerly a dissident during the Soviet era, has made an alliance with the Russian Communis Party by openly supporting Gennady Zyuganov in parliamentary elections. Shargunovs weekly Antichrist in Moscow has condemned all forms of ecumenism as anti-Christian and The Messenger publication as serving the Antichrist.[46]"

Again, it is not clear what is being said here, or why this should not be in an article about Alexander Shargunov rather than Patriarch Alexei. The Russian Church is a very large Church. You could write many books cataloging the quirks of all of its clergy and people.

Continuing with the text:

"Father Dimitry Dudko, a former political prisoner during the era of Stalinism and oppressed by the KGB during the era of Brezhnev, who is now a member of the Russian National Bolshevik Party weekly editorial board Zentra, has called for an alliance of communists and Orthodox Christians by referring to modern Russian Communists as the "genuine Russian" versus the Communist regime of USSR as a "product of the Elders of Zion and their legacy"[46]"

Fr. Dimitri Dudko was a famous clergyman who openly spoke out about the repression of the Church by the Soviets... but he was also infamously broken by the Soviets, who used psychological torture (which probably included the use of psychoactive drugs) to force him to renounce his "anti-soviet activities." [1] He was never the same after that... and to toss in a quote from him he is not only irrelevant to this article, but it is unfair to Fr. Dimitri Dudko. In an article on Fr. Dimitri, it would be fair to mention it, so long as the whole story of his life was told.

The text continues:

"Patrairc Alexy II has reacted by saying in his statement that the group of clergy headed by Shargunov do not express the opinions of the Church but their own privat views as free citizens instead. Additionally Alexy II refused to participate at the consecration of a new iconostasis for the Shargunov's church.[46]"

I don't see how this is relevant either. Shargunov obviously hold some extreme political views... which are not relevant here; and Patriarch Alexei did not agree with them... true, but also not notable. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• It was late night when I added those facts, and there might be typos and things that need copy editing since it can get twisted when you trying to avoid copyvio.The source is available online at googe books, so feel free to make anything more clear.

How everything is relevant? If anybody asks who would be motivated accusing the Patriach of being an agent, there is your answer. There are some former Soviet dissidents, few mentioned now in the article, who think the Soviet regime in USSR was a foreign import. If you can't make it out what it says between the lines, I can't help you there. In case anybody suggest that accusations against the patriarch come from literally crazy people who think that the Soviet regime was a Jewish conspiracy that the Patriarch was involved with...and in that sense it's not fair to this Dudko guy, I disagree. This article is about being fair about the allegations and accusations that have been raised against the Patrairch. --Termer (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this text about Fr. Dimitri's opinion on Communism really have to do with Patriarch Alexei?:

""Father Dimitry Dudko, a former political prisoner during the era of Stalinism and oppressed by the KGB during the era of Brezhnev, who is now a member of the Russian National Bolshevik Party weekly editorial board Zentra, has called for an alliance of communists and Orthodox Christians by referring to modern Russian Communists as the "genuine Russian" versus the Communist regime of USSR as a "product of the Elders of Zion and their legacy"[46]"

Everything is not irrelevant... but this stuff is. This has nothing to do with the Patriarch. It might be worth noting in an article on Fr. Dimitri Dudko, but not here. But it is not just irrelevant, some of what you inserted is incomprehensible. It simply makes no sense in English. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you have a point there, it needs to be spelled out better and much more clearly that Dimitri Dudko's anti-Semitic views were in opposition with Alexy II who had condemned antisemitism.--Termer (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. other than that, it doesn't make any sense in any language that someone would accuse the Jews for the Soviet regime and for the acts of the KGB. And then after spending years in communist prisons the guy made an alliance with the Russian communist party because they were "genuine Russian", meaning, not Jewish according to him. And on top of that, even though the communist regime that oppressed him was Jewish in his opinion, he still praised Stalin, the architect of the regime. Now Since Alexy II has openly condemned such antisemitic views, it is relevant to the article. And since the 2 sources given, the book written by Pospielovsky and the UCSJ Report do mention the guy in the context, the fact is notable for WP purposes.

PPS. facts like the left criticized Alexy II for "not being ecumenical enough" and "most Orthodox think he got it juuuuust right" etc. should be also added to this article as long as it's properly sourced.--Termer (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article posted does not identify the writer; furthermore, only one person is interviewed - Michael Bordeaux (who makes hostile unsupported statements regarding the Patriarch) - the article is decidedly POV. Let's stop with allegations and stick to facts! Rusmeister (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rusmeister, i suspect you haven't read WP:NPOV (please read what it actually says: in 2 words -- statements should be attributed to sources). Allegations made in reliable sources are facts in themselves; moreover the section in question is called "Opinions", not "Facts").Muscovite99 (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecumenism vs. Ecumenical

The most authoritative document of the ROC on the question of interaction with the non-Orthodox is the Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions. The only time the word Ecumenism occurs in this document is in reference to criticism of ecumenical activity. This is because Ecumenism has been defined as a heresy. The term is thus extremely loaded from an Orthodox perspective, I am not sure if Muscovite99 unfamiliarity with English is the reason why he does not see the distinction, but it is important. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• I could accept a small part of the above: the terms are indeed not equivalent (in pure semantics, as Ecumenical can be used in the senior-most Patriarch's title, for instance). Ecumenism has never been condemned as a heresy by any canonical Orthodox grouping (it was by the ROCOR prior to the reconciliation); moreover, it could not possibly have been as this would require the judgment of an Ecumenical (no pun here) Council. As for the ROC, the document you refer here is a very recent one and was drawn at the end of the 90s which were marked by a very strong "anti-ecumenical" grass-roots movement in the ROC. The facts are plain: the ROC has been an active member (and still is, albeit arguably less active and with some provisos) of the major Christian "Ecumenical" (Ecumenism being their officially proclaimed ideology and ecclesiology) organisations, namely the World Council of Churches and Conference of European Churches (read this). This article is nor exactly about the ROC, though, but about a person, who for decades was personally not simply involved but at the head of the latter (in fact, he remained President of the CEC Presidium until August 1990, already being Patriarch).Muscovite99 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, i have dispensed with "Ecumenism" and added some explanatory information (facts).Muscovite99 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox pic

What is he doing in the photo exactly? Is it a particular ritual or something? It should be mentioned in the caption. --Z 11:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)