Tweet
CHURCH IS A TYPICAL OLIGARCH
Siranuysh Papyan
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview22788.html
29/07/2011
Interview with Ara Nedolyan, theatrical critic, publicist
Ara, the society has recently become rather sensitive to the steps of
clergymen and their statements. For the first time in the history of
independent Armenia, people demanded Cahtolicos's resignation. What is
the reason? Is there a crisis in the church or are developments within
the society a challenge for the church which is in state of crisis?
We regularly dwell on Constitutional revolution. A constitutional
revolution means change of people's ideas when they start looking
around and differentiate how a modern society operates and which links
don't function here. The crisis of the church happened in the world in
the 19th century and decisions were made to separate the state and the
church, to define the functions of both, in the result of which the
church is a religious community and not something which is obligatory
for everyone and rules over everyone. The church brings together the
followers of a religion and faith and it should try to follow the
rules that the secular world provided for all kinds of organizations.
It means that public opinion, human rights, right to make decisions
by a person must be respected by the church, a natural discourse,
modernization and re-affirmation of the legitimacy of the leadership
of the church must occur inside the church. And we really see how
people, believers try to change the current way of governance and now
they set forth this issue. This is one side of the issue. The other
side is the division of functions of the state and the church. The
historical and cultural heritage, in this case, Sanahin Monastery,
does not belong to the Church but to the society, the people, to
everyone. And if the Church assumed the responsibility to use and
govern it, it should also take care to ensure its accessibility to
everyone. If it fails, it must be done by the state.
On the other hand, the society fails to accept the extravagant
lifestyle of clergymen, driving Bentleys and Toyotas.
The Church is exempt from taxes, it has a non-transparent system of
finance and management. It evidently leads a monopolistic policy and
fulfills its main function of producing spiritual life inefficiently.
In other words, it is a typical oligarch. The society has identified
this, and the next step will be the politicization of the issue of
the church, that is the return of the isolated and stagnant church to
the broad process of social life, search of truth, human life. And
if an oligarch becomes a businessman, they can drive a Bentley as
soon as you are sure they did not steal the money from your pocket,
and that they paid all the taxes, paid for insurance, trade unions
operate, competitors are not repressed. If after having fulfilled
all the necessary requirements, they produce competitive production,
they can afford to drive a Bentley, no one will feel bitter about it.
Oligarch is a status, and now the church is an oligarch since it
operates beyond the rules of the current system. This issue has
been resolved in the world but since in the Soviet Union this issue
was tackled too radically, the reaction was to free the church from
all kinds of duties, appearing outside the society. Every member of
the society is responsible. This is the essence of Constitutional
order. I don't mean the strengths or weaknesses of the Catholicos. I
think the best Catholicos in this case would just try to hide that
he is an oligarch, that's it.
Will the pressure of the society be effective when the clergymen
state the society is going beyond every limit? Does the social network
express the demands of the society?
The social network is already able to voice, thought not so clearly,
certain rules typical of a Constitutional society. I mean these rules
are becoming rooted in the consciousness of people and peoples' eyes
already know how to differentiate the phenomena. The society is getting
used to individualizing issues instead of complaining that Armenia
is not a good country. The society starts having visions of solution
of issues in Armenia, as well as the creation of a mechanism and the
Constitutional society through which the issues must be solved. This
is a dual process - to have a mechanism through which you can solve
issues and to have public interest, communication, possibility to join
into groups which will enable to use that mechanism. If there is a
mechanism but there is no one to use it, or when there is someone who
can use the mechanism but there is no mechanism, the mission can't
be completed. Here, we do not have the mechanism but the awareness
of its necessary is occurring, people have a vision of how issues
could be resolved. I mean, not through changing the Catholicos but
by having him pay taxes.
Siranuysh Papyan
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview22788.html
29/07/2011
Interview with Ara Nedolyan, theatrical critic, publicist
Ara, the society has recently become rather sensitive to the steps of
clergymen and their statements. For the first time in the history of
independent Armenia, people demanded Cahtolicos's resignation. What is
the reason? Is there a crisis in the church or are developments within
the society a challenge for the church which is in state of crisis?
We regularly dwell on Constitutional revolution. A constitutional
revolution means change of people's ideas when they start looking
around and differentiate how a modern society operates and which links
don't function here. The crisis of the church happened in the world in
the 19th century and decisions were made to separate the state and the
church, to define the functions of both, in the result of which the
church is a religious community and not something which is obligatory
for everyone and rules over everyone. The church brings together the
followers of a religion and faith and it should try to follow the
rules that the secular world provided for all kinds of organizations.
It means that public opinion, human rights, right to make decisions
by a person must be respected by the church, a natural discourse,
modernization and re-affirmation of the legitimacy of the leadership
of the church must occur inside the church. And we really see how
people, believers try to change the current way of governance and now
they set forth this issue. This is one side of the issue. The other
side is the division of functions of the state and the church. The
historical and cultural heritage, in this case, Sanahin Monastery,
does not belong to the Church but to the society, the people, to
everyone. And if the Church assumed the responsibility to use and
govern it, it should also take care to ensure its accessibility to
everyone. If it fails, it must be done by the state.
On the other hand, the society fails to accept the extravagant
lifestyle of clergymen, driving Bentleys and Toyotas.
The Church is exempt from taxes, it has a non-transparent system of
finance and management. It evidently leads a monopolistic policy and
fulfills its main function of producing spiritual life inefficiently.
In other words, it is a typical oligarch. The society has identified
this, and the next step will be the politicization of the issue of
the church, that is the return of the isolated and stagnant church to
the broad process of social life, search of truth, human life. And
if an oligarch becomes a businessman, they can drive a Bentley as
soon as you are sure they did not steal the money from your pocket,
and that they paid all the taxes, paid for insurance, trade unions
operate, competitors are not repressed. If after having fulfilled
all the necessary requirements, they produce competitive production,
they can afford to drive a Bentley, no one will feel bitter about it.
Oligarch is a status, and now the church is an oligarch since it
operates beyond the rules of the current system. This issue has
been resolved in the world but since in the Soviet Union this issue
was tackled too radically, the reaction was to free the church from
all kinds of duties, appearing outside the society. Every member of
the society is responsible. This is the essence of Constitutional
order. I don't mean the strengths or weaknesses of the Catholicos. I
think the best Catholicos in this case would just try to hide that
he is an oligarch, that's it.
Will the pressure of the society be effective when the clergymen
state the society is going beyond every limit? Does the social network
express the demands of the society?
The social network is already able to voice, thought not so clearly,
certain rules typical of a Constitutional society. I mean these rules
are becoming rooted in the consciousness of people and peoples' eyes
already know how to differentiate the phenomena. The society is getting
used to individualizing issues instead of complaining that Armenia
is not a good country. The society starts having visions of solution
of issues in Armenia, as well as the creation of a mechanism and the
Constitutional society through which the issues must be solved. This
is a dual process - to have a mechanism through which you can solve
issues and to have public interest, communication, possibility to join
into groups which will enable to use that mechanism. If there is a
mechanism but there is no one to use it, or when there is someone who
can use the mechanism but there is no mechanism, the mission can't
be completed. Here, we do not have the mechanism but the awareness
of its necessary is occurring, people have a vision of how issues
could be resolved. I mean, not through changing the Catholicos but
by having him pay taxes.