VATICAN CITY — The creation of four new dioceses for the Russian Federation by the Holy See on Feb. 11 is the most definitive step yet indicating that Vatican patience is running thin with what is regarded as Orthodox intransigence.

The strongly negative reaction to the move by the Orthodox Patriarchate in Moscow has damaged Vatican-Orthodox relations, as Patriarch Alexei II immediately canceled previously scheduled meetings with Vatican ecumenical officials. Yet this reaction — which was expected as Orthodox officials were briefed in advance — was not allowed to forestall a regularization of Catholic life in Russia.

In 1991, when the Holy See created “apostolic administrations” — temporary structures created when it is not possible to create permanent dioceses — a firestorm erupted in the Patriarchate of Moscow, which had not been notified in advance and felt betrayed. It was considered at the time to have been a blunder on the Vatican's part, setting back Catholic-Orthodox relations by being insensitive to Orthodox fears of Catholic proselytism in Orthodox lands.

Ten years later, however, and after almost no progress on the ecumenical front, it is clear that it is no longer a question of hurt feelings over lack of consultation but rather a fundamental Orthodox objection to the Catholic presence in Russia. It was that realization, obviously unacceptable to the Holy See, that contributed to the decision to go ahead with creating Catholic dioceses despite Orthodox objections.

According to the Vatican, there are 1.3 million baptized Catholics in Russia. One concession to Orthodox sensibilities was made in the naming of the new dioceses. There is no “Archdiocese of Moscow” but rather the “Archdiocese of the Mother of God at Moscow,” and likewise the Siberian diocese is TITLEd the “Diocese of St. Joseph at Irkutsk.” This avoids having Catholic and Orthodox bishops with the same TITLEs. A similar courtesy was extended in 1850 when Catholic dioceses were re-established in England after 300 years; there is no Catholic archbishop of “London,” but rather of “Westminster.”

At the time of the announcement Vatican spokesmen went to great length to emphasize that this was not intended as a provocation, but was a normal step in Catholic life, commensurate to the Orthodox presence in Catholic countries. It was also pointed out that Catholic dioceses have historically existed in Russia, and that in recent years, Catholic charities have given $17 million to the Russian Orthodox Church. But after the reaction from Moscow, the rhetoric grew more pointed.

“Beyond the immediate facts, the fundamental questions seems to me: Does one accept and protect fundamental rights of freedom of conscience and religious liberty which are the basis of every form of pluralistic and civil communal life?” asked papal spokesman Joaquín Navarro-Valls in an official statement.

When the papal spokesman questions Russian Orthodox commitment to religious liberty, it is clear that the Vatican has changed policy from its previous deference to Orthodox sensibilities.

“The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is now responsible before God and history for a sharp aggravation of our relations, for the frustration of the hope for their normalization that has just begun to take shape,” said a statement issued by the Moscow Patriarchate. “The Vatican's action has put in jeopardy the ability of the Catholic West and the Orthodox East to cooperate as two great civilizations for the benefit of Europe and the world.”

Characterizing the Orthodox reaction as “exaggerated,” the new archbishop “at Moscow,” Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, indicated frustration with having to contend with the same Orthodox objections over and over.

“Basically what they have repeated for 10 years — the problems of Ukraine's Byzantine rite, the problem of proselytism, the problem of the so-called invasion of the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Moscow,” he said. “There is nothing new.”

Different Approach

The view that “there is nothing new,” and that far from “normalization” Catholic-Orthodox relations have reached a sort of stalemate, is now widespread in Vatican ecumenical circles.

It represents on the great failed hopes of the John Paul II pontificate, wherein the Holy Father's dream of healing the breach with Orthodoxy at the dawn of the third millennium appears to have been abandoned.

This was confirmed by papal decisions to visit both Ukraine and Greece last year despite the initial objections of the local Orthodox synods. In both cases, John Paul allowed the local government officials to prevail upon the Orthodox leadership to permit the visit — a great humiliation for the bishops at the hands of their own countrymen.

The recent decision concerning Russia has prompted speculation that a similar humiliation may be in store for Alexei II, patriarch of Moscow, who has to date refused to meet with John Paul and has declared him unwelcome in Russia. The week before the Feb. 11 announcement was made, papal trip planner Monsignor Renato Boccardo was in fact in Russia.

For the first 20 years of his pontificate John Paul refused to visit any majority Orthodox country without an invitation from the Orthodox bishops. Yet after two decades in which no invitations were forthcoming, John Paul decided to go ahead on his own.

Difficult relations with Orthodox patriarchs in Greece, Ukraine and Russia stand in contrast with continued warm relations with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who has visited the Vatican, and was at the Pope's side last month in Assisi.

Raymond J. de Souza writes from Rome.