In its sights, the Russian Cathedral (Saint Nicholas) has been managed since 1923 by the Russian Orthodox Cultural Association, which handles its management (along with that of the Longchamp Street Church and the Caucade Russian Cemetery, which are not part of the dispute).
Opposing a state, especially a significant one, is never easy, and the members of the Orthodox Cultural Association — 80 people who consider themselves guardians of this artistic and religious heritage — can testify from their direct experience.
The decision of the Nice Tribunal de Grande Instance, delivered on January 20th, was unfavorable to them. However, the “little” locals from Nice (also supported by the Patriarchate of Constantinople) have not given up and have appealed to the Court of Appeal of Aix in Provence, which will probably rule in 2011. Meanwhile, the parties are maintaining their respective positions, and since the historical understanding is quite difficult (we only have one perspective), we will set aside this “Jus publicum.”
Nice Premium met with the Vice-President of the Association, Alexis Obolensky, who helps us understand the reason for so much obstinacy:
Nice Premium: Why insist on maintaining such a prerogative?
Alexis Obolensky: We make it a matter of principle because we do not understand why, after decades of silence, the Russian State claims to be the heir to the imperial family, which was behind the construction of the Saint Nicholas Cathedral. I am of Russian origin, and my family left our country in the 1920s when it became evident that post-Tsarism would be just another dictatorship under the Bolsheviks. I know well the troubled history of Russia that became the Soviet Union and then once again Russia, but as a Republic and not an Empire. However, our association has been responsible for “our” Church since 1923, and our management has been faultless. So why be evicted from this place of worship to make way for those who have done nothing to deserve it? To say that the Russian State is the legitimate heir of the Tsar’s empire seems heretical if we recall that the imperial family was executed by the Bolsheviks […]. All its members [died] to prevent any heirs!
N-P: There is probably a legal gray area allowing your Association and the Russian State to claim the same title of ownership. However, even if the Russian State were to manage it, it would continue to ensure religious practice as you currently do. So the religious character of the place would be preserved. Isn’t that ultimately the primary purpose of a church? To be able to practice one’s faith?
A.O.: You know there is also a question of legitimacy in religious matters within the Orthodox Church. Our Church and its Rector, who is the President, refers to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and not to that of Moscow, whose economic interests are closely tied to those of the Russian State. We are the little Davids against the Goliath, but we will fight until the end to defend our rights.
N-P: I imagine there are other cases comparable to yours?
A.O.: Indeed, the Moscow Patriarchate, through the political and judicial action of the Russian State, is reclaiming all the churches it considers belong to it. But the situation is confusing and also depends on the attitude of different communities and their Rectors. I can tell you that the Church of Biarritz, even that of Menton, remains in a status quo. Only the Church of Cannes, under rather controversial circumstances, has shifted toward the Moscow Patriarchate. I would end by saying that our case is the most significant: the Cathedral of Saint Nicholas is the largest church outside of Russia. It was built directly by the decision of members of the imperial family, so it also holds symbolic significance.
N-P: You certainly know that in Italy, in Bari, the local Municipality, which had been managing it since 1936, freely decided to “return” the Russian Orthodox Church of Saint Nicholas to the Russian State. The ceremony, held on March 1, 2009, in the presence of Presidents Giorgio Napolitano for Italy and Dmitry Medvedev for Russia, was attended by the newly elected Moscow Patriarch Kirill. Pope Benedict XVI even supported it by sending a Cardinal-legatus. Can this political act not be considered a dangerous precedent?
A.O.: Yes, perhaps, but each case is different from others. We know that the general context is against us, and we must note that there are many “neutral” behaviors that are quite suspicious even in France. Between an association and a state… you understand, the choice is fairly easy! We have an example in dealings with local authorities: we are not helped at all… on the contrary. As they say, some silences speak louder than a thousand words.
Alexis Obolensky – sportsman and religious fighter in the genes?
Alexis Obolensky is calm and thoughtful. He is clearly a person who is more diplomatic than combative. But what motivation makes him so persistent in his approach? An anecdote that we remind him of does not fail to surprise him…
Another member of his family, Alexander Obolensky, was a rugby player, donned the England team jersey, and distinguished himself by scoring two tries in England’s splendid victory (13-0) against the All Blacks in 1936. In the same week, ‘Obo’ repeated his feat by adding another try to his personal record against the same All Blacks during the Oxford University match. Unfortunately, the young “prince” of Russian origin, born in Saint Petersburg but of English nationality, died in 1940 as an Royal Air Force pilot during the Second World War. Alexis Obolensky never knew this cousin since this princely family had its branches dispersed in France and England.
Perhaps tenacity is a family trait of the Obolenskys. Thus, like the young ‘Obo’ who achieved a sporting feat still cited in the history books of the oval game today, it seems clear that Alexis would also like to achieve his feat: to win this legal battle in the name of a principle he is keen to emphasize with conviction: “Never give up your rights before might.”
