|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pope Francis is gone, and the entire People of God who have spent twelve years under his pontificate (both knowingly and unknowingly) owe the late Pontiff a few last things. Among these, accessible to any Christian acting in good conscience, are the duties of praying for his soul and offering a fair assessment of his legacy. This honest evaluation, grounded in truth, will inspire more people to pray more fervently and effectively than mere ideological reflections on his figure, such as immediate posthumous eulogies (as if for a hero) or cladestian celebrations of relief and deliverance (as if from a Herod), however justifiable both judgments might be to a certain extent. As a Russian Catholic, I would like to share my perspective on Pope Francis’ words and deeds, their significance for us here in Russia, hoping that my testimony may be of some use to my Western brothers and sisters. This piece will hopefully start a series of likewise reflections, because the heritage of Pope Francis is far too rich to cover entirely in one article.
Who was Francis, whose Papal or Christian name was commemorated this day (the date of this writing) of joyful prayer for the dead[1] in various Churches in this country – and not only Catholic, but Orthodox as well, albeit in silence?
A Pope Who Loved Russia
Never forget your heritage. You are the heirs of a great Russia: the great Russia of saints and rulers, the great Russia of Peter I and Catherine II, an empire — great, enlightened, a country of rich culture and profound humanity. Never abandon this heritage; you are the heirs of Mother Russia. Move forward with it. And thank you — thank you for your way of being, for your identity as Russians.[2]
This is how Pope Francis addressed Russian Catholic youth via teleconference on the 25th of August, 2023.
Why are these words so important? In the wake of the military operation in Ukraine, there has been a hypocritical isolation not of our political elites, but of Russia itself: everything remotely Russian got cancelled in the West. Russian society has started to distance itself from all things Western as well, in reaction, to tell the truth. Unfortunately, the logic of animosity and mistrust, which often characterises fallen human nature in general, intensifies during times of conflict.
In this context, Russian Catholics, a minority within their own country, find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they face the longstanding anti-Catholic sentiments rooted in their native culture, which naturally fails to recognise the mere existence of Russian Catholics. This resentment has both Greek and Protestant origins, and it is very old (although the current nation-based form was adopted about the 19th century). Although not quite a monopoly, this reductive mindset is certainly compelling these days when all the archetypes are superficial; to combat it is particularly challenging in a climate marked by ‘war psychology’ amidst the witch hunts of various sorts. The Byzantine Rite Catholics in Russia like myself have it a bit easier, thanks to our cultural indistinguishability from Russian Orthodoxy and even theological closeness, yet still it is a challenge. One may only imagine what it is like for the poor Latins…
On the other hand, Western countries that are presumably filled with like-minded Christians – the Catholics – will often demand that these Russians who claim to belong should publicly repent and renounce what is deemed to be their core historical heritage: imperialism, expansionism, patriotism, the Russian idea (regardless of any particular version of this grand narrative) – all these things are deemed sinful by Liberal elites of the West who now feel almost ecstatic moral superiority.
The suppositive Poles, meanwhile, expect this denouncement from the Russian Latins, while the suppositive Ukrainians look for it from the Russian Catholics of the Byzantine rite. (This latter situation is reminiscent of how the Irish would not only seek recognition of their right to independence from England by… an Englishman – a notion that has been considered quite acceptable only since the time of Chesterton – but would also demand the denouncement of the Crown and going fully republican – something even Chesterton would not consider, not to speak of a St. Thomas Moore of old, had he been asked for something like that.)
Russia has been demonised in western culture that is said to allow almost everything, proving that there is no mercy for those cancelled by mob justice. Yet, here comes the Pope, still a prominent figure in the Western world, who breaks this domineering narrative by expressing gratitude to Russian Catholics of all rites and Churches for their identity as Russians and their faith as Catholics, reconnecting the two.
Pope Francis has consistently extended a kind word to our people. From the very beginning of the conflict and even long before it, during his papacy, the Vatican has taken concrete steps to show openness towards Russia, acknowledging its truths without demonising it. This approach has, to some extent, compelled Russia to pay Rome the same coin. On Pope Francis’ death, Russian Ambassador to the Holy See Mr. Ivan Soltanovsky remarked in an interview with Russian media that Pope Francis has been and will remain a friend of Russia.
‘I believe Francis will be remembered in the history of the Catholic Church as an extraordinary figure. It is well-known, and I felt it during personal interactions, that Francis deeply respected Russian history and literature. He truly understands the soul of the Russian people,’ Soltanovsky stated during an event at the Russian House in Rome.
A Pope Who Brought Back the Empire
There is another important point to consider. The two ‘enlightened’ rulers of Russian history mentioned by the Pope – Peter the Great and Catherine II – were both architects of an Empire. It is challenging to admit theological or even political justification for the Empire from a Jesuit Pope coming from Latin America, yet is it inevitable.
As a result, Pax Russica[3]is now at least a subject of debate in the West, a concept competing again with various other local interpretations and versions of Romanitas, despite their diverse and often contradictory nature. These range from universalist Pax Britannica and Pax Americana to the more isolationist Monroe Doctrine, from La Hispanidad to the European Union, and from GEACPS to BRICS. In this intellectual market, Russia as a part of the broader West has something to offer.
The Pope has boldly addressed what has long been a taboo for Liberal elites, who acknowledged no Empire other than their own Globalist Dominion. The Pope, often accused of flirting with globalism, has emerged as a prominent critic of the modern order. Through his stance on Russia, he demonstrated that the enduring power of tradition against the hastily constructed and sacrilegious narratives portraying the current war[4] as one between ‘the evil empire of tyranny’ and the ‘the democratic republic of good.’ I addressed these issues more in a commentary for the Tucker & Putin interview on OnePeterFive.
These unplanned, spontaneous words of the Pontiff about the great and enlightened empire caused a real scandal in the West and particularly in Ukraine.[5] Numerous notes of protest and indignant publications followed. The Vatican hastened to assure the public that this was not an endorsement of the war; on the contrary, the pontiff never takes a political stance and that his words ‘are to be read as a voice raised in defense of human life and the values attached to it.’[6] Yet, despite the pressure, the very principle of the ‘enlightened empire’ was not condemned; quite the opposite. His words are remarkable considering the fact that he took the dramatic step of consecrating Russia with the world’s bishops the year prior in 2022!
Why indeed does an Empire always have to be evil? Indeed, the Baroque Spanish Empire was a great force for good, spreading the Gospel to every corner of the globe, however mocked it has been through centuries by the Protestants and the Liberals. (There is also a good case for the British Empire in the international discourse, despite the American triumph and all the failings of colonialism.) So, what about the Russian Empire? Is our case deemed applicable for this albeit debatable, still legitimate category of the Western Thinktank? For the Russian Catholics, these words of the late Pope about Peter and Catherine the Great mean the re-opening of the legitimate discussion about our nature as an Imperial Society – the civilisation that had originated with the idea of the union in Faith and Tongue before such things came into being. A society naturally predicated on spreading what it sees as the highest good, many times with territorial consequences.
By saying this, I am not claiming that Russia is such an Empire now. Pope Francis did not assert that either. The call to remember the ideals represented by figures like Peter and Catherine implies the danger of forgetting, the risk of losing a soul within an ever expanding body, which is a warning for each and every global power, as we are going to discuss presently.
The Two Levels and Three Options for Unifying the World
One of the most prominent thinkers who developed the Imperial mindset in Russia was Vladimir Solovyov – a Russian patriot and a convert to Catholicism who lived and died a devout Catholic, despite all the understandable denial towards this fact from the Russian Orthodox side.
In his fundamental philosophical work titled ‘The Justification of the Good’ Solovyov speculated on the nature of an empire, the natural-driven processes of the unification of humanity, the inevitable military conflicts between the nations and civilisational clashes, as well as the options of these processes’ organisation and direction for a greater good.[7]
According to the philosopher, there have been two stages of universal unification – the aim towards which all the wars are directed, structured around a certain ideal.
- The archaic level of imperial political unity. The highest expression of this is the Roman Empire, whose aspiration for the establishment of universal peace, the Roman peace (Pax Romana), is indicated by the philosopher (the ‘external unity’ 1.0). This is unity through law and order.
- The civilizational level. Solovyov points to the existence of the Christian, Muslim, and Eastern worlds, the ‘yellow race’ – all of them united by an internal principle of their own. According to Solovyov, the interaction between the first two civilisations has already concluded from a historical perspective and resulted in the Islamic world being reshaped as a part of the West and the Western Ethos. (One may argue it had been a dissident part of the West from its very origins, Islam being a Christian heresy, technically speaking.)
When it comes to the integration of East Asia into the West, it is still ongoing and carries certain risks, according to Solovyov. What can the West offer to Asia Peace and justice. But do we still have them? Everything we, Europeans, have taught the Chinese – Communist-style imperialism and how to wage opium wars against enemies – does not reflect well on our efforts. So what other option remains? Technologies, social norms and integration into global trade – something the Western Elites have been doing from the late 1970s. This, too, was anticipated by Solovyov in his writings, as well as the internecine crisis of Western expansionism.
Indeed, the Christian world has long ago surpassed the ancient Roman Empire in its scope. Without politically uniting different countries, it rendered war between them illegitimate, gradually diminishing its occurrence. This has been the case for centuries, but now the image of Christendom is seen to be shallow, about to crack and collapse. According to Solovyov, who prophesied about this current crisis more than a hundred years ago, there appears to be three options of how to keep this Pax running.
Option 1. Christianity.
The purification of the Church and the revival of its spiritual authority, cleansed of the political ‘ballast’ of Christendom in favour and for the benefits of Christianity – something Pope Francis seems to have been trying to do, and partially succeeded in, as I would argue.
Option 2. Godless Humanism.
The Freemasons’ project to unite the world on Christian ‘moral’ basis without Christ. This seems to be the Liberal chiliastic project of the United Nations, Joachim of Fiore’sheritage perfected by godless minds. The globalist version of ‘Novus Ordo Saeculorum,’ the Modernist project based on the deistic enlightenment and the emancipation of Man.
Option 3. Technocracy.
Regardless of the ‘transcendent’ interpretations of the global processes that are seen to be secondary at best, if not completely insignificant, the third ‘technocratic’ option suggests unifying humanity within a common economic space and global production that is supposed to make war unprofitable and thus impossible. This is another Liberal myth of Francis Fukuyama, a pragmatic version of a peace built upon secondary causes that are detached from the Primal One – the Tower of Babel from the dry perspective of the engineers among the Masons.
The first two alternatives are connected by their underlying ideologies: the Church and the anti-Church. The Holy Spirit resides within the Church, while the the so-called ‘Absolute’ Spirit reveals itself in human history primarily through state or supra-state structures, according to the deacons of the anti-Church of Enlightenment. In contrast to those ‘fanatics,’ the third alternative is characterized by its practicality and down-to-earth approach. However, it is essentially a religiously indifferent option within the broader global humanistic project, disregarding any ‘ideological wrappers,’ a more refined edition of the Modern project that bares an inherent conflict between Humanism and Positivism, the practical and the theoretical reasons.
While the final goals of Freemasonry remained unclear to Solovyov, the creation of a common economic space (Option 3) appeared to him as a peculiar recurrence of the ancient Roman Empire – yet another precedent for external unification of the world sophistically sceptical towards religion, which has both advantages and disadvantages, and more of the latter compared to internal unity that is uniquely exemplified in history by the Catholic Church and the civilisation built by it and within its womb, regardless of any claim recently made by this or that Humanistic sect derived from the Christian substrate – Freemasonry, Communism, Globalism etc.
Obviously, Solovyov himself advocated for Option 1 – the unification of humanity in the spirit of Jesus Christ. And it was the Catholic Church that Solovyov saw as His genuine Body solely capable of ceasing all the wars and uniting humanity.[8]
He was highly critical of what is now known as the Liberal Democratic ‘end of time’ utopia that has tried and failed to unite humanity:
Is it not clear that the struggle between beliefs and material interests transcends the struggle of nations and states, and that the ultimate establishment of external political unity will decisively reveal its internal inadequacy? It will unveil the moral truth that the external world, in and of itself, is not true good; it becomes good only in relation to the internal transformation of humanity. Only then—when the inadequacy of external unity is understood not through theory but through experience—can the fullness of time arrive for the spiritualization of the united universal body, for the realization within it of the Kingdom of Truth and Eternal Peace.[9]
And yes, these words may be just as critical to current Russian policies and social movements as they are for the followers of Francis Fukuyama, and should be taken into consideration both East and West, because we have to face the same problems as a broader civilisation. Solovyov believed that Russia had a special role in these processes, especially in regards to the old Western European issues and institutions. And he was not the only one.
Dostoevsky as a Pro-West, Anti-Modernist Thinker
Vladimir Solovyov was a younger friend of a more famous Russian classic – Fyodor Dostoevsky, who is sometimes portrayed as a Russian nationalist and an anti-Western isolationist thinker. This characterisation is not correct because this man is probably the most prominent Russian writer known to the West, particularly because he foresaw most of the nihilistic issues and totalitarian crises torturing European minds and countries before even Niezsche did, and quite more artfully than the latter, I dare say.[10] Pope Francis loved Dostoyevsky and many times quoted him, which is just as telling, as it happens to be controversial.
Fyodor Dostoevsky lived during a time when Russian society, particularly its educated class, was divided between Westernizers (Liberals, constitutionalists, and sometimes even Socialists) and Slavophiles (unconscious adherents of a more right-leaning Hegelianism, romanticists who sought to discover a unique Russian national idea that was entirely different from the West). Reflecting on this division and upset by it, Dostoevsky stated that Russia would absorb all of Europe’s mistakes and teachings, experiencing them in its own way and suffering the consequences, because the Russian elites deeply believed in the existence of ‘the European’ per se – a great community of European civilization. Something that a medieval monk would call Christianitas.
In this pursuit the Russians made many mistakes, following the path of those who lost the way.
We started by directly ‘removing all oppositions’ and arrived at the universal human type of the ‘European’ — that is, from the very beginning, we noted the commonalities, the connections among them, which is very characteristic. Then, as time went on and we became even wiser, we seized upon civilization and immediately came to believe, blindly and devotedly, that it was in this civilization that the ‘universal’ existed, destined to unite humanity as one. Even Europeans were surprised to see us, outsiders and newcomers, with our enthusiastic faith, especially since they themselves had, alas, begun to gradually lose this faith in themselves. We joyfully welcomed the arrival of Rousseau and Voltaire; we delightfully celebrated the calling of the ‘National States’ in 1789 with the traveling Karamzin. And if we later fell into despair, at the end of the first quarter of this century, alongside progressive Europeans over their lost dreams and shattered ideals, we still did not lose our faith and even comforted the Europeans themselves. Even the ‘whitest’ of Russians became ‘red’ in Europe as soon as they returned home — a remarkably characteristic trait as well.
Then, in the middle of this century, some of us had the honor of embracing French socialism and accepted it, without the slightest hesitation, as the ultimate resolution for universal unity, that is, the realization of our long-held dream. Thus, in our pursuit of this goal, we accepted what constituted the peak of selfishness, the height of inhumanity, the pinnacle of economic confusion and chaos, the utmost slander against human nature, and the complete destruction of any freedom for people; yet this did not disturb us in the slightest. On the contrary, seeing the sad bewilderment of certain profound European thinkers, we immediately labeled them as scoundrels and fools with complete impudence. We fully believed — and still believe — that positive science is entirely capable of determining moral boundaries between individual personalities and nations (as if science — even if it could do so — could uncover these mysteries before all human destinies on earth have been completed).[11]
Who but Dostoevsky could have summed up the entire history of Russia’s endorsement of each and every error of the Modern Age we borrowed from Europe in our pursuit for some Europa Aeterna – the Europe, this lost ark of Christianitas?
The tragedy was that by the time there was widespread contact with the Russians as a new political power and centre of cultural influence, Europeans had long since stopped believing in a shared community. They had lost sight of the true principles, conditions, and aims of their unity, those being God and Eternal Life, salvation of souls and the temporal nature of this life. Distant from the concepts of Christianity and eager to reinvent their own secular version of Christianitas, Europeans viewed the Russians with a mix of petty envy and genuine misunderstanding, perceiving their expansive ideas as those of naive children. Meanwhile, the Russian intelligentsia, in its attempts to mimic every European trend (be it Socialism, Positivism, Scepticism or Nihilism) without proper consideration, seemed to have completely lost its unique insights and national identity, according to Dostoevsky. This situation resembled the current crisis among Liberal elites in the West – intellectuals detached from the people, trying to reshape society according to their own prideful and superficial concepts that lacked thorough consideration.
Dostoevsky continues:
Meanwhile, we had become so detached from our Russian land that we lost all understanding of how much such teachings diverged from the soul of the Russian people. Moreover, we not only disregarded the character of the Russian people but also failed to recognize any character within them at all. We forgot to think about them and were completely convinced — with a full despotism’s calmness and without questioning — that our people would immediately accept everything we pointed out to them, that is, essentially commanded them to accept. In this regard, there were always several rather amusing anecdotes about the people circulating among us.[12]
Nevertheless, according to the writer, true European identity could be revealed through a dialogue between Russia and Europe, a dialogue that implies an awareness of each side’s uniqueness and otherness, in which the exchange would revive all that Russia had come to believe and what Europe had long lost.
Meanwhile, we cannot turn our backs on Europe. Europe is our second homeland – I am the first to passionately affirm this and have always done so. Europe is almost as dear to us as Russia; it is home to all of the descendants of Japheth, and our idea is the unification of all nations of this lineage, and even further, much further, to Shem and Ham. So what should we do?[13]
Dostoyevsky suggests that Russians must first embrace their identity and become true to themselves. He emphasizes the importance of respecting one’s own nation and nationality, as this self-respect will lead to greater respect from others, particularly Europeans. By developing a strong national spirit and authenticity, Russians can foster a connection with European culture, which in turn will change how they are perceived. Ultimately, he believes that this transformation will lead to a more positive dialogue and understanding between Russia and Europe. A dialogue that is directed towards the ultimate Good which is God Himself. And that is exactly what Pope Francis suggests we should do now as Russian Catholic youth.
And we will then understand that much of what we have despised in our people is not darkness but light, not foolishness but wisdom. Upon realizing this, we will undoubtedly utter a word in Europe that has never been heard before. We will be convinced that the true social message is carried by none other than our people, and that in their idea, in their spirit, lies the living need for a universal human unity – one that fully respects national identities and preserves them, while ensuring complete freedom for individuals and clarifying what this freedom truly entails. It is a unity of love, guaranteed by action, a living example, a necessity for genuine brotherhood—not through the guillotine or through millions of severed heads…[14]
Unexpected Allies and Eternal Rome
Pope Francis has emerged as an unexpected ally for Russia during these challenging times for all of us. In his critique of the modern world order, the Pope – often viewed with suspicion regarding his ties to the UN and the World Economic Forum – has sought to address and heal the fragmented legacy of the Roman Empire, which was divided in two by Diocletian. Once alive, now rather undead.
The Western world, once a beacon of Christian enlightenment for many nations, continues its quest for expansion while struggling to recall why. Why indeed, except for the primal/diabolical instincts of expansion for the sake of expansion? No answer is to be found, for the West refuses to confront the fundamental questions about God, opting instead for a superficial notion of Liberal virtue, a kind of hypocrisy that reflects the price vice pays for the lost ideals. So, unfortunately, does the East, trying not to bring higher meanings to the new territories, but rather to find them in the crucible of battle, as if that were possible; quickly drafting our own Gettysburg Address, as if the original one made enough sense.
We observe that contemporary political and cultural dynamics in the West, particularly in the United States, are increasingly aimed at reassessing this stance – even up to curtailing the expansion. And I want my country to experience the same blessings. Inspired by Pope Francis to revisit Russian literary classics, I now see more and more commonalities that bind our nations. Both the United States and Russia, born to be Empires, the two beacons for the “candid world,” have extremely complex relations with Europe, striving to prove ourselves in their eyes, rectify their missteps, providing new answers to age-old questions of the Old World.
Both countries have experienced better times when their growing influence was anchored in a commitment to the common good, as well as darker periods when the lack of truth in our countries led to disastrous consequences for entire nations and peoples, including those our own. We often find ourselves mimicking Europeans, learning from their mistakes, attempting to distance ourselves from them as if for good… only to draw closer again in a magic circle. This is why Russia has always had an interest in America – one that has not always been hostile, despite popular narratives and intentional misconceptions. This is also why America has drawn inspiration from Russia’s finest ideas (Fyodor Dostoevsky), even as it sometimes grappled with its worst (Vladimir Lenin).
It is also essential to recognise that we all share a vested and mirror-like interest in Rome.
When Russian thinkers and even ordinary podcasters claim that Russia possesses an ‘unspoken answer’ to all the questions of modernity, able to fill the gap between thought and external reality, phenomena and essence, the thing-in-itself and the thing-for-us, as well as between our will and imagination and the world around us. They suggest that this gap is bridged through the Russian icon — an embodied symbol, one that transforms into reality, being embedded into it rather than projected. I believe this is true. But I also believe that the ultimate answer lies in Catholic teaching on the Real Presence and the Sacraments as effective signs of invisible grace. Without this understanding, we risk falling into magic, pantheism, and the false logic of tribal war – the three diseases of modern Russian Orthodoxy.
Similarly, when American thinkers and pioneers of all times try to build their “City Upon a Hill,” where there will be “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” I recall the kind of leviathan the first settlers fled from to reach the New World and its frontiers. They escaped a totalitarian and absolutist state that sought to dethrone the Catholic Church and take its power over souls for their tyranny.
But I do also realise that the very foundations of this City are built on trust in God and faith in common sense – values that were born within and have been preserved by the only traditional intellectual institution left in the West: the Catholic Church. I do also believe it is only through unity with the Catholic Church that our civilizations – one grappling with schism and the other with heresy – can fully actualise our potential and change this candid world for good… and finally, for the better.
[1]‘Radonitsa’ is a cherished Slavic holiday celebrated mainly in Russia and various Eastern European countries. It usually occurs on the second Tuesday following Easter and serves as a poignant occasion to honor and remember the deceased. On this day, families gather at cemeteries to pay their respects to loved ones who have passed away. The day is characterized by a unique blend of somber reflection and joyful remembrance, capturing the deep connection between the living and the departed.
[2] Video: Closing remarks of the Pope during the telebridge with Russian Catholic youth.URL: https://cathmos.ru/video-zaklyuchitelnoe-slovo-papy-vo-vremya-telemosta-s-rossijskoj-katolicheskoj-molodyozhyu/
[3] The earliest use of the term ‘Russian world’ is preserved in the monument of Old Russian literature “The Word on the Renewal of the Desyatinnaya Church” (12th century), praising the deeds of Saint Clement of Rome: “…not only in Rome, but everywhere: in Kherson and also in the Russian world.” At that time, it referred to the pre-state period in the history of Eastern Slavs, where unity was based on faith and spread through worship in Church Slavonic. See for example: Laruelle M. The «Russian World»: Russia’s Soft Power and Geopolitical Imagination — Washington: Center on Global Interest, 2015. — 29 p.
[4] In Russia we have to call it precisely as it is suggested by the government – the Special Military Operation.
[5] Pianigiani G. ‘The pope’s praise for Russia’s historic empire draws sharp criticism.’ / The New York Times. URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/world/europe/pope-francis-russia.html
[6] Idem
[7]Solovyov V. ‘The Justification of the Good’. Chapter 18.
[8] See the trilogy: Solovyov V. ‘Russia And The Universal Church.’
[9] Solovyov V. ‘The Justification of the Good’. Chapter 18.
[10] See, for example Dostoevsky F., ‘The Devils.’
[11] Emphasis mine. Достоевский Ф. М. Дневник писателя: 1877. Январь. II. Мы в Европе лишь стрюцкие.URL: https://fedordostoevsky.ru/works/diary/1877/01/05/
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid
[14] Ibid
