Yakov Krotov

ON KESTON INSTITUTE

Moscow, August 11, 1998.

To all whom it concerns.
From Yakov Krotov
Re: The forgery of the Keston-institute news-service
 

DISCLAIMER

I have an unpleasant obligation to disclaim this quotation. I didn’t say anything of the kind in my private talks with Ms. Dennen or with Mr. Uzzel, editor of the Keston-institute bulletin.

I think activities of Fr. Kochetkov are very useful to the Russian Orthodox Church, although he has (as anyone) some weak sides. But I don’t think him to be a "tyrant" or "cultist" (these expressions have been foisted to me.) I think and I have written it many times that not Fr. George but his persecutors are guilty of exclusiveness and bellicosity. I think it is improper to discuss activities of Kochetkov while he is punished by Church authorities in violation of the canon and state law, without proper assize of the Church court. I think "Keston-institute" paid too small attention to the last circumstance of the sad affair.

I hope that this miscommunication is due to the language barrier and not the willingness of Mr. Uzzel to use my authority for justification of the unjust decision of the Moscow Patriarch. I hope that Mr. Uzzel didn’t let his confessional bias take the upper hand over professional ethic of journalist. In the article of Ms. Dennen I am introduced as "menyee angazhirovanniy zhurnalist."

I hope this is another case of miscommunication, because in the Russian language at least "angazhirovanniy" ("engaged"?) is mean a man who betrayed his objectivity, and even "less engaged" is deeply pejorative. And it is untrue, because I am Church historian, absolutely independent from any confessional structures.

I hope that Ms. Dennen and Mr. Uzzel will ask me and Fr. George for excuses and publish this disclaimer. I will not use his materials as reliable any more nor contact them.

Keston Institute recieved both your communications of 7 August and of 11 August in which you claim that views attributed to you in the article by me entitled "Will the Moscow Patriarchate Silence the so-called "Open Orthodox"?' which was published on 4 July in the Keston News Service, were not in fact yours and that you did noot consider the conversation with me material for publication. At no point during our conversation on 15 June did you say that any part was off the record, and you knew that I worked with Mr Uzzell as a writer for the Keston News Service and had come to gather your views. I have checked back to my notes taken during our conversation and believe that I interpreted accurately what you said to me. One of the phrases in Russian which you object to, 'meneye angazhirovanny' was a translation of the English phrase 'less directly involved' which has a completely neutral connotation and not the pejorative meaning which you attribute to it. It was not the intention of my article to undermine Fr George Kochetkov's position or damage the St Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute in any way, but it was an attempt to present a balanced and objective view of those in the Russian Orthodox Church who are trying to develop new ways of building up Christian life in the complex world which is Russia today.

Yours sincerely,
Xenia Dennen

Moscow, October 15, 1998

Dear Mrs Dennen,

I like the prudence with which you don’t answer me in Russian to avoid the demonstration of Your knowledge of the language. Russian words "meneye angazhirovanny" are very bad translation (if any) of the English expression "less directly involved." You can address some good translator in order to know how to translate English expression (I think "meneye vovlechenniy v konflikt" will fit.) If You don’t have money to pay for good translator leave Russian theme. I am specialist in Russian language and Russian culture and I inform You, that expression "meneye angazhirovanny" in modern Russian language is deeply pejorative. May be You’ve offended me involuntarily but this doesn’t free You from the necessity to excuse. This small example once more illustrates that You are greatly overestimating Your knowledge of Russian language. So Your words "I ... believe that I interpreted accurately what you said to me" cannot be taken for granted. You "notes" reflect only Your interpretation, and this is for me to decide whether this interpretation is correct. It isn’t.

You also don’t know enough about Russian norms of journalist ethics. You’ve been obliged to tell me that You are going to quote my words, or You’ve been obliged to tape my words or ask me whether you’ve written them right and whether I want my words to appear in media. It is not my duty to "say that any part was off record." During last years I gave quite often free consultations to many Americans and Englishmen, thinking by default that they are completely responsible for their materials and that they won’t quote me (Larry Uzzel was only one of examples.) So it was. I am journalist myself, and should I want to express my opinion about persecution of Fr. Kochetkov, I did it in Russian or English myself. But I thought and still think that it is very dangerous for Fr. Kochetkov to receive such "support." Your article is a bright example of  how journalist can harm a person whom she dedicated the text. You think your article to be "balanced and objective view," but this is only Yours subjective opinion on Your own work. This opinion is supported not by many people, and four refutations which it have gained prove it. For example Your article doesn’t mention that all accusations against Kochetkov are false and that he was punished with violations of norms of state and Church laws.

You’ve simply rejected all my pretensions (and. as far as I understand, the pretensions of Kochetkov, Kott, Vishnevetsky, Gritz.) I think this is a nice argument in favour of my decision not to rely in future on any information coming from Keston-institute and not to give any information to it. Refusal to admit mistake is even worse than mistake even in the complex world which is Britain today.

Yours sincerely,

Yakov Krotov