Tweet
WHAT WOULD THE CATHOLICOS SAY?
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 12 2007
It was beyond doubt that a high-ranking official would address the
conference of the Republican Party, not only because this party
mentions God more than once in its program but also because its
leader Serge Sargsyan had defined the dilemma of life after death:
heaven or hell. Therefore, few were surprised when before starting
the conference Serge Sargsyan handed over the chair not only for a
blessing but also for a greeting address to a person whose weapon
is his faith, or whose faith is his weapon as well. This person is
the primate of the Ararat Patriarchal Diocese Archbishop Navasard
Kchoyan. If his taking the chair was unexpected for anyone, it is
because they had expected a higher-ranking participation of the church
in the conference of the Republican Party.
But when Navasard Kchoyan started his address after the blessing,
many perhaps started thinking that a representative of a partner party
was addressing the conference rather than a servant of the Armenian
Apostolic Church. Archbishop Navasard's speech with its political
saturation almost did not differ, and in parts even outdid the greeting
speeches by the leader of the Bargavach Hayastan Party and the leader
of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun parliament faction. The difference was that
they did not evoke any apostle, whereas the archbishop evoked Peter,
calling the Republican Party for action. But before Peter, Archbishop
Navasard hinted at Ter-Petrosyan, saying that those who want to weave
future from the past are overwhelmed by their imagination because
the past has passed.
Nobody can say that the archbishop does not have the right to have
an opinion, political sympathy. Archbishop Navasard's sympathy for
the Republican Party and reluctance for the All-Armenian Movement is
perhaps justified. The archbishop perhaps has every reason for such
feelings, and those are not feelings but a conscious choice rather.
But when he expresses his political sympathy, even if he hides his
message between lines with a diplomatic guile, he already stops being a
father, a servant of the Armenian Apostolic Church, a representative of
an establishment which is above all, every political group, and leads
the Christian Armenians, and turns into a political messenger whose
purpose might be honest, patriotic and far from personal interests,
but he does it at the expense of the authority of the Armenian
Apostolic Church. The church should be the organization, the haven
where the Armenian Christians come together, despite their political
sympathies and antipathies. Moreover, perhaps the church should be the
haven after political disagreement, where everyone becomes one soul.
But when a person, who trusts the All-Armenian Movement honestly and
disinterestedly, hears the high-ranking priest address the conference
of the Republican Party and call for action as long as "time is in
their hands", in other words, when power is in their hands, and has
not been lost irretrievably, he starts thinking whether he deals
with the Armenian Apostolic Church or a regional organization of the
Republican Party. Maybe people who trust the All-Armenian Movement
are ignorant. The father might think so. But even if he does, perhaps
it is his duty to show the way to God to the lost, and to save them
in the name of Christ not in the name of the Republican Party. Maybe
the priest thinks that it is a crucial time for the nation, and the
church must have a clear stance on the national problem and lead the
pasture. In this case, the archbishop may be right. But why does
the same archbishop or other high-ranking priests of the church
fail to utter a word in other important times for the nation when,
for instance, the right of the nation to vote is shortened. Maybe
the church thinks the nation has no right to vote. In this case,
it should speak out. Why does the church fail to speak out when the
pasture undergoes blows of truncheons, tear gas, fire engines and
other punitive things? Or why does the church fail to speak out when
nature created by God is destroyed for some million dollars? Perhaps
they consider these as minor problems. Meanwhile, the 11th conference
of the Republican Party is a history making event. In that case,
maybe it is worthwhile to participate in it in secular clothing.
From: Baghdasarian
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 12 2007
It was beyond doubt that a high-ranking official would address the
conference of the Republican Party, not only because this party
mentions God more than once in its program but also because its
leader Serge Sargsyan had defined the dilemma of life after death:
heaven or hell. Therefore, few were surprised when before starting
the conference Serge Sargsyan handed over the chair not only for a
blessing but also for a greeting address to a person whose weapon
is his faith, or whose faith is his weapon as well. This person is
the primate of the Ararat Patriarchal Diocese Archbishop Navasard
Kchoyan. If his taking the chair was unexpected for anyone, it is
because they had expected a higher-ranking participation of the church
in the conference of the Republican Party.
But when Navasard Kchoyan started his address after the blessing,
many perhaps started thinking that a representative of a partner party
was addressing the conference rather than a servant of the Armenian
Apostolic Church. Archbishop Navasard's speech with its political
saturation almost did not differ, and in parts even outdid the greeting
speeches by the leader of the Bargavach Hayastan Party and the leader
of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun parliament faction. The difference was that
they did not evoke any apostle, whereas the archbishop evoked Peter,
calling the Republican Party for action. But before Peter, Archbishop
Navasard hinted at Ter-Petrosyan, saying that those who want to weave
future from the past are overwhelmed by their imagination because
the past has passed.
Nobody can say that the archbishop does not have the right to have
an opinion, political sympathy. Archbishop Navasard's sympathy for
the Republican Party and reluctance for the All-Armenian Movement is
perhaps justified. The archbishop perhaps has every reason for such
feelings, and those are not feelings but a conscious choice rather.
But when he expresses his political sympathy, even if he hides his
message between lines with a diplomatic guile, he already stops being a
father, a servant of the Armenian Apostolic Church, a representative of
an establishment which is above all, every political group, and leads
the Christian Armenians, and turns into a political messenger whose
purpose might be honest, patriotic and far from personal interests,
but he does it at the expense of the authority of the Armenian
Apostolic Church. The church should be the organization, the haven
where the Armenian Christians come together, despite their political
sympathies and antipathies. Moreover, perhaps the church should be the
haven after political disagreement, where everyone becomes one soul.
But when a person, who trusts the All-Armenian Movement honestly and
disinterestedly, hears the high-ranking priest address the conference
of the Republican Party and call for action as long as "time is in
their hands", in other words, when power is in their hands, and has
not been lost irretrievably, he starts thinking whether he deals
with the Armenian Apostolic Church or a regional organization of the
Republican Party. Maybe people who trust the All-Armenian Movement
are ignorant. The father might think so. But even if he does, perhaps
it is his duty to show the way to God to the lost, and to save them
in the name of Christ not in the name of the Republican Party. Maybe
the priest thinks that it is a crucial time for the nation, and the
church must have a clear stance on the national problem and lead the
pasture. In this case, the archbishop may be right. But why does
the same archbishop or other high-ranking priests of the church
fail to utter a word in other important times for the nation when,
for instance, the right of the nation to vote is shortened. Maybe
the church thinks the nation has no right to vote. In this case,
it should speak out. Why does the church fail to speak out when the
pasture undergoes blows of truncheons, tear gas, fire engines and
other punitive things? Or why does the church fail to speak out when
nature created by God is destroyed for some million dollars? Perhaps
they consider these as minor problems. Meanwhile, the 11th conference
of the Republican Party is a history making event. In that case,
maybe it is worthwhile to participate in it in secular clothing.
From: Baghdasarian