Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Jan 24 2015
450 churches of discord
24 January 2015 – 12:59pm
The Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia (DAACG) does
not claim possession of the churches belonging to the Georgian
Orthodox Church, however, it requires the transmission of its property
of about 450 churches belonging to the Georgian Orthodox Church.
This is the key idea of an contradictory rebuttal letter received by
Vestnik Kavkaza from DAACG in connection with the publication of the
article “Armenia wants to win some 450 churches of Georgia in court”,
devoted to an analysis of the political aspects of the DAACG’s
treatment on “return of Churches”.
In the letter, which consists of ten items, the Diocese reports its
activities as work for the return of “property of The Diocese of the
Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia confiscated during the Soviet
period,” which has no political motivations and reminds that the
Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Muslim community and the
Jewish community have asked the Georgian state for the restitution of
their property.
In the document, the full text of which is available to the editors of
Vestnik Kavkaza, the fact of referring to Irakli Garibashvili is not
refuted. The issue indicated in the call of the head of the Diocese,
Vazgen Mirzakhanian, was the reason for writing the article, and
attracted the attention of the Georgian public.
In the first paragraph DAACG accuses the news agency of inciting
sectarian strife in the country, as the “Armenian Diocese in Georgia
made no claim to any of the churches belonging to the Georgian
Orthodox Church.” In the second, it maintains that the question of
granting the status of legal entity of public law to DAACG is not
related to the issue of restitution of confiscated property in the
Soviet period. In the third, it denies the introduction of a
post-Soviet secret principle similar to the principle of “the
inviolability of frontiers”, stating that “the Georgian Orthodox
Church has appropriated many temples without any consent from the
Armenian Apostolic Church, which acted as Armenian churches and serve
the religious needs of the parish of the Armenian Apostolic church in
Georgia, since its inception and before Georgia entered the Soviet
Union.”
One of the DAACG representatives, commenting on Bishop Vazgen’s
treatment, said that the letter to the Prime Minister talks about
“Georgianized Armenian churches”
These words cast doubt on the validity of the claims in their first
paragraph, because “Georgianized Armenian churches” are temples owned
by the Georgian Orthodox Church, which, as was stated in denial, “the
Armenian Diocese in Georgia doesn’t claim.”
At the same time, the first paragraph contradicts the third point,
which said that DAACG reports that GOC has assigned a number of
Armenian churches. The Patriarch’s secretary, archpriest Michael
Botkoveli, takes note of unfounded claims.
“At first we did not believe that DAACG addressed the Prime Minister
of Georgia with the letter to return 450 churches. We do not believe
because of the complete absurdity of such a claim. Are there so many
churches in Armenia, if they counted 450 Armenian churches in Georgia?
The DAACG’s handling of Garibashvili is another attempt to complicate
relations with the Georgian church. We have to hold a conversation
with them to clarify some issues,” he said.
According to the archpriest, the approach which was elected by DAACG
is “very unconstructive,” because, as part of the restitution of
property, it can be only “a few churches and with the participation of
historians and art critics.”
Meanwhile, the existence of Georgian-based Armenian churches in
Tbilisi is denied in the fourth paragraph of letter, because “none of
the Armenian churches in Georgia was built on the basis of the
Georgian temple, although we unfortunately cannot say the same about
the Georgian church,” (for example, the Holy Trinity Cathedral of
Tbilisi).
The fifth paragraph explains that DAACG wishes only to restore
justice, because “confiscated property was returned to the Georgian
Orthodox Church, and wasn’t to the Armenian Diocese.”
In the sixth paragraph an interstate nature of the dispute is refuted,
because “the question of restitution of Armenian churches in Georgia
is a domestic matter.”
These two points contradict each other, as the status of a legal
entity directly related to the issue of restitution of property,
because giving to the Diocese the status of a subject makes it a
subject of Georgian law and international law.
The fifth and sixth paragraphs overlap (as political momentum in the
conflict arises because of its interstate nature) and do not include
the famous visit to Georgia of the head of the Armenian Apostolic
Church, His Holiness Karekin II, when there was a video on social
networks in which the Armenian Patriarch of Georgia chastised Ilia II
for refusing to give DAACG legal status.
One of the DAACG representatives, commenting on Bishop Vazgen’s
treatment, said that the letter to the Prime Minister talks about
“Georgianized Armenian churches”. These words cast doubt on the
validity of the claims in their first paragraph, because “Georgianized
Armenian churches” are temples owned by the Georgian Orthodox Church,
which, as was stated in denial, “the Armenian Diocese in Georgia
doesn’t claim.” At the same time, the first paragraph contradicts the
third point, which said that DAACG reports that GOC has assigned a
number of Armenian churches.
The Patriarch’s secretary, archpriest Michael Botkoveli, takes note of
unfounded claims. “At first we did not believe that DAACG addressed
the Prime Minister of Georgia with the letter to return 450 churches.
We do not believe because of the complete absurdity of such a claim.
Are there so many churches in Armenia, if they counted 450 Armenian
churches in Georgia? The DAACG’s handling of Garibashvili is another
attempt to complicate relations with the Georgian church. We have to
hold a conversation with them to clarify some issues,” he
said.According to the archpriest, the approach which was elected by
DAACG is “very unconstructive”, because, as part of the restitution of
property, it can be only “a few churches and with the participation of
historians and art critics.”
Meanwhile, the existence of Georgian-based Armenian churches in
Tbilisi is denied in the fourth paragraph of letter, because “none of
the Armenian churches in Georgia was built on the basis of the
Georgian temple, although we unfortunately cannot say the same about
the Georgian church”, (for example, the Holy Trinity Cathedral of
Tbilisi). The fifth paragraph explains that DAACG wishes only to
restore justice, because “confiscated property was returned to the
Georgian Orthodox Church, and wasn’t to the Armenian Diocese.”
In the sixth paragraph an interstate nature of the dispute is refuted,
because “the question of restitution of Armenian churches in Georgia
is a domestic matter.” These two points contradict each other, as the
status of a legal entity directly related to the issue of restitution
of property, because giving to the Diocese the status of a subject
makes it a subject of Georgian law and international law.
The fifth and sixth paragraphs overlap (as political momentum in the
conflict arises because of its interstate nature) and do not include
the famous visit to Georgia of the head of the Armenian Apostolic
Church, His Holiness Karekin II, when there was a video on social
networks in which the Armenian Patriarch of Georgia chastised Ilia II
for refusing to give DAACG legal status.
In the seventh paragraph there is a charge of inciting ethnic hatred,
because the Diocese is named in the article as the “Armenian side”,
but the fifth paragraph of the letter cancels it out: because the
Diocese claims the legal nature of a property dispute, it is the
Armenian side, opposing the Georgian side – in this expression there
is no indication of any DAACG affiliation to the Armenian nation, nor
the Armenian state.
The eighth paragraph includes an observation about repeated
consideration of the restitution of property confiscated from
religious minorities during the Soviet period. But there is no
refutation of the appeal to UNESCO in connection with the restitution
of churches, although a few days ago, in an interview with the
Georgian edition of “Kvira”, the head of the legal department of
DAACG, Levon Asahanyan, strongly rejected allegations of such plans.
The ninth paragraph states that Bishop Vazgen’s expression of meeting
Chakhalyan “as a hero and fighter against Georgian imperialism”, is
“inappropriate exaggeration on a religious theme.” The evaluation of
cordiality, of course, is a subjective element, but the expression
“fighter against Georgian imperialism” is right, because it ironically
represents Chakhalyan’s separatist activities.
In the last paragraph of the letter, DAACG informs that the State
Agency for Religious Affairs was created in 2014, which is competent
to contribute to a resolution of the Georgian religious
organizations’s problems. This item corresponds to reality and does
not contradict the other, but does not apply to the content of the
article titled “Armenia wants to win some 450 churches of Georgia in
court.”
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/65194.html