Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland and Austria want the EU to revisit a crisis-era levy as higher fuel prices renew the debate over who should bear the cost of geopolitical disruption.

Six European Union countries are pressing for a common mechanism to tax exceptional profits earned by oil companies during the current energy shock. Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland and Austria have asked the Irish EU presidency to place the issue on the agenda of finance ministers when they meet in Dublin on 18–19 September. The proposal revives a politically sensitive question first confronted after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: when companies profit unexpectedly from a crisis that raises household energy bills, should governments recover part of those gains for the public?

Six governments want an EU-wide approach

According to a joint letter reported by Reuters, the six governments want EU finance ministers to discuss an EU-wide framework for taxing windfall profits rather than leaving each member state to devise its own response.

The initiative follows disruption to international energy markets connected with the conflict involving Iran and restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz. Oil prices have risen sharply, while refined fuels — particularly diesel — have experienced even larger increases.

The ministers argue that oil companies have benefited from refining margins that have increased faster than crude prices themselves. They also want the results of a European examination of refinery margins to be made available quickly, amid concerns that consumers could be paying more than underlying market conditions justify.

“We are experiencing one of the biggest supply shocks in decades,” the ministers wrote, according to reports of the letter, pointing to growing public concern about the cost of living.

The request does not yet amount to a formal European Commission proposal. Nor is there agreement among all 27 member states that a new levy should be introduced. But securing a discussion among finance ministers would move an idea debated for months onto the EU’s formal political agenda.

Europe has done this before

The concept is not new.

During the energy crisis of 2022, the EU adopted an emergency package that included what it called a temporary solidarity contribution from companies operating in the oil, gas, coal and refining sectors.

Under the Council regulation, taxable profits exceeding by more than 20% the average profits recorded from 2018 onwards were subject to an additional contribution. EU rules required a minimum rate of 33%, although member states were allowed to retain equivalent national measures.

The money was intended to support households and businesses facing exceptionally high energy costs.

That experience is now central to the new debate.

The six governments want lessons from the 2022 system to inform any future mechanism, but the latest proposal could go further by examining how multinational companies’ profits earned outside individual national tax jurisdictions might be treated.

A European Commission assessment put revenues collected under the earlier solidarity mechanism at roughly €26 billion during 2022 and 2023, although implementation differed considerably between member states.

How large are the new windfall profits?

Campaigners say the sums involved are again substantial.

A recent analysis by Transport & Environment estimated that eight large oil companies generated approximately €7.5 billion in excess profits attributable to the EU during the first half of 2026.

The analysis covered Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, Eni, Orlen, Repsol, OMV and Moeve. It compared adjusted net income during quarters affected by the current energy crisis with results during the same periods in 2025 and then estimated the share associated with EU business.

Transport & Environment described the calculation as conservative and argued that the profits demonstrate the case for a permanent European windfall mechanism.

Its methodology and conclusions remain those of an environmental advocacy organisation rather than an official EU assessment, but the figures illustrate why the issue has returned to the political agenda.

Industry warns against another exceptional tax

Oil and refining companies strongly dispute the logic behind renewed extraordinary taxation.

FuelsEurope, which represents the European refining industry, warned earlier this year that repeatedly imposing windfall taxes would undermine investor confidence and make the EU regulatory environment less predictable.

The organisation argues that European refiners need major long-term investment both to maintain energy security and to decarbonise their operations.

According to FuelsEurope, another exceptional levy could discourage investment, accelerate refinery closures and increase Europe’s dependence on imported fuels — potentially making the continent more vulnerable during future supply disruptions.

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers Europe has made a similar argument, saying rapidly introduced taxes can affect current investment decisions at precisely the moment Europe is seeking greater energy autonomy.

This creates a genuine policy dilemma.

Governments want to protect households from prices inflated by geopolitical events. But Europe also needs companies to invest heavily in energy infrastructure, security of supply and the transition away from carbon-intensive fuels.

Germany illustrates the political divide

Even among governments supporting discussion at EU level, the proposal is politically sensitive.

German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, from the Social Democratic Party, has argued that companies should not be allowed to exploit the current crisis and that excessive profits linked to exceptional circumstances should benefit consumers.

But Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union has opposed the idea of another windfall levy.

That disagreement highlights a broader divide likely to emerge across the EU.

Supporters see windfall taxation as a question of fairness: profits created primarily by war, shortages or market disruption are fundamentally different from profits resulting from innovation, productivity or investment.

Critics counter that governments cannot easily determine which part of a company’s earnings is genuinely “excessive” and warn that retrospective or frequently changing tax rules can undermine confidence in European markets.

The economics are more complicated than the slogan

Even organisations that recognise the redistributive case for windfall taxes have raised questions about how they should be designed.

In its 2026 assessment of the euro area, the International Monetary Fund noted that such taxes could transfer part of war-related energy gains from producers to consumers.

But the IMF also observed that governments already receive increased VAT and excise-tax revenues when energy prices rise and argued that those funds can be used for targeted assistance.

The economic question is therefore not simply whether companies are making more money. Policymakers must decide whether a new tax raises revenue more efficiently than existing instruments and whether its design avoids reducing investment or creating incentives for companies to shift profits to other jurisdictions.

A broader debate over who pays for crisis

Behind the technical tax discussion lies a larger political question.

Energy shocks do not affect all Europeans equally. Higher fuel and heating costs take a larger share of the income of poorer households, while transport-intensive businesses can experience sharp increases in operating costs.

Companies positioned favourably within disrupted energy markets can, at the same time, record profits that would have been unlikely under normal conditions.

For supporters of the proposed levy, this creates a case for temporary redistribution: part of the exceptional profit should finance protection for those bearing the cost of the same crisis.

More than 170 Christian organisations across 21 EU countries made a similar argument in July, calling for a permanent windfall tax on fossil-fuel profits alongside targeted support for vulnerable households and investment in the energy transition. Their initiative, linked to the Laudato Si’ Movement, framed the issue in terms of social justice as well as climate policy.

Industry representatives see a different risk: repeated extraordinary taxation could make European energy production and refining less competitive, leaving the EU more dependent on suppliers outside its borders.

Both concerns are significant. Energy affordability and energy security cannot easily be separated.

September could reveal whether the proposal has momentum

The immediate question is whether Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, places the proposal before finance ministers in September and whether other member states are willing to join the six governments behind it.

Direct taxation remains primarily a national competence, making EU-wide tax measures politically and legally difficult. Previous European action was possible because the 2022 energy crisis was treated as an emergency requiring exceptional intervention.

A new measure would therefore require careful legal construction as well as political agreement.

The debate also arrives as European governments face competing demands: reducing living costs, financing defence, investing in the green transition and strengthening energy independence.

For households confronted with another period of high fuel prices, the issue is likely to appear more straightforward: who ultimately carries the financial burden when war and geopolitical disruption send energy prices higher?

The answer European governments give in September may shape not only this crisis, but the way the EU responds to future energy shocks.

SOS Méditerranée reports repeated intimidation by Libyan-linked vessels as UN migration data show the Central Mediterranean becoming deadlier despite fewer crossings.

A humanitarian organisation operating in the Central Mediterranean has warned of an escalation in threats against migrants and civilian rescue ships, including high-speed approaches, prolonged pursuits and violent interceptions involving vessels linked to Libyan actors. The warning from SOS Méditerranée comes as new International Organization for Migration data show that deaths and disappearances on the route more than doubled during the first four months of 2026, even as arrivals fell sharply. The developments are renewing scrutiny of European cooperation with Libyan authorities on migration control.

Rescue ships report growing intimidation

In a statement published on 24 August, SOS Méditerranée said it had documented at least seven incidents during June and July in which vessels linked to Libyan actors approached humanitarian rescue ships at high speed or followed them for prolonged periods in international waters.

The organisation described the practice as “shadowing”. In some cases, vessels allegedly pursued rescue ships for hours or ordered them to head north, away from the Libyan search-and-rescue region.

Through its Albatross aerial-monitoring mission, SOS Méditerranée also says it has observed an increased presence of unidentified speedboats linked to armed groups operating from Libya. According to the organisation, some have carried out dangerous interceptions of migrant boats, including manoeuvres that risked collisions or involved deliberately ramming vessels carrying people in distress.

The individual incidents have not all been independently verified. However, reports of intimidation at sea form part of a wider pattern documented by humanitarian organisations and human-rights groups during the past year.

A year since the Ocean Viking shooting

The warning was issued exactly one year after SOS Méditerranée’s rescue ship Ocean Viking came under fire in international waters on 24 August 2025.

The ship was carrying 87 people who had been rescued at sea when, according to the organisation, a Libyan Coast Guard patrol vessel opened fire. The Ocean Viking was damaged, although no deaths were reported aboard the ship.

SOS Méditerranée says legal proceedings related to the incident are continuing in Italy, France and Germany but that no individual has been held responsible.

“The attack should have marked a turning point,” said Soazic Dupuy, the organisation’s director of operations.

Instead, SOS Méditerranée argues that threats against both migrants and rescue organisations have increased during the following 12 months. It is calling for a full and independent investigation into the Ocean Viking incident.

The Ocean Viking case is not isolated. On 11 May 2026, the humanitarian vessel Sea-Watch 5 was also fired upon in international waters around 55 nautical miles north of Tripoli shortly after rescuing 90 people.

Sea-Watch said an armed patrol boat identifying itself as part of the Libyan Coast Guard fired an initial shot followed by a burst of around 10 to 15 rounds and threatened to board the vessel.

Human Rights Watch later reported that at least two of the vessels involved in the wider incident corresponded to patrol boats previously transferred by Italy to Libyan authorities with EU funding.

Fewer crossings, but far more deaths

The latest warnings come against a troubling statistical backdrop.

According to the IOM’s Global Overview of Migration Routes, 821 people died or disappeared on the Central Mediterranean route during the first four months of 2026.

That represents an increase of 111% compared with the same period in 2025.

At the same time, recorded arrivals on the route fell by 46% to 8,577 people.

More than half of the deaths and disappearances — 430 — were recorded during January, when severe weather associated with Cyclone Harry affected the region.

“Fewer arrivals do not mean safer journeys,” IOM Deputy Director General Ugochi Daniels said when the figures were released on 12 August.

The IOM said severe weather, conflict, economic pressures and changing migration policies were reshaping migration routes and, in some cases, making journeys longer or more dangerous.

The figures complicate a political debate in which falling irregular arrivals are frequently used as an indicator of successful migration management. Lower arrival numbers do not necessarily indicate a corresponding reduction in the human cost of migration routes.

European cooperation with Libya under scrutiny

The European Union has worked with Libyan authorities for years as part of efforts to reduce irregular migration across the Mediterranean.

According to the European Commission’s overview of EU-Libya cooperation, bilateral and regional migration programmes adopted between 2021 and 2024 were worth around €220 million.

The Commission says more than two-thirds of that funding was devoted to protection, voluntary humanitarian returns and evacuation. It describes its objective as helping Libya build a “comprehensive and rights-based” system for managing migration.

The EU also supports the Libyan Coast Guard through the European Union Border Assistance Mission in Libya and the EUNAVFOR MED Operation IRINI.

That cooperation has become increasingly controversial because of allegations of violence by Libyan units and the conditions faced by migrants who are intercepted at sea and returned to the country.

Human Rights Watch and other organisations have urged European institutions to reconsider cooperation with Libyan authorities unless stronger human-rights safeguards and accountability mechanisms are introduced.

In a response cited by Human Rights Watch, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in July that the Union had raised incidents involving rescue vessels with Libyan authorities “on different occasions” and at different levels.

Human Rights Watch said, however, that the response provided no public update on the investigation into the Ocean Viking shooting.

Returned migrants face detention

The debate is also inseparable from conditions inside Libya.

A UNHCR operational update covering March 2026 stated that people intercepted at sea and returned to Libya are placed in detention.

At the end of March, 6,101 people were being held in detention centres across the country, according to the UN refugee agency. Of those, 2,238 — around 36% — were considered potentially in need of international protection.

UN agencies and human-rights organisations have repeatedly documented serious risks facing refugees and migrants in Libya, including arbitrary detention, exploitation and violence.

This makes the question of interception at sea especially sensitive under the international principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to a place where they face serious risks of persecution or other grave harm.

Accountability becomes the central question

European governments face two obligations that are increasingly difficult to separate politically: managing borders and preventing deaths at sea.

The latest evidence suggests that reducing the number of people reaching Europe does not by itself resolve the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean. The IOM’s figures show a route on which fewer people are arriving but a greater number are dying or disappearing.

At the same time, repeated allegations of armed intimidation against civilian rescue vessels raise a separate accountability question.

For SOS Méditerranée and other humanitarian groups, the issue is now not only whether European migration cooperation reduces departures, but whether the partners, equipment and policies involved respect international law and protect human life.

For the European Union, the challenge is to demonstrate that migration control, cooperation with third countries and the defence of fundamental rights can operate together in practice.

The answer will be measured not simply by how many people reach Europe’s shores, but also by what happens to those who never do.

The chain hasn’t disappeared; it’s just changed its name
Dialogue on Servitude 2.0

Christine Mirre & Yodith Gideon on the occasion of the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition (August 23)

Introduction

Instituted by UNESCO, the International Day for the Remembrance of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and its Abolition is observed on August 23 each year, in memory of the slave uprising in Saint-Domingue, now Haiti, which broke out on the night of August 22–23, 1791, and played a decisive role in the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.

The first official commemorations took place on August 23, 1998, in Haiti, followed by one in 1999 in Gorée, Senegal. Beyond a moment of reflection, this day aims to enshrine the tragedy of the slave trade in the collective memory of all peoples, in accordance with the objectives of the “Routes of Enslaved People” project.

It calls for a collective reflection on the historical causes, mechanisms, and consequences of this crime, as well as on the interactions it generated between Africa, Europe, the Americas, and the Caribbean.

 Its scope is twofold: commemorative, by breaking the silence that has long surrounded slavery; and political, by establishing memory as an indispensable foundation for all restorative justice and reconciliation.

Presentation

Yodith Gideon has dedicated her professional life to helping people build businesses, and she has done so on two continents.

For twenty-six years in Switzerland, at the heart of European finance, she mentored and trained entrepreneurs, from small businesses to startups.

Trained in business in Geneva and well-versed in the workings of the Western financial system, she founded Supi Consulting, then brought it back to Africa and steered it toward a single mission: to help people of African descent stop waiting and start building on the continent through real investment, real business, and a real network.

From this work emerged the Neo Panthers, a community of investors and builders from the diaspora dedicated to launching African businesses on African soil.

Yodith Gideon is the author of Sankofa: How Africa Feeds the World and Starves at Its Own Table (Neo Panthers Press, 2026), and the founder of Neo Panthers.

Christine Mirre is the director of CAP Liberté de Conscience (CAP LC), a nongovernmental human rights organization with consultative status with the UN (ECOSOC).

Through this civil society platform, she participates in the work of the Human Rights Council and other UN mechanisms, focusing in particular on documenting atrocities in Sudan and Ethiopia, as well as human rights violations in general.

She is the author of two major analyses published in 2026: one on France’s abstention during the United Nations General Assembly vote designating the slave trade as a crime against humanity (March 2026), and the other on the repeal of the Code Noir by the French National Assembly, 178 years after the abolition of slavery (May 2026).

As a descendant of a Guadeloupean family enslaved under the colonial regime, she bridges international law, historical memory, and restorative justice.

Memory as a Legislative Battlefield

Yodith Gideon, in Chapter 17 of « Sankofa », you write that school curricula in the French colonies erased African history and replaced it with that of Europe, and you cite the law of February 23, 2005, which mandated, for one year, the teaching of the “positive role of the French presence overseas.”

Yodith Gideon, author of «Sankofa», founder of Neo Panthers :

What the 2005 law reveals is that the colonial school textbook was never an accident. It is a component of the machine. In French West Africa, children read about “our ancestors, the Gauls” in a book written in Paris. They learned about every king of France but nothing about their own people, as if history began the day the white man arrived. And children caught speaking their mother tongue were punished. Even the sound of home became a transgression. I’m told that this kind of education died with the empires. No.

In 2005, the European Parliament passed a law mandating that colonization be taught as a blessing. Historians protested, and the article was repealed a year later, which is a good thing. But it was voted on, debated, and adopted during my lifetime.

That is why I say that memory is not an academic debate. It is a battlefield. A child who learns about Wilberforce learns that freedom is a gift you receive by waiting politely. A child who learns about Adwa, Nzinga, and Haiti learns something else: Africans said no, fought back, and won. No one gave them anything.

The first lesson poses no threat to them. The second one sets their system ablaze. The state that controls memory always chooses the first. Our job is to teach the second. Christine is fighting through the law and the courts. I’m fighting with the true history and money. It’s the same battle. Sankofa means exactly that: going back to reclaim what was stolen from us, including in textbooks.

Christine Mirre, you have analyzed how the Code Noir remained a “phantom text” in French law for 178 years after its abolition in 1848, and how its repeal in May 2026 avoided using the word “annulment” so as not to call into question royal legitimacy. In both cases, the French state seems to treat memory as a narrative to be controlled rather than as a truth to be restored. How does this bureaucratic management of history continue to shape the present from school textbooks to institutional discrimination in Africa as well as in the Caribbean?

Christine Mirre, Director of CAP Liberté de Conscience (CAP LC) :

Imagine if, even today, French law still contained a provision declaring certain people to be “furniture”. Yet that is exactly what happened: the Code Noir of 1685 remained a “ghost provision” in French law for 178 years after its abolition in 1848. In May 2026, the National Assembly voted to repeal it, but refused to use the term “annulment,” which would have acknowledged the text’s illegitimacy from its very inception, thereby preserving royal legitimacy.

This bureaucratic maneuver is not insignificant. Two months earlier, France had abstained at the UN on a resolution designating the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity. We acknowledge the past in words, but we deny justice in deeds. The result is a “double punishment”: the crime, followed by denial.

Françoise Vergès, author of La Mémoire enchaînée, wrote that we must “no longer be slaves to slavery.” This work of remembrance requires breaking the silence that still surrounds the slave trade in society and institutions. For as long as the state treats memory as a narrative to be controlled rather than a debt to be repaid, the colonial past continues to shape today’s discrimination in schools, the workplace, culture, and the way we view our own bodies.

The Economics of “Freedom”: Compensating the Master, Indebting the Slave

Christine Mirre, you point out that France compensated slaveowners 126 million francs under the law of April 30, 1849, which was repealed only in 2017, and that Haiti was forced to pay France the equivalent of USD 560 million for its own independence, until 1947.

Christine Mirre, Director of CAP Liberté de Conscience (CAP LC) :

Yes, the mechanism is exactly the same, and what makes it so persistent is that it has been legalized each time. The chain was not broken in 1848 : it was legally reclassified. The law of April 30, 1849, provided for compensation for plantation owners (126 million francs), while the freed slaves were left without land, without capital, and without reparations. This law was not repealed until 2017.

The case of Haiti is the starkest example of this: the country was forced to pay the equivalent of USD 560 million through 1947, amounting to more than USD 100 billion in losses over two centuries. People are freed, but they are then required to pay the price of their own freedom.

Éric Williams showed that slavery was not a marginal phase of capitalism, but its central pillar. From colonial indemnities to the CFA franc, from Haiti’s debt to mining contracts, the structure is the same: those who work and those who own are never the same. The Code Noir has evolved; it has seeped into enslaved currencies, glass ceilings, and denials of credit. Freedom without economic means is just another name for servitude.

Yodith Gideon, you show that raw cocoa leaves Africa and returns as chocolate, that gold is sourced in London and refined in Dubai, and that fourteen African nations still have their currency printed in Paris. From colonial reparations to the CFA franc, from Haiti’s “debt of freedom” to mining contracts, don’t we see the same mechanism at work everywhere: those who work and those who own are never the same, and freedom without economic means is merely a change of channel?

Yodith Gideon, author of «Sankofa» and founder of Neo Panthers :

Yes, it’s the same mechanism everywhere. And I want everyone to understand how it works today, because it’s no longer called “indemnity” or “debt of freedom.”

Take cocoa, for example. The price of our cocoa isn’t set in Abidjan. It’s set in London and New York by traders who’ve never even touched a cocoa bean. Whenever they want, they lower the price. And we can’t say no. Why? Because the contracts have already been signed. It’s the same with gold, cotton, and oil.

So the real question is: how were these contracts signed? Here’s how. They arrive with the aid. It’s all part of the same package. They come to see you and say: we’re going to help you; we’re going to fund your roads, your hospitals, your budget. And during that same visit, they sign the mining contract, the tax exemption for their multinationals, and the agreement granting access to our ports. The requirement to purchase their goods and services with aid money that’s what’s called tied aid. The money leaves Paris and returns to Paris, passing through our budgets.

The IMF and the World Bank use the same method: to receive the loan, you had to sign. Open up your markets, privatize your public enterprises, cut funding for education and health care. Aid is the gateway to the contract. It is not a gift. It is trade in disguise, and the contract is written by the one who gives.

This is where the continuity lies with 1849 and with Haiti. Yesterday, the master was compensated and the slave was billed. Today, we are “helped,” and we are made to sign the receipt. The chain has not disappeared. It has simply changed its name.

That’s why I reject the word “aid” when we talk about Africa. You don’t “help” someone you’re charging. And my conclusion in « Sankofa » is simple : no one will tear up these contracts for us. The right to say no is something we build. It’s called our factories, our warehouses, our banks, our united front. Ownership isn’t something you ask for. It’s something you build. And it’s possible. Just look at the Sahel, Ghana, Namibia. It’s already happening, right before our eyes.

Colonial Psychology: From the “Lobotomized Brain” to the Industrial Prison

Yodith Gideon, you cite WHO Monograph No. 17, published in 1953 by J.C. Carothers, « The African Mind in Health and Disease », and you point out that a slave’s desire for freedom was once classified as a mental illness: “drapetomania,” as described by Dr. Samuel Cartwright in 1851.

Yodith Gideon — Author of «Sankofa», founder of Neo Panthers :

I want the audience to really hear the dates, because people always think I’m talking about the distant past. In 1851, a doctor published a paper on drapetomania: a slave’s desire for freedom, diagnosed as insanity. Recommended treatment: the whip. This was published medical literature, taught in journals.

I am told that this science died along with slavery. So I open WHO Monograph No. 17, published in Geneva in 1953, seven years before the Congo gained independence. In it, the author argued that the normal African brain functions like a lobotomized European brain. Our so-called incapacity was not just a perception. It was a doctrine with international endorsement.

That’s the continuity you’re looking for. Yesterday, a Black person was labeled “sick” when they wanted to be free. Today, they’re labeled “suspicious” simply for being present. The diagnosis has changed its name, but not its function. Its function is to justify control. A resume set aside because of a first name is the same act as Cartwright’s diagnosis: categorizing a person before even meeting them.

And this system of classification doesn’t need die-hard racists to function. It’s embedded in procedures, sorting algorithms, and racial profiling. It’s a prison that runs on its own. All the more reason to name it for what it is. We can’t cure a disease that we refuse to diagnose in the real patient: the system, not us.

Christine Mirre, you denounce “racial profiling” and “glass ceilings” as contemporary manifestations of the Code Noir, and you study state violence. From the pathologization of rebellion to the over-incarceration of Black populations (in both the United States and France), including hiring discrimination based on first names, the study by Bertrand and Mullainathan (2003) showing that a resume with a “white” first name receives 50% more follow-up calls and that state violence seems to have simply changed its diagnosis. How would you describe this continuity between the “sick body” of the past and the “suspicious body” of today?

Christine Mirre, Director of CAP Liberté de Conscience (CAP LC) :

What we are seeing is a technical reinvention of the same system. Black bodies have never ceased to be a security problem for the colonial order; only the vocabulary used to manage them has changed. In the past, they were restrained, exploited, and subjected to forced medical treatment; today, they are monitored, profiled, and locked up.

Cartwright’s “drapetomania” in 1851 was not an isolated medical error: it framed rebellion as a pathology to avoid acknowledging the rejection of domination. J.C. Carothers revived this logic in 1953 under the auspices of the WHO, infantilizing the African mind.

Elsa Dorlin shows that the Code Noir was a “mechanism of disarmament” that “is coupled with a true discipline of the body designed to keep it defenseless”. The slave becomes “a servile, defenseless body, always presumed guilty.” This is the “sick body” of the past: a body rendered defenseless, then designated as a threat to justify state violence.

Today, young Black men are not arrested for committing a crime, but because their presence instills “reasonable fear”. Medical terminology has given way to security terminology, but the structure remains the same: to produce defenseless bodies and to portray this powerlessness as their very nature.

Yodith Gideon, in «Sankofa» you describe how Africans today must “erase themselves, erase their names, soften their accents, and hide their natural hair in order to gain access to the circles that matter ?

Yodith Gideon, author of «Sankofa», founder of Neo Panthers :

I didn’t read about this injunction to remain invisible in some archive. I lived through it during my twenty-six years in Switzerland. Not just at work. Everywhere. In meeting rooms, at church, at the hospital, with my Swiss in-laws, at the dinner table. When it happens everywhere, it’s not an isolated incident. It’s a system. They soften your name into sounds that fit in their mouths. They lower your voice on the phone.

In the United States, laws had to be passed, state by state, to make it illegal to fire a Black woman because of her natural hair. Think about what this statement reveals: her hair, just as God made it, was by default a violation of the dress code. Four out of five Black women say they have to change their hair just to be accepted at work. So no, wigs and hair relaxers aren’t a matter of vanity. They’re armor bought with our own money against a verdict we didn’t write.

And notice the double standard: a French accent in English is charming; an African accent is quietly filtered out during an interview. Same grammar, same words. Only the people behind the accents are categorized differently.

This is how the denial of history plays out in the present: since the official narrative claims we’ve contributed nothing, our very presence becomes an anomaly to be corrected. Yesterday’s denial creates today’s invisibility. That is why I answered this question with a poem, “My Accent.” My accent is not a pronunciation error. My accent carries Adwa. The day we stop erasing ourselves, the room must renegotiate with history itself.

Christine Mirre, you mention the “double punishment” suffered by the descendants of slaves: the original crime, followed by the state’s denial, which refuses to provide reparations and refrains from recognizing the slave trade as the “most serious crime against humanity” at the UN. In both cases, the harm is not limited to the past: it reshapes the present. How does the denial of history translate today into a demand for invisibility, whether in a job interview in Paris or at an investment bank in Geneva?

Christine Mirre, Director of CAP Liberté de Conscience (CAP LC) :

The “double punishment” I am referring to is both a legal and psychological construct: first, the crime of slavery and the slave trade; then, the state’s denial, which refuses to recognize this crime as the basis for an unpaid debt. When France abstains at the UN in March 2026, it renews this denial. It tells the descendants: your pain has no name in our legal language.

Myriam Cottias, a historian of colonialism and chair of the scientific committee for the UNESCO program “The Route of Enslaved People”, proposed the term “enslaved” to challenge the normalization of that status: “It is a person who is enslaved, who is a slave by status, but who is not a slave in their very being.” She warns against transgenerational trauma, which “entrenches the status of victim rather than that of resister.” I share this concern: the double punishment lies in the fact that the state, by refusing reparations, keeps descendants in a position of supplicants.

This denial of history manifests itself today as a demand for invisibility. In a job interview for a senior leadership position or a human resources role in Paris, or at a bank in Geneva, you’re asked to be present, but not too much; visible, but not threatening. Self-effacement is not a career choice, it’s an adaptation to a system that doesn’t recognize your right to exist fully.

Symbols vs. Action: What Comes Next After August 23?

Christine Mirre, you write that the repeal of the Code Noir is “a step, not an end,” and that symbolism is not enough without material reparations. One of you works on restorative justice and international law; the other on concrete economic sovereignty. Are these two paths complementary, or does one necessarily precede the other in order to break down what you each, in your own way, call “prison” whether mental or legal?

Christine Mirre, Director of CAP Liberté de Conscience (CAP LC) :

I don’t believe we have to choose between restorative justice and economic sovereignty. They are two branches of the same tree. Without an international legal framework, any economic action remains vulnerable; without concrete economic action, any legal decision remains a dead letter.

International law, however, offers concrete tools. The General Assembly resolution of March 2026 describes the slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity.” The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) is drafting a general recommendation on reparations. Through its Slave Routes initiative and its Dialogues for Restorative Justice, UNESCO supports states in their transformation processes.

Doudou Diène, who spearheaded the Slave Route initiative at UNESCO in 1994 and participated in the Durban conference in 2001, warned of “the ambiguity of commemorations, repetitive rituals that obscure the fundamental issues”. He described slavery as a “crime without punishment” and called for “ethical, historical, educational, and social reparations”. Remembrance is not just a ritual on August 23: it is the first step toward global justice.

After August 23, we must use these two approaches together. The dialogue on restorative justice must be fueled by concrete proposals: reparations funds, the return of cultural property, and the cancellation of illegitimate debts. August 23 is a symbol. Action begins on the 24th.

Yodith Gideon, you conclude «Sankofa» with a call to immediate action: “Invest your first money in the first African company,” and you founded Neo Panthers to turn members of the diaspora into investors. One of you works on restorative justice and international law; the other on practical economic sovereignty. Are these two paths complementary, or does one necessarily precede the other in order to break free from what you each, in your own way, call a prison whether mental or legal?

Yodith Gideon, author of «Sankofa», founder of Neo Panthers :

The two paths are not in competition; they are the two hands of the same body. Christine’s work establishes the legal truth: naming the crime, repealing the law, demanding redress. Without that, we’re being asked to build while pretending nothing happened. But I have to be honest with the audience: none of these victories will put capital in your hands next week. Repeal is a step as Christine herself says , not an end. And I refuse to let us spend yet another generation waiting for the justice system of the former master to give us back what it took from us. Waiting is precisely what the mental prison has taught us: to wait for a gift, to wait for permission, to wait for a decree.

So my answer is the one that sums up Sankofa: Invest your first money in the first African business. Not someday—now. That’s why I founded Neo Panthers: to transform people of African descent, from the continent, Europe, and the Americas into owners and investors, not bystanders in their own cause. Every franc invested in an African business is reparations that we haven’t asked anyone for.

And here’s how the two paths converge: an economically sovereign people negotiates reparations from a position of strength, not as a supplicant. Justice opens the cell door. The economy gets us out and helps us build a home. We need both, but no one has to wait for one to begin the other. On the morning of August 24, the question is no longer what France must do. It’s what we’re doing.

By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya

The idea that was first clearly and definitely expressed about the Church during the time of St. Cyprian—namely, that the Church is a Divine institution for the moral perfection of people and that it alone possesses the necessary grace-filled means for this—was finally adopted and forever preserved in the Church’s consciousness. In this regard, there was no longer a history of dogma in the proper sense. Even St. Cyprian decisively applied this very concept of the Church to Church practice, and after St. Cyprian, one might say, came the predominant history of Church discipline. The forms of penitential discipline constantly change, but behind these changing forms one can always sense the unchanging fundamental concept of the Church as a hospital for the aching conscience and, in general, the educator of the human race. The forms of discipline change to best adapt to this very purpose of the Church. As early as the end of the third century, we encounter certain speculations among representatives of the Eastern Church that, in a different form, convey the same dogmatic teaching on the Church that we have seen expressed in particular detail by Western writers. Among such speculations, we note the teaching of Methodius of Patara as the most characteristic of Eastern theology.

In his teaching on the Church, St. Methodius proceeds from an allegorical interpretation of the creation of Eve. For him, Adam and Eve are real types of Christ and the Church. Just as Eve was created from the rib of the sleeping Adam, so from Jesus Christ, as he lay in the sleep of death, the Holy Spirit emanated, from Whom the Church was formed. One can also say of the Church that she is bone of Christ’s bones and flesh of his flesh. For the sake of the Church, the Logos left the Heavenly Father and descended to unite with His wife. He fell asleep in the ecstasy of suffering, voluntarily dying for her, in order to present her to Himself glorious and immaculate, having purified her with the bath. She receives the blessed and spiritual seed, which the Logos sows into the depths of the spirit. The Church receives this seed and develops it, like a woman, multiplying and nurturing virtue. 3 Thus the words are fulfilled: “Increase and multiply” (cf. Gen. 1:28)! The Church grows daily in greatness, beauty, and numbers (είς μέγεθος καί καλλος καί παῆθος) thanks to the cooperation (διά σῦνερξιν) and communion of the Logos. 4 He descends into each individual and is revealed in moral life. Christ, as it were, dies anew in each person and unites him with the entire Church, so that he receives certain gracious powers in her. Thus, all receive a return. But what happens to each individual, Christ first did in relation to the Church, and only by communing with the Church can an individual grow spiritually. “The imperfect and those still beginning the saving teaching grow and are formed, as it were, in a mother’s womb, by the more perfect, until they, having reached the maturity of rebirth and then, upon progress, having themselves become the Church, will contribute to the birth and upbringing of other children in the receptacle of the soul, as if in a womb, steadfastly fulfilling the will of the Word.” 5 This is why St. Methodius calls the Church the mother. By the apocalyptic woman who was with child and cried out in the pains and agony of birth, St. Methodius means the Church. “Those who are enlightened receive the features, the image, and the masculine appearance (τούς χαρακτῆρας καί τὴν έκτύπωσιν καί τὴν ἀῤῥενωπίαν) of Christ; the image of the Word is imprinted in them and is born in them through true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually (νοητῶς) born. For this reason the Church bears in the womb and experiences the pangs of birth, until Christ, born in us, is formed (μορφωθῆ), so that each of the saints, through communion with Christ, is born an anointed (χριστός). “Those baptized into Christ with the communion of the Spirit are anointed, and the Church here contributes to the image of the Word in them and their transformation.”6 For St. Methodius, the Church is the entire assembly of believers, but at the same time, it possesses special powers that regenerate people, and therefore, in the true sense, it is the mother of all believers.7

In the teachings of St. Methodius, we can see the same ideas that had already been revealed in the West, only these ideas receive a mystical justification. One noteworthy feature is that St. Methodius attaches particular importance to the individual, which is understandable given the mystical understanding of the entire historical mission of the Church.8 Given the more external and legalistic nature of the questions addressed to the Church in the West, the individual was, of course, ignored and not a subject of discussion.9

In the fourth century, many aspects of church life in both the East and West were defined in close connection with the concept of the Church as the educator of the human race, spiritually giving birth to children of God. The teaching of the great Eastern Fathers—St. Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom—on pastoral ministry can be summarized as follows: pastoral ministry is the ministry through which the Church regenerates sinful people. Here, we will focus in particular on one of the most important aspects of the Church’s general educational activity: penitential discipline. This discipline, according to fourth-century church teaching, aims precisely at healing the sinner, not at punishing him or protecting the sanctity of the Church. This very view is expressed in the most important penitential monuments of that century: the letters of St. Basil the Great to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and the letter of St. Gregory of Nyssa to Litoius, Bishop of Melitene. These epistles, canonized by the second canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, retain their unquestioned authority in the Orthodox Church to this day and are included in the “Book of Rules.” Later penitential literature constantly refers to Basil the Great. 10

For the entire penitential discipline, St. Basil the Great specifies only one goal: “to draw sinners from the snare of the evil one”11 and “to overthrow and destroy sin in every way.”12 For excommunication, St. Basil the Great has almost no other name than “healing.”13 The epistle of Gregory of Nyssa is nothing less than a beautiful treatise on pastoral theology. Here, St. Gregory calls sin a disease and constantly speaks of the healing of sin. “Just as in physical healing, the goal of the medical art is one—the restoration of health to the sick—but the method of treatment varies, for each illness requires a suitable method of treatment according to the variety of ailments. So too, in mental illness, due to the multitude and diversity of passions, a variety of healing care becomes necessary, which produces a cure corresponding to the ailment.”14 St. Gregory speaks not only of the medicinal significance of temporary excommunication from the Church, but also of the purpose of special penitential feats. “Let him heal his ailment with an exercise contrary to his passion, by distributing his possessions to the poor, so that by squandering what he has, he will show himself cleansed from the disease of covetousness. For one who has nothing but the body, the apostle commands him to heal that passion through bodily labor.”15 This is the general teaching on repentance and the significance of penance. 16

The system of public repentance was later replaced by the institution of secret confession, which gave rise to a number of Nomocanons, in one way or another associated with the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster. 17 These Nomocanons are very characteristic in clarifying the concepts of the Church that had finally become firmly established in the ecclesiastical consciousness. All later Nomocanons differ from the canons of St. Basil the Great only in that they are more suited to the treatment of the moral ailments of the individual. The canons of Basil the Great primarily speak of lengthy periods of excommunication from ecclesiastical communion. 18 Later Nomocanons significantly shorten the period of excommunication for the penitent, but they also prescribe special fasting, prostrations, prayers, and other pious deeds. 19 Assessing this fact from a fundamental standpoint, it must be said that church penitential discipline was most closely aligned with the teaching on the Church that was clearly expressed as early as the third century: the holiness of the Church does not consist in its intolerance of those who have mortally sinned, whom it completely excommunicates, but in its healing of those who have fallen into grave illnesses through repentance and granting them the grace-filled powers of the Holy Spirit for their moral perfection.

We have briefly indicated how church discipline changed, increasingly adapting to the dogmatic teaching on the holiness of the Church. Church writers of that time pose the question more directly, and the answer to it, which had already been given since the beginning of the third century, receives detailed and abundant argumentation. The development of the dogmatic teaching itself, however, cannot be noted here. The history of the dogma of the Church itself after the time of St. Cyprian was concentrated in the Western Church and touched on points that were barely touched upon during the life and work of St. Cyprian. Cyprian and did not receive their full revelation at that time: ecclesiastical thought focused on clarifying the nature and validity of the grace-filled sanctifying means in the Church. This question was particularly brought to the fore by the Donatist schism and was resolved in the struggle against it. It is to an exposition of this struggle and its dogmatic results that we now turn.

The persecution of Decius, which broke out under St. Cyprian, quickly passed. But the question of the fallen arose with no less urgency during the final and most severe persecution of Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth century, when some bishops were among the fallen. In Africa, the question arose of whether those guilty of the betrayal of sacred books and of apostasy in general could administer the Sacraments. Some bishops resolved this question negatively at one of the Councils of Carthage, when it was declared invalid ordination of Bishop Caecilian was invalidated on the grounds that the bishop who ordained him was suspected of treason. Caecilian was deposed and Majorinus was elected in his place, but the bishops of other provinces, some sided with Caecilianus, others with Majorinus. This is how the schism that later became known as Donatism arose. The issue, which, as we saw at the end of the previous essay, had already been raised in the mid-3rd century, urgently demanded its resolution at the beginning of the 4th century.

The external history of Donatism is very turbulent and complex, but is of no significance for the history of the dogma of the Church. What is significant for this history are the polemical works of ecclesiastical writers directed against the Donatists. On the exposition of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, revealed in these works, we will proceed now.

No writings by the Donatists themselves have survived, and their views can only be judged from the works of church writers.

In their dogmatic views on the Church, the Donatists based their views on the sanctity of the Church and its unity. A Church that accepts traditors into communion cannot be holy. Traditor bishops cannot impart any grace; therefore, a Church with traditor bishops has no sacraments. The personal unworthiness of a bishop deprives the entire Church of grace. Baptism is also irrelevant in the Church, and therefore anyone wishing to leave the Church for the Donatist community, which is the one true and holy Church, must be baptized. It can be seen that the Donatists adopted some of St. Cyprian’s ideas and turned them against the Church. The Donatists were close to the views of the Novatians, who did not recognize church baptism as valid, but they differed from the ancient heretics, who did not baptize those who converted to them from other heresies, but only administered Holy Communion. St. Cyprian, as is well known, completely equated heretics and schismatics, considering the baptism of both to be invalid. However, this view constitutes a certain peculiarity of St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology. The distinction between heresy and schism, however, has always been noted in the Church; this can be seen in St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Cyprian’s very terminology shows that he was aware of the distinction between heresy and schism: he often uses both terms—heresy and schism—side by side, and he felt the need to prove the heresy of schismatics. For the first time, ecclesiastical thought encountered a schism such as Novatianism, and therefore it is understandable that it was treated in an extreme manner: Novatian baptism was declared invalid. However, the Novatians, and Cyprian himself, did not resolutely establish dogmatic grounds for the question of baptism, leaving the matter to local practice. The Donatists, however, lent their dogmatic foundation to this practice: an unworthy person could not administer the Sacraments.

Even at the very origin of Donatism, we see conciliar decrees regulating the treatment of schismatics. The Council of Arles (314) decreed in its eighth canon that only those heretics who did not confess the Trinity should be baptized; the African custom of baptizing all converts to the Church was declared private and unworthy of approval.27

Throughout the fourth century, we encounter a number of conciliar decrees recognizing the validity of the Sacraments administered in schismatic societies. Thus, at the First Ecumenical Council, a decree was made regarding the Novatians, according to which their clergy were to be received into the Church while retaining their rank. “They must confess in writing that they will adhere to and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is, they will be in ecclesiastical communion with both bigamists and those who fell during persecution, for whom a time of repentance has been established and a term of forgiveness has been appointed… Where, either in villages or in cities, all those who are found in the clergy are found to be ordained from among themselves alone, let them be in the same rite.”28 The baptism and ordination of the followers of Paul of Samosata and other anti-Trinitarians was rejected, although at baptism they pronounced the baptismal formula with the invocation of the name of the Holy Trinity.29 The decree of the Council of Arelate was repeated at the Council of Carthage in 348.30 At the same Council, the decree of the First Ecumenical Council on the admission of members of the schismatic hierarchy into the Church while retaining their rank was extended to the Donatists. 31 The issue of baptism of heretics is examined in detail from a practical perspective by Basil the Great in his letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. “The ancients,” writes St. Basil, “determined that baptism should be accepted as in no way deviating from the faith; some they called heresy, others schism, and others a self-proclaimed assembly.” “Heretics they called those who had completely rejected and become estranged from the faith itself; schismatics they called those who had divided opinions on certain ecclesiastical matters and on questions that could be treated… Why did the early Fathers wish to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, and to accept the baptism of schismatics, as those not yet alien to the Church (ἔτι ἐκ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὄντων).” St. Basil goes on to say that the question should only arise about who exactly should be considered a heretic and who a schismatic. He knows that St. Cyprian and Firmilian of Caesarea also considered the Cathars to be heretics, but he himself believes that the Cathars are among the schismatics and their baptism should be accepted.32 However, St. Basil allows room for established, different practices. The Second Ecumenical Council also determined which of the contemporary erring ones, upon their joining Orthodoxy and the part of the saved, should be received by anointing with holy myrrh, and which should be received as pagans, that is, through baptism.33 The decree of the Second Ecumenical Council, with additions, was subsequently repeated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. 34 This practice is obviously based on a somewhat different dogmatic teaching on the Church’s relationship to the Sacraments than the teaching of St. Cyprian, according to which the Church is the exclusive possessor of grace. As is evident from the words of St. Basil the Great, the basis of the established practice was based on the idea that schismatics were not entirely alien to the Church. Only heretics who distorted the very concept of the Trinity of the Godhead were placed on an equal footing with pagans.

* * *

Notes:

1.It should be noted that St. Cyprian enjoyed enormous respect and exerted great influence throughout the Western Church for an entire century after his death. His authority was very high. See on this: Tillemont Memoires. Vol. 4. pp. 185–187; Monceaux, R. Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne. Vol. 2, pp. 358–368; A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 4-te Aufl. III. Tübingen, 1910, pp. 23 and Anm. 2.

2.See: A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 785, 788. See [the works of] Methodius, “Convivium decem virginum.” III, 4, 8. PG. Vol. 18, col. 72C. Saint Methodius, bishop and martyr, father of the Church of the 3rd century. A complete collection of his works, translated from Greek, edited by professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Evgraf Lovyagin. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1905. Pp. 47, 51.

3.”Ὑποδέχεται δὲ καὶ μορφοῖ δίκην γυναικὸς ἡ Ἐκκλησία εἰς τὸ γεννᾷν τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ ἐκτρέφειν”.

4.Conviv. III, 8. PG. T. 18. Col. 73. Wed. Russian translation. P. 51.

5.Ibid. III, 8. PG T. 18. Col. 76. Wed. Russian translation. P. 52.

6.Ibid. VIII, 8: “Συμβαλλούσης ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ τράνωσιν αυτῶν καὶ μεταμόρφωσιν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.” PG. T. 18. Col. 149B-C. Russian translation pp. 95–96. Cfr.: VIII, 7: “The Church bears in her womb those who are baptized.”

7.Ibid. III, 8: “In the Scriptures the very society and assembly (το ἄθροισμα καὶ το στῖφος) of believers is often called the Church, where those who are most perfect in progress (κατὰ προκοπὴν) are united into one person and body, the Church.” PG. Vol. 18. Col. 73D. Russian translation. P. 52; Conviv. VIII, 5: “The Church in its proper and precise sense is our mother, a certain power, in itself distinct from children (ἑτέρα τῶν τέκνων), a power striving for enlightenment (παρωρμημένη φωτίζεσθαι)… is the Church, whose children will all come to her together after the resurrection, having flocked to her from everywhere.” PG. Vol. 18. Col. 145B – S. Russian translation. Pp. 92,93.

8.Harnack sees in St. Methodius the beginnings of the subjectivism of monastic mysticism and, in general, of the contemplative realistic theology of the East. – Dogmengeschichte4, I. S. 788, 789, 790 and Anm. I. Cf. F. Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 30, 6d S. 229.

9.However, even in the early period Western writers also found a doctrine of the mystical relationship between the person and Christ, but this doctrine is not connected with the doctrine of the Church, as in St. Methodius. See on this Harnack’s work Dogmengeschichte4, 1. S. 615, Anm. Cf. 788, Anm 2. Origen also very often calls the human soul the bride of Christ. – De orat. S. 17, 2. GrchSch. 3. S. 330. PG. T. 11. Col. 472B. Cfr.: in Matth. T. XVII, 21: «Νύμφης ψυχῆς γαμουμένης Λόγῳ. PG. T. 13. Col. 1540C. In Cant. cant lib. 4, v. 15. PG. T. 13. Col. 193B.

10.The beginning of the penitential nomocanon of the Eastern Church should be traced back to Basil the Great. See on this: Prof. N. A. Zaozersky. “The Nomocanon of John the Faster in its Georgian, Greek, and Slavic Editions”. Moscow, 1902. Preface. P. 64. Prof. A. I. Almazov considers this opinion exaggerated, but he himself acknowledges that the compilers of later penitential nomocanons drew on the views of Basil the Great. See: Canonary of the Monk John. Notes of the Imperial Novorossiysk University. 1907. Vol. 109. P. 143.

11.”Book of Rules.” Rule. 84.

12.Ibid. 29.

13.Ibid. 2.

14.Ibid. 1. Cf. Rules 4, 6, 8.

15.Ibid. 6.

16.Cf. the teaching on repentance of St. John Chrysostom in his homilies on repentance, on the priesthood, and on the Epistle to the Corinthians. Particularly, see: Works. Vol. 2. Pp. 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324, 359, 363. The same is found in ancient monastic rules, for example, in the rule of the Tabennisiot community. See: Bishop Theophan. Ancient Monastic Rules. Moscow, 1882. Pp. 146 ff. All repentance is presented in the image of the treatment of a seriously ill patient by John Climacus. On penances, see S. I. Smirnov: “The Spiritual Father.” Pp. 134–148, esp. p. 141.

17.On this nomocanon, see the preface to its edition by Professor N. A. Zaozersky. See also: Almazov. Secret Confession in the Orthodox Eastern Church. Vol. 1. Odessa, 1894; A. S. Pavlov. Nomocanon from the Great Trebnik. 2nd ed. Moscow, 1897. pp. 32–40, 455–491.

18.However, one should not forget that temporary excommunication from ecclesiastical communion has always been associated in the Church, since ancient times, with the performance of certain penitential feats. It is sufficient to recall exomologesis or interitus carnis, as Origen understood it.

19.The general leniency of the nomocanons is quite noticeable in the designation of all these feats, so that after concluding his exposition of the dietary regulations, the compiler of the oldest redaction of the nomocanon reasons thus: “I know that for these very lenient definitions I will be judged by our common Judge—God—but it is better for me to be condemned for this than to be known as unmerciful.” – Nomocanon, ed. N. A. Zaozersky and Khakhanov. P. 69. Cf. Georgian text. P. 72.

20.This decree is preserved in the work of an unknown author, “Contra Fulgentium Donatistam.” P. 26: “Thurificati, traditores, et qui in schismate a traditoribus ordinantur, manere in Ecclesia Dei non possunt, nisi cognito ululatu suo per poenitentiam reconcilientur. Unde Caeciliano in schismate a traditoribus ordinato non communicare oportet.” PL T. 43. Col. 774.

21.From the historical perspective, Donatism is examined in N. Kutepov’s work “The Schism of the Donatists.” Kazan, 1884. pp. 6–16.

22.Harnack, A., “The Pseudo-Augustinian Tractate “Contra Novatianum.” [The Pseudo-Augustinian Tractate “Contra Novatianum”]. [The Pseudo-Augustinian Tractate “Contra Novatianum”]. Munich, 1898. pp. 85 ff.

23.Idem. Dogmengeschichte, III. pp. 39–41.

24.Cyprian, epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 2, CSEL 3, 2. p. 779. Works. Part 1. p. 332.

25.Ibid. 74–61 ad Pompejum. C 4, CSEL, 3, 2. P. 802. Creations. Part 1. P. 353.

26.See Harnack about this: Dogmengeschichte4,1. S. 423–425.

27.“De Afris autem, quod propria lege sua utantur, ut rebaptisent, placuit ut ad Ecclesiam si aliquis haereticus venerit, interrogent eum Symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus tantum ei imponatur: quod si interrogatus Symbolum, non responderit Trinitatem, tunc merito baptizetur. PL T. 43. Col. 787. Here, obviously, those converting to the Church are required not only to be baptized in the name of the Trinity, but also to correctly confess faith in the Trinity in the Creed. Only in this latter case were they received without rebaptism. Cfr.: Ioh. Ernst. “The Book of Rules in the Old Christian Church after Cyprian. Confessions of the Christian Literature and the Creed, edited by Dr. A. Ehrhard and Dr. I. P. Kirsch. II Band. 4. Heft. Mainz. 1901. pp. 52–58.

28.”Book of Rules.” Rule 8.

29.Ibid. 19. See the interpretation of this rule in Ioh. Ernst’ä “The Book of Rules in the Old Christian Church.” S. 58–62.

30.See Historia Donatistarum: “Sancitum est illicitas esse rebaptizationes eorum, qui interrogati in Trinitate secundum Evangelii fidem et Apostolorum doctrinam confessi erant ac deinde aqua tincti.” P.L. T. 11. Col. 803B.

31.See Excerpta ad donatistarum historiam pertinentia. Si hoc paci christianae prodesse visum fuerit, in suis honoribus suscipiantur. P.L. T. 43. Col. 809 ad fin.

32.In the “Book of Rules” of St. Basil the Great is right. 1. See: Ioh. Ernst. Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der altchr. Kirche. S. 3–6.

33.”Book of Rules.” Rule 7.

Source in Russian: Troitsky, V.A. The Question of the Church in the Dogmatic Polemics with Donatism. / Theological Herald, 1912, Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 247–271. (2nd pagination)

(to be continued)