Dialogue between officials

Barnim Regalica

The visit of Patriarch Cyril I to Warsaw on August 16-18 had, in addition to its purely religious aspect, obvious political significance.

There is no such thing as an apolitical religion.

Therefore, the very fact of a conversation between the leaders of churches of two large nations, which (setting aside how justly) have the status of national institutions in their states, is also a political fact.

To assess its character and significance, it is necessary to describe well who is talking to whom.

Patriarch Cyryl is the leader of a church subordinate to an imperialist state and since the 16th century - when monk Philotheus formulated the doctrine of the "Third Rome" - openly proclaiming that Moscow should be the universal capital and, in the name of justice and the universality of Orthodox Christianity, has the right to conquer the entire world. However, such relations between the Church and the state, in which the Church benefits from state protection but in return submits to political leadership and helps it achieve political goals, are natural in Orthodoxy, dating back to Byzantium. Textbooks refer to this relationship as cezaropapism, while Orthodox theologians call it symphonia.

In the political practice of the Tsardom of Moscow (historically more accurate to refer to Moscow as a state rather than Russia), the alliance of Throne and Altar was a common practice. Until 1917, there was no Patriarch under Peter the Great, and the Church was managed by the Holy Synod, led by the Procurator-General, who was an official appointed by the tsar. During the Soviet period, after Stalin agreed to rebuild the Church's structures in 1941, this was accompanied by the practice of church dignitaries cooperating with the special services of the USSR. Also, Metropolitan Cyril is an example of this practice: he cooperated with the KGB as an agent under the codename Mikhailov. He declared himself a supporter of the concept of the "Third Rome", an opponent of the emancipation of the churches of Belarus and Ukraine, and also supported the forcible liquidation of the Greek Catholic Church by the Soviets in 1946 as a legal and canonically valid action.

Therefore, we accept not only the head of the church but also an official of the Empire representing the interests of the Empire, whose uniform is a cassock.

Abp Michalik is perceived by the majority of Poles – like any other Catholic clergyman of Polish nationality – as a representative of the Polish Church. In fact, there is no such thing in any sense other than linguistic and administrative – there is the Catholic Church, which is universal and has universalist ambitions. Priests – if they are good Catholics – are simply officials of an international religious union based in Vatican City, with its own hierarchies, goals, and interests. Specific historical circumstances in a number of countries have led to the identification of local churches with the interests of the nation, which applies to Poland but also Lithuania, Slovakia, or Ireland. These are, however, deviations from the general rule, fading away as circumstances change.

The old goal of Rome (the Vatican) was to reach an understanding with Orthodoxy and bring about unity among churches. On the altar of this church agreement, Polish interests have been sacrificed on numerous occasions - from the time of Stefan Batory, whose defensive efforts and successes in fighting Ivan the Terrible were partly offset by the support of the Catholic Church for the tsar of Moscow (the mission of Possevino).

Currently, in addition to this old aspiration, a factor conducive to rapprochement is the healthy moral, conservative nature of the Russian Orthodox Church (at least as declared), which, given its support by the state, is an asset that the Church has over the Western church.

It is also worth noting that the head of the Catholic Church is currently a German, and therefore a representative of a nation for which cooperation with Moscow, directed in one way or another against Poland, is an element of political tradition.

What, then, is reconciliation as referred to?

In the face of Poland's descent into an informal Russian-German condominium, there is a need for its Western protectors to supplement the factual situation with a legitimizing ideology. The liberal segment of society accepts this state in the name of "Europeanness" - whatever that may mean, it at least means that in the name of this "young educated from large cities" accept the loss of sovereignty and industrial and defense potential. The patriotic part, on the other hand, is mostly Catholic, so it will more easily accept the political idea of a condominium in the name of church unity. At least it will be harder for them to oppose it – if there is a suspicion that opposing it means opposing the interest of the Church. It is worth mentioning that there are thinkers in Polish political tradition who openly accept Poland's dependence on Moscow in exchange for prospects not only for Eastern markets but also for the influence of Western civilization on the East, i.e., freedom to work on the Catholicization of Russia. Such hopes were expressed implicitly by Jędrzej Giertych and explicitly by Mirosław Dzielski. Currently, Grzegorz Braun, who is iconic for part of the right-wing, openly formulated the thesis that Poland, if it is to exist, is to serve Rome. The possibility that Poland can exist for itself is not popular in this current.

National strength, whose foundation is the interest of the nation and the state as its emanation, rather than some universalism - whether secular "European" or Christian - does not exist in the Polish political spectrum. It is characteristic that PiS, being the largest patriotic force (though by no means national), minimizes the significance of this visit, reducing it to only a religious dimension. It understands its meaning, but it is impossible for it to openly oppose the Church.

In light of the above, the dialogue between an officer of the Empire and an officer of the Vatican International is doomed to media success.

Will it be different from the media one?
If reconciliation is to mean concessions to Moscow (but this also means supporting it, Germany) then of course yes. But the problems do not stem from a lack of understanding between the parties, but from the contradiction of real interests - as long as Moscow wants to be the "Third Rome", we will always be threatened. This will have to provoke our defensive actions, which will be treated as hostile by Moscow.

One can easily try to check if anything will follow this gesture - at least by appealing to Cyril to support with his authority the return of materials to Poles regarding the Augustów Massacre or the USSR's involvement in the assassination of General Sikorski in Gibraltar. Of course, formally it does not depend on him, but the disclosure of such files there is a political matter, and here he has something to say. So, Mr. "Michałow" - could you manage?