Hungarian Cardinal a Communist Informer

     The Hungarians did not start releasing the files of the Communist secret police until 1997. Historians are going through them and discovering unpleasant things. The American press has not mentioned anything about the discoveries, but Der Spiegel has a long article, “Verehrter Verräter,” and there are additional articles here, here, here, and here.

     Cardinal Paskai, who was primate of Hungary until he retired in December 2002, was publicly a “peace priest” (the darlings of the left) and secretly an informer for the Communist Secret Police from 1965 to 1974. He had the code name Tanár, Teacher. During that time he wrote reports on priests and religious. According to Der Spiegel,

At the beginning Paskai was obviously careful to hurt no one. But either his Stasi handler spoke with him harshly or the ecclesiastic became inured to it. Then increasingly Teacher recorded with care behavior within the Church that could damage the Party, noted criticism of Kádár and Kader, as if it were indifferent to him, what he thereby set in motion, if only the essential institution of the Church remained intact, if Mass could be said.

So pleased were the branches of the secret state police pleased with Paskai, that they promoted him from ordinary reporter to “secret agent.” In Stasi-Talk that meant a criminal motivated by political reasons, a convinced, like-minded person.

     Not only was Paskai informing on his fellow priests, the majority of the Hungarian delegation to the Second Vatican Council were in fact secret police informers, and in 1977 alone 421 priests informed on their fellow Catholics.

     Paskai lives in comfortable retirement, and justifies what he did: “Ah, this history....I have never talked about it and I don’t imagine I ever will.” He added: “It was all to the good, that we spoke with the powers of the state. One had to do that.”

     One patriotic priest, Frigyes Hagemann, who was betrayed, left the priesthood after serving five years in solitary confinement and in prison. He is now elderly and has obtained his 30-pound secret police file, which contains the denunciations by his friends and colleagues. He has concluded: “Humanly speaking, the official Hungarian Church is monstrous.” As to Paskai: “He will have to answer to his Maker.” Paskai does not seem concerned about that prospect.

     Perhaps fifteen or twenty years ago I read about a schismatic Catholic group in Hungary. They were very conservative in both doctrine and life, but felt that they had been betrayed to the Communist dictatorship by the Hungarian official church. They were right.

     American bishops betrayed sexually-abused children so that the ecclesiastical machinery would continue to function smoothly and without disruption; Hungarian bishops and priests betrayed fellow priests to a Communist dictatorship so that the Communists would allow ecclesiastical machinery to function smoothly. Somehow I do not think that Jesus is pleased.

Comments

[Bubbles]

Oh, please don't blame him! After all, he was just following the "best [political] science of the time!"

[Stuart Koehl]

I'm shocked, just shocked! A bishop cooperating with the Communists! Next you'll be telling me that a sporting house has nothing to do with games.

[Ransom]

The Catholic church usually deals with attacks very slowly (over centuries), but the sins Dr. Podles keeps exposing are horrendous and necessitate immediate action. I propose another inquisition. At least part of the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was to ferret out Muslims who had infiltrated the ranks of the heirarchy to destroy the church from the inside. Similar problems call for similar measures.

[Stuart Koehl]

By the way, before Mr. Podles gets tied in a knot about all this, he ought to recognize that once the Communists took over in Eastern Europe after World War II, the Party (which really means the CPSU) controlled admission to the seminaries and vetted the ordinations of priests and bishops. As was the case with the Orthodox, those who resisted were either arrested or simply kept out of the ministry.

This left the Church with really only two choices: to go along with the Communists in order to preserve the Church as an institution, trying along the way to do as little damage as possible to innocent people; or to openly defy the Communists, be outlawed, and live underground.

The former was the choice of most Orthodox Churches, and of many individual Roman Catholic clergy in Poland, Hungary and East Germany. The latter choice was made by the Greek Catholics in Ukraine, the Carpathians and Romania. They really didn't have any choice, since the Communists were determined to abolish the Greek Catholic Churches and held "robber synods" to declare them liquidated and their people and material assets absorbed into the Orthodox Churches.

Many of the faithful went along with that change, since it really had no effect on them--the shop remained open, "under new management". But a larger percentage of the people, and most of the clergy, did not acquiesce and went "underground", meeting in secret in barnes, basements and even open fields, celebrating the Eucharist, baptising their children, getting married without compromising their beliefs or their ecclesial allegience. The price for many was martyrdom. Four of these martyrs were recently recognized and beatified by Pope John Paul II: Bishop Paul (Gojdych), Bishop Theodore (Romzha), Bishop Basil (Hopko), and Bishop Alexander (Chira), the first two killed by the Communists in the 1940s, the latter two spending many years in prison and being released only so that they might not die there. Two other confessors to the faith were the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchs Josif (Slipijyi) and Miroslav Ivan (Lubachivskiy), both of whom were imprisoned but eventually exiled to Rome after extensive negotiations with the Vatican,

These were truly heroic men, but I do not begrudge those who could not follow their example. As I noted in another string, this problem has plagued the Orthodox Church since the fall of Communism, and the stories of two bishops in particular illustrate different ways of dealing with it.

In Bucharest, Romanian Orthodox Patriarch Teoctist II freely confessed his collaboration with the Communists, resigned his office, and retired to a monastery to seek redemption in prayer. After several years, he was recalled by popular demand, in recognition of his sincere contrition and of his manifest holiness.

In Moscow, Patrarich Alexei II not only collaborated with the Communists, but was a colonel in the KGB and holder of several awards for distinguished service to the Soviet state. Not only has he not apologized or asked forgiveness for his sins, but has denied the entire story. Too bad the KGB archives were not sealed again before these records had been scanned and exported to the West. The refusal of the Russian Orthodox Church to confront squarely the problem of the Communist past will continue to haunt it and impede its mission of reevangelizing Russia. As Bishop Kallistos has written in "The Orthodox Church":

A particularly thorny problem troubling Russian Orthodoxy is the revival of eastern-rite Catholicism. In 1946 the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine set up in 1596 through the union of Brest-Litovsk and numbering about 3,500,000 was reincorporated into the Russian Orthodox Church and ceased to exist. While there were doubtless some Ukrainian Catholics whose return to Orthodoxy was voluntary there can be little doubt that the vast majority wished to continue as they were in union with the Papacy. Not one of the Ukrainian bishops was in favor of the return; all alike were arrested and most died in prison or exile. Because of direct coercion and police terrorism many clergy and laity chose to conform outwardly to the Orthodox Church while still remaining Catholic in their inward convictions; others preferred to go underground. The hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate in conniving at the persecution of their fellow Christians by Stalin and the atheist authorities were placed in an unenviably equivocal situation. Surely as a matter of basic principle no Christian should ever support acts of violence against the conscience of other Christians. The fate of the Greek Catholics after the Second World War is perhaps the darkest chapter in the story of the Moscow Patriarch's collusion with Communism. Yet though driven underground eastern Catholicism was not exterminated. One of the fruits of Gorbachev's glasnost was that at the end of 1989 the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine was once more legalized. By 1987 it was already becoming
abundantly clear that the Greek Catholics would re-emerge from the catacombs and seek to recover the churches now in Orthodox hands that had once belonged to them. If only the Moscow Patriarchate had taken the initiative in proposing a peaceful and negotiated solution it would have won immense moral authority and much bitterness could have been avoided. Regrettably there was no such initiative. In 1987 and again in 1988 the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Cardinal Miroslav Lubachivsky, approached the Moscow Patriarchate both verbally and in writing proposing that the two sides Orthodox and Catholic should make a public and formal gesture of mutual forgiveness; but no response came from the Moscow Patriarchate. It is easy to understand how wounding the Greek Catholics found this silence. Now the moment of opportunity has passed. From 1989 onwards there have been sharp local disputes often marked by violence over the possession of church buildings. With passions thoroughly aroused on both sides reconciliation is going to prove slow"

What is disappointing in the case of Cardinal Paskai is not that he was a collaborator (those of us familiar with Church affairs in the Communist era more or less expect that), but that, now freed from Communist domination, he would not freely confess or attempt to make amends for his behavior, even if it was coerced. Many people were wronged by him, and besides asking God for forgiveness, he must also ask them.

[Lee Podles]

I was generally aware that some Orthodox clergy collaborated, but thank you for the details. The Orthodox have long had a problem of being regarded as an arm of the state. This was bad enough when the sovereign was Christian, but catastrophic when the sovereign was a murderous atheist.

Der Spiegel pointed out that a principled opposition to Communism and a refusal to collaborate, the stand taken by Karol Wojtyla, was more effective than the collaborationist approach taken by Paskai. One demanded more courage than the other, but fortitude even unto death is sometimes demanded of us.

Perhaps Paskai manipulated the Communists, perhaps he never hurt anyone deliberately or inadvertently, but he should explain what he did and why he did it. Otherwise it appears that, like Cardinal Mahoney, he was willing to sell his soul for ecclesiastical advancement (“but for Los Angeles?”).

If he ever hurt anyone, he should publicly apologize, ask their forgiveness, and do penance, not live in peaceful luxury.

[Bubbles]

"f he ever hurt anyone, he should publicly apologize, ask their forgiveness,..."

...and if they're still alive having avoided starving to death, being shot, or dying of pneumonia in a gulag, hey, mebbe they can offer it!

[Rich Leonardi]

This left the Church with really only two choices: to go along with the Communists in order to preserve the Church as an institution, trying along the way to do as little damage as possible to innocent people; or to openly defy the Communists, be outlawed, and live underground.

Christians in the Roman era faced a similar choice but thankfully decided it a bit differently.

[John]

According to some, Paskai gave only such reports that might benefit the person he was reporting on. Be as it may, there were many Hungarian clergy who suffered greatly and died just because they were Catholic clergy.

Foremost, one must mention Cardinal Mindszenty who was subjected to daily beatings for a month before convicted with a number of others in a Communist show trial in 1949. He was free for a few days in 1956, escaped to the US Embassy, and finally was allowed to leave the country to die in Austria. His beatification case is pending.

Cardinal Mindszenthy's personal secretary turned informant because he could not put up with the torture. I would not judge him. In our eyes the secretary was a traitor but few human beings have the capacity to endure under inhuman conditions.

Cardinal Mindszenthy's trial was followed by another show trial of Cardinal Gro''sz.

The rank and file of Catholic clergy were made to choose sides. They could become "Peace Priests" [collaborators] or were hounded out of the priesthood altogether. Many collaborated as little as they could.

In those years, Catholic clergy were subjected to what one must call open terror. In one situation two drunken secret policemen chased a priest in the town of Eger with their car until they managed to run him down on the sidewalk and killed him. The incident never made even the local paper. Nobody was ever punished for it.

There were heroes and sellouts. But they were all persecuted one way or another. Some lost their lives some just self respect. May God Almighty have mercy on all their souls. Amen.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I was generally aware that some Orthodox clergy collaborated, but thank you for the details. The Orthodox have long had a problem of being regarded as an arm of the state. This was bad enough when the sovereign was Christian, but catastrophic when the sovereign was a murderous atheist.<<<

The old cliche about "caeseropapism" is pretty much an urban myth, if one is speaking of Orthodoxy during the Byzantine era. While the Byzantine Church believed in the principle of "symphonia" in which Church and state mutually supported each other, the Church was by no means dominated by the state, nor were the Emperors able to run roughshod over the bishops in areas of Church doctrine. In every major theological controversy that pitted the Emperor against the Church, the Church won hands down. It may have taken a while, but whether the issue was Arianism, monophysitism, monothelitism or iconoclasm, in the end it was the heterodox emperors who were anathematized. This extends even to minor matters, such as whether an emperor can marry four times (the Orthodox Church said no, the Pope said yes, so who was in the pocket of whom?) to whether to grant soldiers who died fighting the Muslims absolution in advance (the Emperors thought it would pysch up the troops, the Church wouldn't budge on the principle that soldiers would have to undergo penance before readmission to communion).

After the fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was made responsible for governance of the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire under the "Millet" system. This, unfortunately, inextricably linked the Church to politics by elevating the Patriarch to the level of a civil ruler. Bad as that situation was with regard to the Latin Church and the Papal States, it was worse for the Orthodox Church, where, as Sir Steven Runciman noted in his masterful "The Great Church in Capativity", "everything and everyone was for sale".

In the Slavic lands that escaped Ottoman domination, the Church remained independent for another two hundred years. Even as the Tsars tried to increase their hold over the Church, the Church resisted; for example, Filip, Patriarch of Moscow, was martyred (and canonized) for resisting the cruelties of Ivan IV Grozny. The situation in Russia only changed during the reign of Tsar Alexei and the so-called Nikonian Reforms of the liturgy (that led to the Old Believer schism). During that time, one faction of Russian monastics, the "Josephites" or "Possessors" struck a deal with the Tsar to retain their property (including serfs) in return for not opposing the Tsar's policies. The were opposed by Saint Nils Sorskiy and the "Non-Possessors" who were willing to accept poverty as a mark of renunciation of the world and as a means of remaining independent of the state. The Josephites won in the short term, only to lose everything when Peter the Great nationalized the monastic holdings and put the entire Church under a "procuratorship" modeled on the administration of the German national Lutheran churches Peter admired so much.

The Russian Church, for one brief, shining moment in 1905, was poised to break out of that straightjacked, and a number of reforms were put in motion at that time which would have reinvigorated the Russian Church, but before they could be fully enacted, the Church was re-enslaved by the Bolshevik Revolution.

In any case, the history of Church/state relations in the Orthodox communion is highly complex, and it is overly simplistic and erroneous to speak of the Orthodox Church as "an arm of the state.

>>>Perhaps Paskai manipulated the Communists, perhaps he never hurt anyone deliberately or inadvertently, but he should explain what he did and why he did it. Otherwise it appears that, like Cardinal Mahoney, he was willing to sell his soul for ecclesiastical advancement (“but for Los Angeles?”).<<<

Indeed he should, as should all who collaborated during that time, even if it seemed like the prudential thing to do. That is why I admire the position taken by Patriarch Teoctist.

By the way, doesn't the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles spell his last name "Mahony"?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Christians in the Roman era faced a similar choice but thankfully decided it a bit differently.<<<

This is a silly statement, on several levels.

First off, it really isn't true. Many of the early Church's major controversies and schisms, particularly the Donatist schism, were the result precisely of Christians apostacizing durng persecution--first under Decius and Aurelian (250-253) and then under Diocletian and his successors (303-313). Rather than going after the rank-and-file, these persecutions targeted the upper clergy, and a remarkable number of them ended up recanting. They were followed by thousands of ordinary Christians who, required to register and offer sacrifice to the Emperor, did so without much coercsion. How (and whether) to reintegrate these apostates, how (and whether) to recognize the ordinations done by apostate bishops, would occupy the Church for more than a century after the Edict of Milan.

Second, you cannot in any way compare the persecution of the early Church under the Romans to what was done by the Communists. We are talking about different orders of magnitude both in scope and intensity. Under the Romans, between AD 64 and AD 313, there were actually only four periods of systematic persecution, none of which lasted more than a few years: Nero (64-66); Domitian (96); Decius and Aurelian (250-253), and Diocletian (303-305). In other words, we're talking about 8 years out of 250. There were some local persecutions more akin to pogroms, such as that in Lyons in the 170s, but these were limited in scope and claimed few lives. Most of the time, Christians were left alone, unless they made pests of themselves, or some regional disaster (crop failure, plague, flood) needed a handy scapegoat. By the third century, Christians could openly buy propery and erect Churches; it annoyed Diocletian that the largest building in his capital of Nicomedia, after the Imperial Palace, was the local church. Which is why Christian numbers increased so rapidly, and why so many people apostacized when the screws were clamped down.

If I had to estimate how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans for their faith, I wouldn't put the number at more than 10-20,000 over the entire period. The idea that becoming a Christian was akin to a death sentence is a pious myth, not historical reality.

On the other hand, when the Communists took over Russia in 1918-1920, they systematically slaughtered the hierarchy, clergy and monastics of the Orthodox Church--something like 90% of the bishops, 50% of the priests, 50% of the monastics--as well as an estimated 10 million ordinary Orthodox believers. This in the space of just a few years. The persecution of Christians was systematic and ruthless through the end of the Stalinist era, with a small letup for World War II (even Stalin was not an atheist in a foxhole). After World War II, it was the turn of the Greek Catholics, most of whose hierarchy, clergy and monastics were simply liquidated.

In the early 1920s, it wasn't a question of individual survival for the Orthodox in Russia, it was whether the Church would survive at all. Under tremendous physical and psychological duress, a handful of bishops (those who still survived) were forced to sign a modus vivendi with the Party, one which ensured that the Church would be entirely subserviant to the state. However, despite that, and despite the persecution, the Church survived, continued to bring forth men and women of exemplary holiness who spread the Gospel, ministered to the faithful and witnessed for Christ through their entire lives.

It is not at all fair to accuse them of being weak in their faith because they didn't live up to YOUR idea of what a Christian should do under those circumstances. YOU don't know what YOU would do under such circumstanes, because YOU will never be subjected to them, for which YOU ought to thank God--in fact, you do, every time you pray the Lord's prayer: "And put us not to the test, but deliver us from the Evil One. Amen."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Foremost, one must mention Cardinal Mindszenty who was subjected to daily beatings for a month before convicted with a number of others in a Communist show trial in 1949. He was free for a few days in 1956, escaped to the US Embassy, and finally was allowed to leave the country to die in Austria. His beatification case is pending.<<<

Everybody seems to know about Mindszenty, but I wouldn't say he was foremost. His beatings, you know, were merely par for the course back then, and his time in the American Embassy, while trying (I know more than my fair share of diplomats) was fairly comfortable.

We could play dueling martyrs, but I think it a shame that too few Catholics really know about the many Greek Catholic bishops, priests, monastics and ordinary people who were either killed, tortured or imprisoned after World War II. On par with Mindszenty as confessors, I would put men like Joseph Slipjyi, Miroslav Ivan Lubachevksi, Basil Hopko and Alexander Chira. If you want real bishop-martyrs, try Theodore Romzha or Paul Gojdych (who have already been beatified, by the way).

>>>In those years, Catholic clergy were subjected to what one must call open terror. In one situation two drunken secret policemen chased a priest in the town of Eger with their car until they managed to run him down on the sidewalk and killed him. The incident never made even the local paper. Nobody was ever punished for it.<<<

Just as nobody was ever punished for the icepick murder of Fr. Alexander Men.

The fact is, Communism was a terrible ordeal and challenge for all Christians caught in its web, and I for one would not want to find myself in their shoes, because frankly, I cannot guarantee a priori what I would do, if put to the test (which is why we pray that we won't). Some people chose one way, others chose a different way. The only ones I will condemn are those whose collaboration went far beyond that required to "get along" but rather crossed the line into abetting the persecution of the Church. All those who collaborated should repent and ask forgiveness, but those who were active in their collaboration have so much more for which to answer.

[Emily]

On the subject of Communists and Gulags... A few years ago, I read a fascinating book by Fr. Walter Ciszek, SJ, called "With God in Russia." The book is a firsthand account about his time in a Soviet gulag and exile. Fr. Ciszek was an American, whom the Jesuits trained to minister in Russia and who arrived in the USSR in the middle of WWII. In his stories of the camps, he mentions many religious people who ended up there -- especially Catholics and Baptists.

One of the images from that book I will never forget is how he arranged to "hear" confessions from the women prisoners. There were several Ukrainian Catholic nuns imprisoned at the same camp, but men and women were separated by a fence and would be punished if a guard heard them speaking to one another. So the women would write down the sins they wished to confess and label them with a number, then pass the notes through the fence to him. The next day, each woman would indicate to him -- by raising the proper number of fingers -- which confession was hers, and he would give absolution quietly.

Similarly compelling are the passages about his undercover Masses.... It was a book I couldn't put down.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Similarly compelling are the passages about his undercover Masses.... It was a book I couldn't put down.<<<

What should also be mentioned about Christians in the GULAG is the way in which the Schism disappeared. In some camps, there were no Catholic priests; in orthers, no Orthodox priests, and in yet others there were both. Regardless of confessional boundaries, these men ministered to the spiritual needs of all--Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants alike. They celebrated the Eucharist and distributed it to all who desired it. They heard confessions and offered reconciliation. They annointed the sick, and comforted the dying. Using whatever materials came to hand--bread made from the crumbs on the bakery floor, wine fermented from raisins, chalices made from tin cans, they did what needed to be done.

It may be that only under the stress of persecution can we finally put aside the petty disputes that keep us separated. In the GULAG, all were in all in Christ.

[Lee Podles]

I do not know how I would respond to torture or the threat of torture, so I do not judge those clerics who did the minimum to survive under Communism. But it seems from Der Spiegel's account that Paskai did more than the minimum.

Whatever problems the Orthodox had with the state, they have produced more martyrs than all other Christian churches combined. I hope that the blood of these martyrs will produce a new flowering of Orthodoxy in the third millenium, and an Orthdoxy again in Communion with Rome.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Whatever problems the Orthodox had with the state, they have produced more martyrs than all other Christian churches combined. I hope that the blood of these martyrs will produce a new flowering of Orthodoxy in the third millenium, and an Orthdoxy again in Communion with Rome.<<<

Amen

[ron chandonia]

This was so very informative. Thanks for these postings.

[Charles R. Williams]

The hierarchs who collaborated, for whatever reason and with whatever culpability, should have made public confessions and resigned when the Soviet Empire collapsed - as the Romanian Patriarch did.

[Bill R]

"It may be that only under the stress of persecution can we finally put aside the petty disputes that keep us separated."

Very sobering and enlightening, Stuart. It is too easy to take for granted our centuries of freedom from persecution. We cannot take it for granted. We are unlikely to face the type of persecution our eastern brothers and sisters faced in the 20th century, but no doubt the Prince of Darkness has other, more subtle methods at his disposal today.

[Judy Warner]

I cannot guarantee a priori what I would do, if put to the test (which is why we pray that we won't).

I hope this isn't too far off the topic, but since my husband Jim was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five-and-a-half years, I have heard many stories about torture and men's reactions to it.

The POWs were fighter pilots, so they were educated, smart, and aggressive guys. They (aside from the few traitors) were determined to stand up to the torture of the North Vietnames communists and not betray their country. Yet none of them could, at a certain level of torture -- and many of them withstood incredible torture before they broke. They kept their chain of command in prison, and the senior officers told them that they had to withstand torture as long as they could but when they could not, they were not counted as traitors.

They were not betraying military secrets; they were tortured to betray themselves, their beliefs.

The men spent a lot of time and energy figuring out ways to get back at the torturers. My husband would feed them stories that were so ridiculous that the torturer would get punished when he repeated it to a higher-up. Unfortunately, one of these stories turned out to be true, and as a result his captors believed he had a way of communicating with prisoners in another camp. They tortured him without mercy to find out how he did it. Since he hadn't actually done it he couldn't give them an answer, and the only reason he survived was that Ho Chi Minh died four months later and the torture stopped. Jim's conclusion was that since he had no way to stop the torture, he learned that he could withstand a great deal more than he thought he could.

What kept the men going was that they were in constant communication with each other, even when the penalty for being caught communicating was a beating. They had their own society of sorts, as prisoners. They took care of each other in sickness, and boosted each others' morale.

But people living in a communist country would find it harder to achieve this level of solidarity, I would think, because they could never tell who was their friend and who had been pressured to betray them. From what I remember of Solzhenitsyn, I think there was more solidarity in the Gulag than out of it, because the prisoners were a group defined against the state already.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>From what I remember of Solzhenitsyn, I think there was more solidarity in the Gulag than out of it, because the prisoners were a group defined against the state already.<<<

Among the "Zeks" or political prisoners, this was true. But Zeks weren't the only ones in the GULAG--there were also common criminals (Cheloveki, or "Good Guys", who were subborned by the prison guards to torment the Zeks. In that environment, the Zeks had to trust each other, because they were the only ones who would.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We cannot take it for granted. We are unlikely to face the type of persecution our eastern brothers and sisters faced in the 20th century, but no doubt the Prince of Darkness has other, more subtle methods at his disposal today.<<<

An Orthodox bishop once told me, shortly after the collapse of communism, "I believe that the Church can withstand everything--except freedom", by which he meant that persecution drove out the weak and luke-warm; staying in meant real commitment. Staying in was a way of making a statement against the Party and the state, an act of defiance. With freedom, you get a lot more options, and for some people, the reason for remaining in got weaker or went away. Torture and prison they could take, but the weaknesses of the flesh were harder to resist.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Stuart, you are a very knowledgeable fellow, and wise on many things, but at times you can be an angry crank.

It is not at all fair to accuse them of being weak in their faith because they didn't live up to YOUR idea of what a Christian should do under those circumstances. YOU don't know what YOU would do under such circumstanes, because YOU will never be subjected to them, for which YOU ought to thank God--in fact, you do, every time you pray the Lord's prayer: "And put us not to the test, but deliver us from the Evil One. Amen."

This was an inexcusable rant.

Your seeming downplaying of the suffering of the Church under Rome and the imperative to be faithful under it seems totally at odds with the witness of the Church at the time, when it was growing by leaps and bounds because of such a witness. See the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

Furthermore, your mention of the problem of Donatism brushes over the obvious: that there was universal agreement that what the apostates had done was a sin and required a period of penance. Why then your snapping at someone who suggests that the early church's elevation of martydom over compliance with the Sate was a better path than that chosen by some churches in Communist lands?

We can understand and forgive weakness among Christians. And perhaps we would also be as weak in their shoes. But should we not hope to be stronger? Or should we look at Peter's denial and think it's not such an awful thing if he did it?

[John]

Most of the persecuted were orthodox because most of the people living under Communist rule were Slavs of the Orthodox faith. Latin and Protestant Christians were mainly in Easten Europe occupied by the Soviet Army.

Most of the persecutors were Slavs also but certainly not Christian.

[Rob Grano]

There have been quite a few books published in the last few years about Christians who suffered under the Communist yoke: Fr. Arseny, Bishop Luke of Simferopol, Grand Duchess Elizabeth, Fr. George Calciu, etc., plus collections of stories of the "New Martyrs" and confessors. These are all Orthodox believers, but books have been written about many Catholic and Protestant victims as well. The stories are inspiring but very challenging and will definitely make one do a 'gut check' on one's faith.

[Lee Podles]

I don't know whether Paskai really faced torture by the 1960s in Hungary, or whether he simply collaboated with the dictatorship so that he could advance his eccelsiastical career. He could explain, but chooses not to.

Bishops who have erred greatly and harmed people, even if the error was inadvertant, should show the Church what it is to repent, even for unknown faults, and to make reparation. Bishops should teach more with their lives than with their mouths, and this has been lacking in both Paskai and similar collaborators as well as in the bishops whose actions and inactions drove sexual abuse victims to suicide.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Your seeming downplaying of the suffering of the Church under Rome and the imperative to be faithful under it seems totally at odds with the witness of the Church at the time, when it was growing by leaps and bounds because of such a witness. See the Martyrdom of Polycarp.<<<

I may be a crank, but I'm smart enough not to confuse hagiography with history.

And Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna, which last I looked was my neck of the woods. As to growing by "leaps and bounds", we have a monastery in California that grew by 50% over the last two years. Of course, they only had six monks when they began, so we're talking about growing by leaps and bounds from six to nine.

Fact is, the Church really didn't take off until the end of the second/beginning of the third centuries, periods in which the Church was not persecuted, but rather, either tolerated or even (in the case of Elagabalus and Phillip the Arab) tacitly encouraged. People were attracted to the Church by its social values, the charitable services it provided to the poor, and its promise of eternal salvation. But when persecution came with a vengence in the 250s and early 300s, shallow converts jumped ship by the thousands. Martyrs were few, and apparently it only took a few to terrorize the many. Reading between the lines, we find that the martyrs are extolled because they were exceptional, and not many were willing to go where they went.

>>>Furthermore, your mention of the problem of Donatism brushes over the obvious: that there was universal agreement that what the apostates had done was a sin and required a period of penance. Why then your snapping at someone who suggests that the early church's elevation of martydom over compliance with the Sate was a better path than that chosen by some churches in Communist lands?<<<

Because it's easy to say what people woulda, shoulda, coulda done, especially when one has no direct experience in the matter. And within the early Church, there was tremendous disagreement between those who would have extended mercy to the lapsed and those who demanded the full rigor of the law. Those who today demand full rigor for those who collaborated with the Communists for the most part have had no experience in living under Communism, and therefore act as though it was easy to do the right thing. So the issue in the end is the same as it was for the African Church of the third and fourth centuries: do we show mercy as we would have God show mercy to us, or do we demand justice? One of those WWJD mements, isn't it?

>>>But should we not hope to be stronger? Or should we look at Peter's denial and think it's not such an awful thing if he did it?<<<

Peter made two denials. The first he made to Jesus, when he said, "I will never abandon you". Jesus saw through that one, and told Peter what would happen. Was it an awful thing? Well, it wasn't good, but Peter redeemed it with his tears, and was reconciled with the Lord after his Resurrection. We should hope to be stronger, but we're in no position to judge those who were not strong, lest we ourselves be put to the test and judged.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Bishops who have erred greatly and harmed people, even if the error was inadvertant, should show the Church what it is to repent, even for unknown faults, and to make reparation. Bishops should teach more with their lives than with their mouths, and this has been lacking in both Paskai and similar collaborators as well as in the bishops whose actions and inactions drove sexual abuse victims to suicide.<<<

Again, to go back to Chrysostom, "I fear that not many bishops will be saved". It was true then, and it remains true, which makes one wonder why one would want the job. Perhaps those Fathers who tried to run away from it understood that. Perhaps the best person to make a bishop is the man who least wants to be one.

[David Gray]

>Again, to go back to Chrysostom, "I fear that not many bishops will be saved".

Perhaps I missed it but Stuart were you able to point out where Chrysostom wrote that?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Perhaps I missed it but Stuart were you able to point out where Chrysostom wrote that?<<<

I did post that. It's Homily 3 on Acts of the Apostles, and it can be found at

www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

The pertinent parts are as follow:

I find it in my own actual experience. I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish: and the reason is, that it is an affair that requires a great mind. Many are the exigencies which throw a man out of his natural temper; and he had need have a thousand eyes on all sides. Do you not see what a number of qualifications the Bishop must have? to be apt to teach, patient, holding fast the faithful word in doctrine (see 1 Tim. iii. 2--9. Tit. i. 7--9). What trouble and pains does this require! And then, others do wrong, and he bears all the blame. To pass over every thing else: if one soul depart un-baptized, does not this subvert all his own prospect of salvation? The loss of one soul carries with it a penalty which no language can represent. For if the salvation of that soul was of such value, that the Son of God became man, and suffered so much, think how sore a punishment must the losing of it bring! And if in this present life he who is cause of an- other's destruction is worthy of death, much more in the next world. Do not tell me, that the presbyter is in fault, or the deacon. The guilt of all these comes perforce upon the head of those who ordained them. Let me mention another instance. It chances, that a bishop has inherited from his predecessor a set of persons of indifferent character. What measures is it proper to take in respect of bygone transgressions (for here are two precipices) so as not to let the offender go unpunished, and not to cause scandal to the rest? Must one's first step be to cut him off? There is no actual present ground for that. But is it right to let him go unmarked? Yes, say you; for the fault rests with the bishop Who ordained him. Well then? must one refuse to ordain him again, and to raise him to a higher degree of the ministry? That would be to publish it to all men, that he is a person of indifferent character, and so again one would cause scandal in a different way. But is one to promote him to a higher degree? That is much worse.

If then there were only the responsibility of the office itself for people to run after in the episcopate, none would be so quick to accept it. But as things go, we run after this, just as we do after the dignities of the world. That we may have glory with men, we lose ourselves with God. What profit in such honor? How self-evident its nothingness is! When you covet the episcopal rank, put in the other scale, the account to be rendered after this life.

Weigh against it, the happiness of a life free from toil, take into account the different measure of the punishment. I mean, that even if you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost. Remember what Moses endured, what wisdom he displayed, what good deeds he exhibited: but, for committing one sin only, he was bitterly punished; and with good reason; for this fault was attended with injury to the rest. Not m regard that the sin was public, but because it was the sin of a spiritual Ruler (ierews) cf. S.); for in truth we do not pay the same penalty for public and for hidden faults. (Aug in Ps. xcix. 6.) The sin may be the same, but not the (zhmia) harm of it; nay, not the sin itself; for it is not the same thing to sin in secret and unseen, and to sin openly.

But the bishop cannot sin unobserved. Well for him if he escape reproach, though he sin not; much less can he think to escape notice, if he do sin. Let him be angry, let him laugh, or let him but dream of a moment's relaxation, many are they that scoff, many that are offended, many that lay down the law, many that bring to mind he former bishops, and abuse the, present one; not that they wish to sound the praise of those; no, it is only to carp at him that they bring up the mention of fellow-bishops, of presbyters. Sweet, says the proverb, is war to the inexperienced; but it may rather be said now, that even after one has come out of it, people in general have seen nothing of it: for in their eyes it is not war, but like those shepherds in Ezekiel, we slay and devour. (Ezek. xxxiv. 2.) Which of us has it in his power to show that he has taken as much care for the flocks of Christ, as Jacob did for Laban's? (Gen. xxxi. 40.) Which of us can tell of the frost of the night? For talk not to me of vigils, and all that parade. The contrary plainly is the fact. Prefects, and governors (unarkoi kai tonarkai) Of provinces, do not enjoy such honour as he that governs the Church. If he enter the palace, who but he is first? If he go to see ladies, or visit the houses of the great, none is preferred to him. The whole state of things is ruined and corrupt. I do not speak thus as wishing to put us bishops to shame, but to repress your hankering after the office. For with what conscience, (even should you succeed in becoming a bishop, having made interest for it either in person or by another), with what eyes will you look the man in the face who worked with you to that end? What will you have to plead for your excuse? For he that unwillingly, by compulsion and not with his own consent, was raised to the office, may have something to say for himself, though for the most part even such an one has no pardon to expect, and yet truly he so far has something to plead in excuse. Think how it fared with Simon Magus. What signifies it that you give not money, if, in place of money, you pay court, you lay many plans, you set engines to work? "Thy money perish with thee!" (Acts viii. 20.)

[David Gray]

>I did post that. It's Homily 3 on Acts of the Apostles

Thanks Stuart, most of the homilies of his that I've read were on Romans.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Thanks Stuart, most of the homilies of his that I've read were on Romans.<<<

All of Chrysostom's homilies are worth reading. SVS Press has done a great service in organizing them into small booklets by subject, so that, e.g., you can get "St.. John Chrysostom on Marriage and Family Life", which includes extracts from Homily 19 on 1 Cor 7; Homily 20 on Eph 5:22-33; Homily 21 on Eph 6:1-4; Homily 12 on Col 4:18; his "Sermon on Marriage", and (my favorite), "How to Choose a Wife".

There are similar volumes on the other Fathers, as well.

[David Gray]

>you can get "St.. John Chrysostom on Marriage and Family Life"

I have that one, bought in in York. Haven't read it yet...

[DGP]

Mr. Hathaway,

Of course Mr. Koehl is a crank. That's what weblogs are for -- they're conventions for cranks, though some weblogs are dedicated to particular subspecies of cranks -- e.g., curmudgeons, young turks, critics, or loons. Happily, *Mere Comments* welcomes all comers. Some of us here are Reformed Cranks, eager to set boundaries and protect our opportunity to celebrate our common crankiness. Others among us are Cranks of the Original Observance, who blithely rant against all errors except our own.

We're a diverse lot, but not so diverse that you should expect to be the only crank who blogs here.

[David Gray]

>Some of us here are Reformed Cranks

Others are Lutheran Cranks, Catholic Cranks and Orthodox Cranks...

[James A. Altena]

And some cranks like me just crank out ever more mere comments....

And don't leave us Anglican cranks out of the list! We don't want to be discriminated against here!

Of course, perhaps some cranks need more lubrication than others....(Where' the nearest bar or liquor store?)

[DGP]

My taxonomy of cranks should have included pedants and (would-be) wits. :-)

[John]

One must be careful reporting third hand. The Der Spigel story on Paskai et al was at least 3rd hand or more. The original reporting was in the Hungarian press apropos of an earlier story on various eminent local cultural figures who reported on others.

Paskai was brough into the follow up reporting, rightly im my opinion, to illustrate that even the Primate of Hungary was guilty of reporting. Upon fuerther investigation it was concluded that he was enrolled as an agent but it was at the initiatives of the secret service. You could be enrolled without your consent. Eventually he submited reports but all of them were complimentary of the subjects in question.

The truth is elusive because the appropriate archives were "cleaned before" they were turned over to the government succeeding the Communist regime.

Der Spigel in no innocent and my suspicion is that they are part of a campain going on in Eastern Europe today to blacken as many names as possible, the more respected the person the better, so that the real criminals look no worse than anyone else.

The Orthodox Church suffered a lot in Russia. However, the Greek Catholics, whom the Orthodox dislike worse than their former Communist opressors, never gave in and are the true heroes of the Communist hate campaings. Bishop Rhomzsa was a Greek Catholic victim.

This posting on Paskai is unfair because the historical background is missing, because the current campaign by secularists is directed to lessen their own guilt by perhaps blackening as many names as possible. It is wrong also because some Orthodox bloggers seem to piggyback on secularist propaganda to once again show Latin clergy in a bad light without adequate supporting evidence.

Paskai cannot clear his name because at least technically he reported. The question is what did he actually do? Only he knows for sure. If he says he did nothing no one will believe him. God knows and I believe Cardinal Paskai looks to Him for final judgement. May God have mercy on his soul.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Stuart, the matter of having mercy on the lapsed was never in question for me. My point is that those who opted for mercy in the early church nevertheless still regarded the lapse as a sin that required a period of penance excluded from the eucharist. You don't seem to deal with this critical point. The cardinal sinned such that he should approach the Church as a penitent. You lashed out at one who suggested that not conforming to the State was the early church's prefernce and was a superior path to collaboration.

It doesn't matter what I would do if faced with the same. I am a wretched sinner myself and can't be trusted for a moment to do the right thing. By the Grace of God sometimes I do it. Regardless of my abilities or obediance the truth is the truth. It is better to die than to deny the Lord. The Gospel is not promulgated by survival, but by sacrifice. That is what the Cross and Resurrection testify.

I'm sure you know this. It's just that your responces in this matter don't seem tomention this much. If when we aren't threatened with real suffering we start to take our focus off of God's call to lay down our life for Him we might find it to easy to give a pinch to Ceasar when the time comes.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The cardinal sinned such that he should approach the Church as a penitent. You lashed out at one who suggested that not conforming to the State was the early church's prefernce and was a superior path to collaboration.<<<

We don't disagree on that. We disagree on whether you can demand from the people who had to live through that horrible time a standard of behavior which has never been the norm even in the Church of the pre-Constantinian era. Since we cannot ourselves say how we would behave, the best we can do is place our trust in God and hope for his benevolence.

Christ sent the Paraclete among us to guide us into all truth. That means that we have the power of discernment, which we are called upon to exercise. For us as individuals, the course of right and wrong may seem very straightforward, but the choices become more muddied depending upon how much responsibility we have for others. A monastic, a hermit who has renounced the world and has no ties to it, can easily sacrifice his life in witness to the truth. But a husband and father--he has other people about whom he must think. A priest or a bishop has it even worse--he must deal with the souls of all those entrusted to his care.

In the circumstances of the Communist oppression, these men had to make some difficult choices. The very choice of whether to serve in ordained ministry or not was inherently compromising, since the Communist Party vetted anyone presented for ordination. And that approval was conditional on certain quids pro quo. So, for starters, if you were ordained, you were already a collaborator to some degree. The issue then, was how badly compromised?

It is easy to say that the right thing to do is to sacrifice the Church and all in it rather than compromise for the sake of the survival of the Church. Yet as long as the Church remained in being, it represented a nexus of opposition to the state, a beacon of hope to an oppressed people--even though it was itself soiled and compromised by the very act of existence.

I am reminded of something that Golda Meir once said: "It is important that the world have peace, and justice, and freedom. It is also important that we be in it".

For the Church to be what it is called to be, the manifestation of the Kingdom of God in this world, it must ultimately be IN this world. The Church never before faced a situation where its very existence was challenged by the overwhelming might of the state backed by all the capabilities of industrial society.

The existence of the Church was never threatened by the Romans. It was never threatened by the Muslims. It was threatened by the Communists--they had the power to wipe the Church off the face of the earth, wherever their power held sway. Those responsible for the Church realized this, and also realized that without the Church, there was no source of hope for Christians. That was their dilemma, and as is often the case, there was no "right" answer, just a choice of bad ones.

[Christopher Hathaway]

The existence of the Church was never threatened by the Romans. It was never threatened by the Muslims. It was threatened by the Communists--they had the power to wipe the Church off the face of the earth, wherever their power held sway. Those responsible for the Church realized this, and also realized that without the Church, there was no source of hope for Christians. That was their dilemma, and as is often the case, there was no "right" answer, just a choice of bad ones.

Not to take the high horse Stuart, but that is simple faithless bullshit. What gives the Church the ability to be In the world as a witness to the Lord? Is it the power of those in the Church or is it the power of God which is greater than all worldly rulers and empires?

The Chruch's existence was threatened by Rome in the days of Diocletian. If that persecution had lasted who knows how the Church would have been? But it didn't last. Thanks be to God, only to God.

But at the time the Church didn't know it wouldn't last longer than it did. Nevertheless, they regarded as an act of faith refusal to bow down to the world's power, and as an act of faithlessnes submission to that power when it required denial of the Lord.

God wants me to be his witness to the world. For that I need to be in the world. True enough. But I need not be in it long. If the State tells me to give a pinch to Ceasar in order to survive and do something for God I know that by my faithful death I will be a witness and that God can raise up someone else to be His servant in the world. He certainly doesn't need me to reamin as a compromised witness. He can redeem a compromised witness, if I repent. But should I sin because of that reality? Should I sin that Grace abound?

There is a "right answer". And there is mercy when we fail to do what is right. But mercy does not blur the clear lines that God has revealed. I am uncomfortable by how much you seem to be bluriing them to be merciful to human weakness. That is a very bad principle.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Chruch's existence was threatened by Rome in the days of Diocletian. If that persecution had lasted who knows how the Church would have been? But it didn't last. Thanks be to God, only to God.<<<

Not really. There were significant limits to what the Roman state could actually do because of its size and decentralized organization. Diocletian could only enforce his edicts to the extent that he could get his magistrates to enforce it--and many did not. For instance, the persecution was much more rigorously enforced in the East than the West.

Even when it was enforced, the principal targers were in fact the higher clergy. Having figured out that persecuting ordinary schmoes had limited effect, Diocletian decided to decapitate the beast. Quite a few bishops were arrested, a number were tortured, a few were executed. But there was no major pogrom of Christians--for that, Diocletian was a day late and a dollar short: too many ordinary Romans admired the Christians for their morality and charity.

Moreover, there were substantial bodies of Christians outside the Oikumene in Armenia and Parthia, where the Emperors writ did not hold, and quite a few Christians fled there.

>>>If the State tells me to give a pinch to Ceasar in order to survive and do something for God I know that by my faithful death I will be a witness and that God can raise up someone else to be His servant in the world. He certainly doesn't need me to reamin as a compromised witness. He can redeem a compromised witness, if I repent. But should I sin because of that reality? Should I sin that Grace abound?<<<

That's YOUR life. Now, what about all the other lives given into your care? What do you do about them? That's the question the bishops and priests under the Communists had to answer. Most did not care a whit for their own lives, but who would look out for the faithful if all of them were killed off? So, some chose one path, and some chose a different path. They were different from those who deliberately, even enthusiastically chose to collaborate, and who used their positions to undermine rather than to try to salvage the Church.

[Communist]

So what? Word has it that Cardinal Glemp, primate of Poland was also a Communist Agent.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Now, what about all the other lives given into your care? What do you do about them?

Perhaps you should tell them that God will raise up someone else to care for them. Why not even from among them? Is God not in control? Is His church so fragile that it will be decimated by His servants suffering even until death? Will God cry out "Now where am I going to find someone to take his place?"?

If the Church sees priests being willing to give up their lives for the Gospel why do you not suppose that instead of being destitue the people wil be inspired by his witness and filled with the Spirit? After all, the Holy Spirit is the chief and permamnent pastor and Comforter of the Church. All priests and bishops are but His instruments.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If the Church sees priests being willing to give up their lives for the Gospel why do you not suppose that instead of being destitue the people wil be inspired by his witness and filled with the Spirit?<<<

Belonging to a Church that actually underwent this experience, I can tell you that some people gladly suffered martyrdom, others hid their faith and went underground, and the majority acquiesced to their situation, with a mental reservation. When the Communists collapsed in 1989, the ones who were underground came out, the ones who had accepted their relegation to the Orthodox Church with a mental reservation went back to their old affiliation. Different people, different situations, different solutions to their own unique problems.

[Margaret]

Excellent discussion -- thank you all! Stuart, your knowledge of the history of the Eastern Church under Communism is impressive.

The assertion that we don't have to worry about suffering a Communist persecution is probably about to be shown false. I think that this is just what is being set up in the U.S. with the not-so-subtle anti-Catholic, anti-Christian attacks by the media (an article here, a statement there, the TV shows depicting Christians as ugly haters and homosexuals as their victims).

The Communist backed A.C.L.U, Soros' billions funding his Open Society (whatever that is) and its numerous offspring do not bode well now that the Democrats have control of Congress and the power to determine replacements to the Supreme Court, etc.

I fully expect persecution to be visited on my fellows, if not in my lifetime (I'm nearly 70), then probably in my children's. That so many younger Catholics are ignorant of the Church's teachings and history may make it easy for them to deny their faith and slide away from danger. Perhaps their sin in doing this is mitigated by the fact that the Church has permitted them to be indifferent about the requirements of Catholicism.

[Christopher Hathaway]

How strong is the witness of the Church for the Gosple now in those lands? How much of a force in the transformation of the people can it be when it has muted its witness in order to "survive"?

Reading what you write gives me nothing but a sense of despair over those churches if that is the level of their faith in the Lord Who has triumphed over the grace.

Different people, different situations, different solutions to their own unique problems

This sounds so utterly relativistic.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How strong is the witness of the Church for the Gosple now in those lands? How much of a force in the transformation of the people can it be when it has muted its witness in order to "survive"?<<<

Much stronger than you might believe, particularly in Ukraine. Even in Russia, there is a strong return to the Church, particularly among the young. Monasteries are filling up, there are long lines to enter seminaries, attendance at Church is actually higher than it is in many "free" countries in the West. As the older, more corrupt generation departs, it is being replaced by pious adherents of the faith who take their charism seriously.

>>>This sounds so utterly relativistic.<<<

Maybe. And maybe you just don't understand the Orthodox mindset. I remind you that both Ignatios and Photios are saints. Read about them, and then tell me why.

[David Gray]

>attendance at Church is actually higher than it is in many "free" countries in the West

No meaningful achievement there, unfortunately...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No meaningful achievement there, unfortunately...<<<

No, but the trend line is certainly moving in the right direction. For instance, the Theodore Romzha Seminary in Uzherod is completely full, with some 200 seminarians (mostly married) studying for the priesthood. The waiting list has 400 names on it. There are others who wish to study at the Seminary but cannot because they cannot afford the tuition, which amounts to $150 per year (not month, YEAR). It is perhaps the material poverty of the people that feeds their spiritual richness. In many parts of the former Soviet Union, church attendance is low because there are still relatively few churches. The Catholic charitable group, "Aid to the Church in Need", has been assisting the Orthodox Church--no strings attached--to build churches in these isolated, poverty-stricken regions. One of their more ingenious developments is the "floating church"--a full-size Orthodox church erected on a river barge, which is towed from town to town along the extensive Russian riverine and canal network to bring services to remote hamlets. A "church train" provides a similar service for communities along the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM) Railway.