Tver diocese. "THE NEW TIMES": A royal gift. A law on the restitution of church property is being prepared

The topic of restitution is the return of property taken from citizens during expropriation, collectivization, repression, etc. to their original owners - has been raised more than once on the Russian Faith website. T. M. Vlasova — Candidate of Technical Sciences, employee of the Moscow Merchant Society organization, discusses on our website the importance and necessity of restitution in Russia. A regular author of our site, Marina Voloskova, in the article “”, examines in detail the legal side of the issue of returning to church associations property confiscated after the 1917 revolution, during Soviet times.

At the beginning of the last century, the All-Russian Emperor Nicholas II Romanov announced religious tolerance (Name Highest Decree, given to the Senate, “On strengthening the principles religious tolerance"April 17, 1905) and the Old Orthodox Christians, after three hundred years of persecution, were able to freely build churches, monasteries and other real estate for carrying out religious activities. However, many churches built at the beginning of the 20th century lasted no more than a decade and were closed by the Soviet regime. Some of them were converted into various institutions: clubs, museums, taxi companies. Thus, new government took away from the Old Orthodox Christians everything that was created or acquired by them during a short time of freedom. Thus, momentary joy gave way to bitterness and a renewal of persecution. Property was confiscated and nationalized.

On November 30, 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 327-FZ “On the transfer to religious organizations of property for religious purposes that is in state or municipal ownership,” which defines “the procedure for the gratuitous transfer into ownership or gratuitous use of property for religious purposes to religious organizations.” which is in federal ownership, the property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipal property.” Is the law not working?

Indeed, according to modern legislation all religious buildings must belong to religious organizations, but some of them were privatized in the 1990s and then sold to on a commercial basis. Is it possible to return church buildings to religious organizations? The lack of a guarantee of the integrity of property and a comprehensive law does not give confidence in this.

Behind last decades Christians of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church (hereinafter RDC) did not return a single object of religious significance from those that were taken away Soviet power, but, on the contrary, government officials are selling off this property. There are only three objects left on the territory of the Moscow region created by Christians of the RDC, the rest were destroyed.

In recent decades, the Russian Orthodox Church has noticeably strengthened its position in society. New churches are opening, more and more people are gaining faith and coming to churches. But problems in the relationship between the Church and society still remain: this includes opposition to the introduction of studying the history of Orthodoxy in schools, a shortage of clergy, property problems, unresolved issues regarding the revival of monasteries destroyed in Soviet years. Bishop Longin of Saratov and Volsk kindly agreed to answer Vremya on these and many other questions that concern residents of the region today.

— Why, in your opinion, has not yet introduced the subject “Fundamentals of Orthodoxy” in schools? Doesn't this have an impact on the fact that the Church insists on studying it by all students, regardless of religion?

“This topic has been discussed for many years, and we have already answered similar questions from respected journalists many times, at all levels: priests, bishops answered, the Patriarch answered... But sometimes it seems that we are simply not being heard.

No one has introduced “Fundamentals of Orthodoxy” in schools and is not going to introduce them. “Fundamentals of Orthodoxy” are the fundamentals of religious doctrine, what before the revolution was called the Law of God. But in our society there are discussions about teaching the subject “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture”, and this is a completely different thing - a cultural discipline. Its goal is to give the student the opportunity to understand (and perceive) the culture of his Fatherland, which over the course of a thousand years has been formed on the basis of Orthodoxy. It talks specifically about the foundations - about the foundation on which the culture and self-awareness of the peoples of Russia are built.

In 12 regions of our country, by decision of local authorities in schools, this subject is taught in all schools: for example, in the Belgorod, Smolensk, Kaluga, Kemerovo, Kursk regions. In a number of other regions it has been introduced into the program of some educational institutions as an elective, by decision of the school administration and the wishes of parents - in fact, as in our Saratov region. “Fundamentals of Orthodox culture” are taught in many schools in Saratov, Engels, Volsk, Petrovsk, Arkadak, Atkarsk - in almost all municipalities.

Nowhere and never has the Church insisted on studying it, as you say, by all students, regardless of religion. Children attend OPK classes only at their request and with the consent of their parents. No conflicts have arisen so far. Moreover, in Russia, in places where the Muslim population is densely populated (in the republics North Caucasus and a number of other subjects of the federation) have been studying the “Fundamentals of Islamic Culture” for a long time.

— Despite a sufficient number of seminaries, there are not enough clergy in churches. What do you see as the reason for this situation?

— In order to answer this question, I will give some numbers. Before the revolution, there were 1,100 churches in the Saratov diocese. By 1938, every single one of them was closed, b O most of it was destroyed. Several parishes in Saratov and the regions opened in the 1940s. These 12 parishes (for the entire region!) “survived” until 1988, the year of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', when a turn in church-state relations began, and the Church received freedom for its activities. Since then, in just over 20 years, more than 200 more parishes have been opened in our diocese. This is a fairly large numerical increase - although, as you can see, it is negligible in comparison with the pre-revolutionary situation.

Every month more and more people come to me from different settlements our region, who ask for the opening of a temple in their village, in their city. It is obvious that this process will continue further. But training clergy is a rather long and painstaking task. It is impossible to prepare a priest for a quick fix”, as, indeed, a doctor or any other specialist. That is why, despite the presence of a seminary, there are not enough clergy. I think that the situation will only be overcome over time.

— What new churches are being built and planned for construction in the Saratov region?

We do not have, so to speak, a “diocesan Gosplan”. Temples are built and restored where there is a need for it, where people petition for it and accept it themselves Active participation in construction. Currently, the restoration of two ancient rural churches in the name of St. Nicholas is being completed - in the village of Dyakovka, Krasnokutsk region, and in the village. Bazarny Karabulak; The construction of several Saratov churches is close to completion - in the name of the Great Martyr George the Victorious in the village of Solnechny, in honor of Christmas Holy Mother of God in the village of Mirny.

— What are the difficulties of reviving the Irgiz monasteries?

There are two difficulties in reviving the Irgiz monasteries. The first of them, the Irgiz monasteries, have reached our time in a ruined state; literally only fragments remain of them. The only one preserved in more or less good condition is the so-called Upper Spaso-Preobrazhensky Irgiz Monastery, which now houses the Pugachevsky rest house. Therefore, first of all, in order to breathe life into these monasteries, simply to make them suitable for habitation, huge funds are needed. Temples in all Irgiz monasteries were destroyed. Therefore, the first thing we do in the monasteries handed over to us is to restore and equip churches. Only around the temple, strictly speaking, can monastic life develop.

The second problem is, of course, the small number of inhabitants. The fact is that brotherhoods or sisterhoods in pre-existing monasteries took centuries to form. People came to them who wanted a monastic life, because they understood what it was, for which a person comes to a monastery. And after, for almost the entire 20th century, monastic life, like Christianity itself in Russia, was burned out with fire and sword, it is difficult to expect that now, from our ordinary life, tens and hundreds of people will go to the monastery simply because it has reopened... There are few monastics yet, but they exist, they work, they strive, and I think that over time there will be more of them. Just don’t try to artificially speed up this process in any way.

— Vladyka, don’t you think the transfer of the building of school No. 30 to the Saratov Diocese is hasty? Isn't this causing damage to the image of the Church?

No. I don't think it's hasty, I think it's very late. This building historically belonged to the Intercession Church: the gymnasium at the temple was located there. For the same purposes, we are now asking to return it. Like all the other buildings that are now being transferred to the Church, it has been brought to a deplorable state; it has already been declared unsafe.

As for image losses... I don’t think so, because the work of the first Orthodox Holy Protection Gymnasium in Saratov is not a loss, but, on the contrary, an “image gain” for the diocese. In the Orthodox gymnasium, the children who study are the same as everyone else - they have the right to study in a normal room. And their parents are no worse than those who are now for some reason protesting against the transfer of their children to the new, renovated school No. 12, located just a block from No. 30. The decision on this, by the way, was made by the education authorities. Therefore, the protests by parents that are taking place are not entirely clear to me. The desire of the management is clearer, teaching staff maintain the school as an independent administrative unit. But if there are issues, they need to be resolved at the level of the education committee, and not start a fight with the Orthodox gymnasium, which is now forced to huddle in adapted premises in different parts cities. We do not ask the state for money, we do not demand that it build a new building for the gymnasium, but since such a building - the historical building of the Pokrovskaya gymnasium, built for this purpose - already exists, let it continue to serve its purposes.

— Is it true that the Diocese lays claim to the territory of the closing military institute of radiation, chemical and biological protection on Strelka? How do you plan to use this territory?

The so-called chemical training school is located on the territory of the Saratov Spaso-Preobra convent. This is one of the oldest monasteries in the Middle Volga region, which was founded around 1680. And when it was closed, all the religious buildings there were blown up in the same way, except for one temple, which had become operational again several years ago. Prominent Saratov citizens were buried at the monastery cemetery, including two Saratov governors and relatives of P.A. Stolypin, whom, as we know, is highly respected by the residents of our province. Therefore, if the school is closed and its territory is returned to the Saratov diocese, it will be used to revive the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery.

— Do you think it is possible for the Church to return the territory now occupied by the Dynamo stadium, where the clergy were once buried?

Dynamo Stadium is not a cemetery for clergy. This is the place where the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral stood, built in Saratov in memory of Patriotic War 1812, in memory of the Saratov residents who died in the war. The banners of the Saratov militias of 1812 and 1855 were kept in the cathedral. In the crypt of the cathedral, that is, in its underground part, two Saratov bishops were buried, whose bodies are still under the stadium's running tracks. And, of course, I consider the return of this territory to the Church to restore the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral not only possible, but also necessary. Cathedrals destroyed during the years of persecution of the Church have now been restored in many cities. First of all, this is, of course, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. In Saransk, Izhevsk, Orenburg, Yoshkar-Ola, and in a number of other cities, historical justice has been restored and cathedrals have been rebuilt in the places where they stood before the revolution.

Another question is that, of course, given the situation that has developed in our city with sports facilities, it is necessary first to build a new stadium, or even better - several, and even better - to restore all those stadiums that are now left ruins or flea markets. That is why, to this day, we have not taken active steps to restore the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral. Of course, closing the only working stadium in the city center - we all understand that this is wrong.

—How successful, in your opinion, were the Days held in Saratov? Slavic writing and culture?

Contrary to many gloomy forecasts that nothing would work out, everything would be bad, the holiday was very successful. I think it really became a big event for the residents of Saratov and the region. The restoration of the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Volsk is generally an extraordinary event for our diocese. Its consecration as part of the holiday gave special significance to the celebrations. As for the organizational side, it revealed a new level of cooperation between the diocese and the regional, Saratov and other municipal administrations. And I think that this interaction will continue to benefit the residents of the region.

— On what principles does the Saratov Diocese apply for awarding church orders to officials? Do you think they are always received justifiably (example: Yuri Aksenenko, who is involved in a criminal case).

According to one single principle: based on their merits in helping the Church. In the same way, following the results of the Days of Slavic Literature and Culture, a number of people were awarded church awards. This is V.V. Volodin, and P.L. Ipatov, and V.V. Radaev, and N.I. Starshova - that is, those people thanks to whom the celebration took place and who invested a lot of their personal work and participation in its organization. And it is clear, of course, that by rewarding, say, a governor, we thereby express gratitude to the entire government of our region, in a sense, personifying in his person the merits of many people. Based on this criterion, then yes, church awards are given justifiably. As for the criminal prosecution of Yu.N. Aksenenko - I answered this question many times and said that the Church has neither its own investigative committee nor prosecutorial authorities, and we cannot investigate all the circumstances of life and professional activity certain officials. You know there's a good one folk saying: “Don’t renounce prison or poverty.” Therefore - what to do? Nobody knows what will happen to certain people tomorrow.

— Your Eminence, what do you expect from the new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill: will anything change in church life and in the relationship between the Church and the state with the arrival of the new Primate of the Church?

The entire Church expects from the new Patriarch new impulses in church life, its even more active development and assistance in ensuring that the Church returns to the place that historically belongs to it in our society and state.

Why restitution of church property increasingly resembles raiding

[“Arguments of the Week”, Denis TERENTYEV]

The museum in the Ryazan Kremlin has existed since June 1884

The return of the church to its temples and monasteries until recently met with complete approval in society. Today, thousands of Orthodox Christians are protesting against the Russian Orthodox Church’s seizure of yet another museum or conservatory. But the authorities value the loyalty of the church too much and are ready to turn a blind eye to many things: the destruction of art objects, the commercial use of shrines and the dubious rights of businessmen in robes. And they show insatiability, which is not characteristic of the Christian faith.

The owners are back

IN Nizhny Novgorod behind last years transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate(ROC MP) approx. 300 objects. And these are not always churches confiscated by the Bolsheviks, which housed warehouses, garages, hospitals and kindergartens. On Bolshaya Pokrovka, the central street of Nizhny, was the House of Officers, in which until 1917 there was a women's diocesan school, and inside the school there was a small church. They are going to revive it and hold services there. Who would argue? But why is it necessary to hand over the entire huge building to the Russian Orthodox Church and drive out the clubs and sections that hundreds of children attended? Will the Church create something more godly for them?

At the end of 2012, the question arose about the eviction of the Nizhny Novgorod Conservatory from the building on the street Piskunova. This center is a 10-minute walk from the Kremlin, next to children's park and the beginning of the ancient rampart. The diocese asks the governor to transfer the building to it free of charge on the grounds that a hundred years ago there was bishop's residence with house church However, by 1946, little remained of the “cult object”: the church was demolished, and the two-story house with columns was badly damaged. It was restored at public expense: they built on the third floor, installed all the utility networks and erected a new four-story building. By the way, university teachers and students were actively working at the construction site.

The conservatory operated successfully for more than 65 years: released 7 thousand musicians, some received international recognition. In two concert halls exclusive German organs installed. To dismantle them, translate and install them again, it will take about 100 million rubles - there is no such money “for culture” in the regional budget. There is no hall in all of Nizhny Novgorod comparable to the Bolshoi in terms of acoustic characteristics.

It seems that the church itself has not really decided how the church plans to use the conservatory: they are talking about some “social projects”. According to the head of the press service of the Nizhny Novgorod Metropolis Vitaly Grudanov, “the main thing is that prayer is performed there, and the Lord will manage everything else and determine how we will manage this room.”

The Church is gradually emerging from the image of a persecuted sufferer who atones for the sins of others. He is replaced by a ruddy business executive in a cassock with a powerful administrative resource, which he uses without hesitation and without crossing himself. On the territory of the Ryazan Kremlin Museum-Reserve, the Assumption, Transfiguration and Nativity Cathedrals, the Epiphany Church and the hotel of the nobility were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church for a seminary. After 2007, the church wanted the entire Kremlin, and the museum director was fired for refusing to submit to the will of the clergy Lyudmila Maksimova. The diocese dreams of getting the luxurious palace of Prince Oleg, where on an area of ​​4 thousand square meters. m the exhibition “From Rus' to Russia” is on display, and the residence of the Archbishop of Ryazan and Kasimov Pavel (Ponomarev) may appear. This hardly looks like restitution: the museum in the Ryazan Kremlin has existed since June 1884. It was established by the Provincial Scientific Archival Commission, and more 10 thousands of exhibits were handed over mainly by civilians.

Bishop Pavel responds to this by saying that the Kremlin was “built by pious Orthodox ancestors.” But in Russia before 1917, almost everything significant was built by the Orthodox. And today people of the same denomination often do not approve of the actions of their own clergy. Collected in defense of the Nizhny Novgorod Conservatory 4 thousand signatures for the preservation of the Ryazan Museum-Reserve - 40 thousand. This despite the fact that in Ryazan 530 thousand inhabitants. Protests against the transfer of church property took place in Moscow, Voronezh, Chelyabinsk, where they also aimed at the conservatory, and Kaliningrad, where the Russian Orthodox Church was suddenly given away former Lutheran churches in East Prussia, never affiliated with Orthodoxy. And at the same time the old ones community houses, the ruins of Teutonic castles and just the land on which there were once church buildings.

But protests are protests, and Vaska listens and eats. As soon as the church claimed rights to Yaroslavl Kremlin, how the Department of Culture began searching for buildings into which museum funds could be transferred. But what to do if, in a similar situation, the diocese seized the Kostroma Kremlin, despite the hunger strike of museum workers. This was followed by a sharp reduction in the museum collection, and wooden church Transfiguration of the Lord early XVIII century burned out almost immediately after transmission. The Russian Orthodox Church has long been in charge of Tobolsk Kremlin, on the Solovetsky archipelago, the “holy island” of Valaam.

Why is the transfer so easy? The Church has long dreamed of collecting grace from tourist routes. Moreover, on 5 objects of the Ryazan Kremlin transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church, the federal budget allocates more funds than for the rest 15 , where museum workers still hang out. Another blessing may fall on the cultural committees - the construction of a new building for a museum and relocation. There are known cases in St. Petersburg when moving from one building to another (already built) 2 km from each other can cost billion rubles In addition, personnel decide everything: for example, the Deputy Minister of Culture Andrey Busygin is also a member of the board of trustees of the Ryazan diocese. And the director of the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve Vladimir Shutov and abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery Archimandrite Porfiry- this is one and the same person. And one day one of his hypostases passed on to another 109 heritage sites for free use.

In the village of Lukino near Moscow, the diocese, represented by the Holy Cross Convent, did not hesitate to demand the building of the “Childhood” rehabilitation center for seriously ill children. In March 2012, the Arbitration Court granted the claim of the holy fathers.

It is not entirely correct to talk about the return of property of the Russian Orthodox Church nationalized by the Bolsheviks, says historian Sergei Achildiev. - These parishes and monasteries lost their property in 1918, and the church as a whole - in 1703 as a result of Peter's reform. As Holy Synod she had a status close to ministerial. What if tomorrow the Ministry of Defense demands the restitution of all its garrisons and training grounds? The most important thing in this situation is that many generations ago museums were invented to preserve historical and cultural monuments. And when museums begin to be liquidated, this is a sign of the degradation of society. What happens to faith if the church begins to behave like its own persecutors - the Bolsheviks?

Interesting fact

Three priests of the Izhevsk and Udmurt diocese refused to commemorate Patriarch Kirill in services and turned to him with open letter: “...we strongly ask you to pay attention to the life of many rural priests on the brink of poverty, while a considerable part of the clergy, favored by the powers that be, are drowning in luxury.”

Full lords

In 2000, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed a letter to the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin: they say, the process of returning church property “is not only not completed, but has not really begun.” A year later, the government met the Council halfway, issuing resolution No. 490, in which the term appears "religious property". That is, we are no longer talking specifically about churches, but about “buildings and structures with related land plots" It was after the adoption of Resolution No. 490 that the appetites of the Russian Orthodox Church suddenly grew sharply: they needed the entire Ryazan, Kostroma and Tobolsk Kremlins. But the resistance of society and the museum community in a number of cases turned out to be quite effective. In 2007 in Ministry of Economic Development“refinement of legislation” began under the control of the First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

At the same time, the authorities handed over to the Russian Orthodox Church a number of exhibits from the Moscow Kremlin museums, some of which never belonged to the church. Patriarch Alexy II asked for guidance Tretyakov Gallery convey “Trinity” for the festive service Andrey Rublev But the icon was defended by ordinary museum employees, who rebelled in spite of the passive position of the Tretyakov authorities. And here Icon of the Toropetskaya Mother of God left from Russian Museum in St. Petersburg to the cottage village “Princely Lake” near Moscow. As many experts predicted, she did not return to the museum: You can venerate it in one of the Toropets churches.

The adoption in 2010 of the Law “On the transfer of federal and municipal property to religious organizations” accelerated two circumstances of force majeure. Firstly, the new head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Kirill, turned out to be much more economical than the deceased Alexy, Secondly, elections were approaching.

The new law significantly expanded the concept of “religious property.” Now they are considered any real estate built for “professional religious education, monastic life, religious veneration (pilgrimage), including buildings for temporary residence of pilgrims.” It doesn’t matter what is located in the building of the former seminary today: an oncology hospital, a school or just a residential building. And the church, in fact, makes the decision to transfer this property to itself!

The law cancels the list of documents and approvals required for the transfer of historical and cultural monuments, says the lawyer Andrey Vorobyov. - There is no need to coordinate either with the Ministry of Culture, or with regional KGIiOPs, or with VOOPIiK. Law doesn't name the federal body responsible for the transfer of objects, only the terms: six years if the property is assigned to cultural organizations or people live in it, and two years for other cases. In practice, it turns out to be a wild field: the church announces its desire to take the building, and if it is not vacated within the specified time frame, it goes to court. And whether they burn out or not, only God knows. The law now allows a judge to grant a claim for anyone a building where pilgrims stayed or church choristers practiced.

The problem is that the church does not have the necessary staff of specialists to preserve monuments. And this has repeatedly led to problems. The media reported that in Assumption Cathedral of the Princess Monastery in Vladimir nuns arranged dormitory right in the gallery of the 16th century monument. with paintings. And ancient frescoes are washed with the same products as dishes. In Vladimir Assumption Cathedral frescoes are under threat Andrey Rublev, which were restored only 20 years ago. The restorers then “prescribed” a certain number of services for the temple, and the use of only cleaned candles. But the church is sensitive to the “dictat” of secular power. The white stone floor was arbitrarily replaced with marble, and moisture, due to the difference in the density of the materials, settles on Rublev’s creations. IN Alexandrova Sloboda The Vasilievsky Gates, taken by Ivan the Terrible after the capture of Novgorod, are kept. They are famous for their exquisite workmanship: gold inking was applied to the copper. When fragments of the drawings peeled off, they were roughly walked over with bronze.

Restorers from Kostroma reported that they were not allowed into the basement of the Epiphany Cathedral of the Anastasinsky Monastery to see the frescoes Guria Nikitina, and painting, according to rumors, is strongly spoiled. In Vladimir Church in Mytishchi By decision of the rector, the baroque frames were knocked down, the refectory was built on, and three-story living quarters were added. In the Smolensk Church of Michael the Archangel, the priest, without coordinating the plan with art historians, installed a heating system in the 12th-century temple, and simply whitewashed fragments of pre-Mongol painting.

It seems that many priests perceive the temple as some kind of institution in which parishioners should feel comfortable. Although the concept of “comfort” does not fit well with the foundations of the Christian faith.

In Pskov, double-glazed windows were installed in a good half of the ancient churches: Basil on Gorka, Joachim and Anna, Elijah the Prophet from Lug and others, says the chairman of the Pskov branch of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIiK) Irina Golubeva. - The Holy Fathers do not consult with art critics; they have their own consultants. One priest referred to an “architect” who sang in his church choir. Another directly admitted that he replaced the historic floor because women's heels were getting stuck in it. The third was preparing for the visit of the bishop and covered the porous limestone walls with latex paint. And limestone must breathe, otherwise the paint will act like a compress and the walls will begin to rot.

According to the restorer Vladimir Sarabyanov, the abbess of the Snetogorsk convent offered him to take to the museum the 13th-century frescoes on which Fyodor Stratilates and Theophanes the Greek studied. Otherwise they whitewashed!

Ignorance? Of course, among priests there are different people - both enlightened and not very distant. By own assessments Russian Orthodox Church, they serve in its bosom 32 thousand priests and deacons. At the church semi-feudal structure: the power of the dioceses over their parishes is complete, and the Moscow Patriarchate influences the bishops much less. Accordingly, morals in the regions depend on the abbot.

Copy-flock

In June 2013, bloggers once again caught the Russian Orthodox Church using retouched photos from the speech of Patriarch Kirill, posted on official website of the Patriarchate. This time, in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, identical groups of people listen to the Bishop. The "miracle" was preceded two more scandals: the flock was completed during the patriarch’s visit to Kyiv in 2011, and at a meeting with the head Ministry of Justice the polishing of the table reflects the expensive watch that is not on the ruler’s hand.

Reproduction of believers in Photoshop makes you think: How many followers does the Russian Orthodox Church have today? According to the church itself, there are about 120 million Russians Ideologists Islam believe that there are Muslims in the country from 13 to 49 million. Since they live in Russia 143 million people, among whom there are many atheists, Catholics, Buddhists, Judaists, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, then at least one of the confessions is exaggerating its capabilities.

Servedtwo comrades

For example, in the same Pskov and Velikoluksk diocese, Bishop Eusebius(Savvin) banned the greatest icon painter of our time, Archimandrite, from serving and expelled from the clergy Zinona(Theodora). Formal reason: participated in a service with Catholics. But the whole country sees on TV, as the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and other primates do the same. Gossips they say that Eusebius does not tolerate talented people near him, and Zinon was the first of the priests to receive State Prize Russia for his contribution to church art. In the album “Modern Orthodox Icon,” released with the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II, more than half of the publication is devoted to the works of Zinon.

In 2008, with his works decorating the iconostasis of the Trinity cathedral V Pskov Kremlin, a story happened in the spirit of iconoclasm. By official version, went too far with the heating: the icon boards have dried out, there are swellings at the joints and peeling of the paint layer. It is unknown who and how restored them in the bowels of the diocese, but the icons appeared before the parishioners greatly “renewed”. Allegedly, someone gave the local gods the command to rewrite the faces of the saints, and even the himation of the Apostle Peter changed color. Rumors arose that Zinon’s works were being destroyed in three churches of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, closed to the public.

After the expulsion of Zinon, the diocese took on his comrade, the priest Pavel Adelgeim. Here the story is no less delicate: in the Soviet years, Adelgeim was imprisoned following a denunciation, and Father Pavel has reason to believe that behind this is... the current Bishop Eusebius, then a promising young priest from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. During the unrest in the zone, Adelgeim lost his leg, but returned to Pskov and literally rebuilt it stone by stone. Temple of the Myrrh-Bearing Women, built a church at the regional mental hospital in Bogdanov. In 1993, the local diocese was headed by Eusebius, and Father Pavel successively lost everything: the church in Bogdanov, the Piskovichi parish, where he served for 20 years, an orphanage, a candle workshop. Preaching love and compassion, the diocese selected and regents school building, where 74-year-old Adelheim raised mentally ill children. He distributed some of them to shelters, and took several into his home.

In reality, the power of the hierarch is not limited by anything, he can fire any priest simply by saying: “Get out,” says the father Pavel Adelgeim. - For a month, for a year or forever - as he pleases. Father usually doesn’t have any labor agreement, he hangs in the air. In theory, they shouldn’t even pay him a salary, but they do because the bishop said so. Its size is often ridiculous - 600 rubles for example. How this is consistent with tax legislation is ridiculous to even discuss. Pension contributions are not paid for a priest, and he cannot move to another diocese without a blessing. Secular authorities try not to meddle in church affairs. For example, I have a difficult relationship with the bishop, who in the media called me “a servant of Satan.” Isn't this an insult? However, the court refused to satisfy my claim for protection of honor and dignity.And when I had an accident, the regional traffic police admitted that The steering wheel of my car was unscrewed by a human hand, but they did not initiate charges. In theory, the bishop can be influenced by the Council of Bishops, but a raven cannot peck out a crow’s eye.

Adelheim illustrates the imposition of military discipline in the church with the story of the parish council of the Church of the Myrrh-Bearing Women. In April 2011, the parish, the only one in the entire diocese, did not accept the new charter, which transfers full power from the meeting of parishioners to the bishop's representative. The church court considered all those who voted “against” to be offenders. Eliminated first 11 man, then 9 , then more 14 . Remaining eight The charter was adopted by vote.

Father Paul removed from the abbots even earlier. As soon as the young successor appeared, the adjoining territory, which was not even under the jurisdiction of the diocese, disappeared cobblestone pavingXIXcentury. Although it is much more expensive than paving slabs. VOOPIiK employees drew up a report on this matter, which no regulatory authority was interested in. The defenders of Pskov culture were not answered why the bell tower of the Assumption from Paromenya is being rented out as a vegetable storehouse? Why was candle production organized in the house of the rector of the Mirozhsky Monastery? And the basement of the Stefanovo Church was adapted into an Orthodox cafe with a counter, tables and benches?

In parallel with the commissioning of the church museums, awarding church awards to officials. For example, the ex-Minister of Culture of the “era of restitution” became a Knight of the Order of St. Sergius of Radonezh Mikhail Shvydkoy, and Sergei Mironov, Sergey Kiriyenko And Vladimir Putin. In this regard, it is seriously proposed to create a list of 50-60 all-Russian attractions that the hand of clerics will never be able to touch. The experience of Ryazan, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, and Tobolsk suggests that clergy can lay claim to the Moscow Kremlin. And on the eve of the upcoming elections, the secular authorities will again find no reason to refuse.

Did you like the post? Support the publication!

*Receive a bright, color original newspaper in PDF format to your email address

Vladimir Putin visited Patriarch Kirill at the Danilov Monastery on January 5 and announced that the state was ready to return the churches historical monuments, which were in her property before the revolution. Now this highest promise is being put into a legislative framework: the government is working on federal law"On the transfer to religious organizations of property for religious purposes that is in state or municipal ownership." In February 2009, its concept was presented to the public. The developers openly admit that their tasks are not limited to eliminating legislative gaps; the goal is to make it easier for religious organizations to restitute their property. Now churches, icons, and utensils are being returned to religious communities on the basis of a decree signed by Boris Yeltsin back in the spring of 1993, as well as a government decree of June 30, 2001. But they are transferred not for ownership, but for free use. This means that the church is not charged rent, the state, as the owner, pays the costs of preserving and restoring the objects, and the ministers only have to pay for utilities. “We maintain the buildings at our own expense and actually bear the same expenses as the owner,” clarifies Moscow Patriarchate lawyer Ksenia Chernega. “At the same time, in order to place our own social institution (Sunday school or icon-painting workshop) in the premises, we are obliged to ask permission from state. As for the sale or pledge of churches, this is prohibited by our charter. This prohibition applies only to premises used in the performance of services (churches, chapels, baptisteries). As for outbuildings, in principle, having become their owners, we "We will be able to rent them out. This will help us get money for the restoration of churches." The same goes for the earth. The draft law only stipulates that the church will not be able to change the owner and/or rent out the received objects for 10 years after they come into its possession.

Eviction to nowhere

One of the most pressing questions related to church restitution is: what will happen to the institutions, including museums, that are located in the buildings transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church? A clear example: the State Literary Museum has been living under the threat of eviction for almost 17 years. After Yeltsin’s decree, the return of the main building of the museum, the former Vysoko-Petrovsky Monastery, to the Russian Orthodox Church became a matter of time. In the early 90s, five halls were already given to the church - now the department of religious education and catechesis of the Moscow Patriarchate is located there. But the process did not stop there. “Since 2000, pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church has increased,” says the director Literary Museum Marina Gomozkova. - The most important thing is that we are not at all against the move. But so far we have not been offered a single digestible option. Although they showed us everything: the fifth floor of a seven-story hearing aid factory, a building without heating, several basements." In the Vysoko-Petrovsky Monastery, the museum now has about 1000 square meters. One of the last premises proposed for moving had only 280 "squares" .
Another example: a building on Izmailovsky Island, where a branch of the Historical Museum is now being moved from the Novodevichy Convent. It needs major renovation and partial redevelopment, and only then the restoration artists will be able to start working normally. “It was assumed that cultural institutions being evicted would be given equivalent space, but this condition was not always met,” states ex-Minister of Culture Mikhail Shvydkoy. “I don’t think that after the adoption of the law the situation will change much.”

All-night vigil at the museum

Another difficult question is the future fate of the ancient buildings transferred to the dioceses. Museum units within the Russian Orthodox Church, designed to monitor the preservation of ancient monuments, have until now performed a purely decorative function. One of them is the Art History Commission of the Diocesan Council. At the annual meeting of the Moscow clergy, Patriarch Kirill cited excerpts from her report: the rectors are engaged in the redevelopment of ancient buildings without informing the employees. The Patriarch promised his protection. But even if we assume that the commission will be taken into account, this will not solve the problem of preserving the monuments transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even in Moscow. It’s high time for the church, museum workers believe, to create a special museum department, which would accumulate all the conservation work cultural heritage and would have very specific powers. They first started talking about this back in the early 90s, but the matter never got off the ground.
"IN late XIX century, on the initiative of the Moscow Archaeological Society, the issue of transferring all ancient churches under state control was seriously discussed, says the head of the department ancient Russian art Institute of Art History of the Russian State University for the Humanities Lev Lifshits. “The first laws on the protection of ancient churches were introduced by Nicholas I, who was horrified by the “restoration” in the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral." During the Russian Empire, scientists could prohibit the abbess of the Novodevichy Convent, who planned to install heating in the summer Smolensk Cathedral, from doing this: change temperature regime could damage the frescoes. In the 21st century, the weight of scientists is no longer the same: the priests did not listen to the experts and heated the Trinity Cathedral of Pskov, after which the destruction of its unique and one of the largest iconostases in Russia began. In the same Pskov, another monument transferred to the church is under threat - the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Mirozhsky Monastery. “This is the only temple in the country with preserved paintings from the 12th century. It is forbidden to hold services in it and spoil the frescoes with candle soot,” says Lev Lifshits. “By the way, this is only the case here: in ancient Orthodox churches in Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Macedonia, candles are lit only in the vestibule."

Some are more equal

Not all denominations can demand restitution with equal rights. When it comes to non-Orthodox religious associations, the authorities are not so willing to give up real estate. “All the buildings that belonged to Jewish communities before the revolution were occupied by different institutions: from a skin and venereal disease clinic in Rostov to a college in Kaluga. When we lay claim to them, local officials usually offer the community to build something in return,” says the president of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia Alexander Boroda: “Currently in Russia at least 70 synagogues are being used for other purposes. We are not demanding the return of all of them; 60–70% of pre-revolutionary buildings will be enough for us. Moreover, we would not want to cause additional social tension.” For almost 15 years now, Muslims of the Stavropol region have been fruitlessly seeking the return of the mosque building, which now houses an art gallery, to the community. “The Stavropol authorities are in no hurry to implement Yeltsin’s decree on the return of religious values,” says Damir Hazrat Gizatullin, chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the European Part of Russia. “The situation is similar in Arkhangelsk, where the local community cannot obtain a mosque building occupied by the utility premises of the Federal Penitentiary Service.” The struggle of Muslims in the Urals is going on with great success. “Not many stone mosques were built on our territory, and almost all of them have already been given to communities for indefinite use,” says Mufti Nafigulla Ashirov, chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Asian Part of Russia. “The last thing we received was a mosque in Tomsk, where V Soviet time a distillery was located. But only the walls remained there: no doors, no domes, no minarets. Restoration requires more than $1.5 million - unaffordable money for the community. The city can’t single them out yet.”

Restitution of the whole country

“The Russian Orthodox Church, as well as other denominations, lost almost all of its property after the nationalization of 1918–1922. In this sense, the return of church property is certainly a fair act,” says Mikhail Shvydkoy. “But it is important that the property was allocated specifically for perpetual use ", and property relations have not changed. The transfer of buildings into ownership can be regarded by other institutions and individuals as the beginning of denationalization. This is an extremely dangerous trend that can lead to a war of all against all." The former minister’s fears are not in vain: in Russia there are supporters of restitution who are ready to raise this issue. “I think in two years, when we have experience with the law on the return of church property, it will be possible to think about secular restitution,” says Advisor to the Chairman of the Federation Council Alexander Chuev, who already came up with a similar initiative when he was still a member of the State Duma of the fourth convocation Secular restitution is the return to the heirs of houses, factory buildings, manorial estates, which was done in the Baltic countries. One can easily imagine the problems that such a step could generate in returning property that was in the hands of the state for more than 70 years and then partially privatized after 1991. But if the Russian Orthodox Church is possible, then why can’t other institutions and private citizens, robbed by the Soviet government?

The loudest conflicts around church property in recent years

The Valaam Monastery was revived in 1989. In 1992, the museum was closed and the buildings were transferred to the church. Since 2003, civilians began to be forcibly evicted from the archipelago.

The Valaam Monastery was revived in 1989. In 1992, the museum was closed and the buildings were transferred to the church. Since 2003, civilians began to be forcibly evicted from the archipelago. Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Kadashi (Moscow), where the All-Russian Art Scientific and Restoration Center named after Academician I.E. was located. Grabar, was captured by a crowd of believers in 2004. In 2005, the capital authorities decided to transfer the building to the Russian Orthodox Church.

In 2006, the Ryazan Kremlin art and architectural museum-reserve complex was transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church. Among other things, the diocese received buildings for secular purposes, for example, Oleg's Palace. Similar situations in the Torzhok and Alexandrov Kremlins.

In the fall of 2007, the Solovetsky Nature Reserve, included in the UNESCO list, by order of the government, officially transferred more than 300 buildings to the Solovetsky Monastery.

In the summer of 2008, with the help of bailiffs, the Russian Orthodox Church occupied the premises of the Historical and Archival Institute of the Russian State University for the Humanities on Nikolskaya Street. Before the revolution, part of these premises belonged to the Zaikonospassky Monastery.

Beloved brothers and sisters in the Lord, dear friends, hello.

Some time ago, a regular meeting of the Commission on Religious Associations under the Government of the Russian Federation took place in Moscow. This is a body that consists of representatives of government agencies, experts, well-known figures in the field mass media, and mainly makes decisions on practical issues relating to the life of religious communities and their relationships with government authorities.

Representatives of religious associations are present as guests and do not have a decisive vote, but usually speak out - and this is natural, this is correct, because issues relating to the life and activities of religious communities, of course, should be considered, it seems, with the participation of representatives of those communities which we're talking about at a commission meeting.

There was talk about the implementation of the law “On the transfer to religious organizations of property for religious purposes that is in state or municipal ownership.” It turns out, unfortunately, that the provisions of the law, which require the transfer of property to religious organizations within a maximum of six years after their conversion, are not always implemented. Various excuses are being found for not transferring buildings at all or delaying their transfer for many decades to come.

Unfortunately, there are periodic calls to revise this law and find some loopholes that would make it possible to abandon the obligations taken within its framework. And this again brings us back to the discussion that arose at the time of the development of this law. The law was a compromise; it involved a very long coordination of positions, and then, when individual provisions were discussed, the arguments that are now being voiced against its implementation were already expressed.

We were often told back then: “It is impossible to transfer such a large number of buildings in a short period of time - six years. There are no funds to move people out of these buildings socially significant institutions— in particular, museums, hospitals, schools, universities.” They tried to tell us that we should, in principle, abandon the idea of ​​returning these buildings, because there would be no one to maintain them, because there would be no one to restore them.

There was also a completely different position, the correctness and naturalness of which many people still talk about today. We know that in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic countries, all objects of both religious and non-cult property were returned to churches. Full restitution was made. It is no coincidence that today many secular buildings in Vilnius or Riga belong to the Orthodox Church, and it leases them in order to be able to maintain, restore, restore religious and other buildings necessary for religious activities, which were also transferred through restitution.

The Church in Russia, understanding how much time has passed since 1917, understanding the difficulties of full restitution, did not consciously go to demand it. And therefore, as a compromise measure, a scheme was proposed according to which buildings with a religious purpose - not apartment buildings, not agricultural land, not buildings that are not directly related to religious activities, but property of religious purpose - were transferred. And at the same time, the state actually took upon itself the obligation to ensure that socially significant institutions that currently occupy religious buildings are moved to new buildings or premises, and not worse in size and character, and no worse located. Unfortunately, not everyone understands this.

In particular, it was said during the meeting that I am talking about today that, as part of the implementation of the Government resolution, the Federal Property Management Agency sent 15 notifications to the federal executive authorities about the need to provide a list of measures for the release of property for religious purposes. Only four federal executive authorities responded. The rest, obviously, still believe that someone else, or no one at all, should vacate religious buildings and move institutions associated with these ministries and departments into new buildings or premises.

At the same time, a mechanism is gradually being formed related to the fact that any ministry or department under whose jurisdiction a building with a religious purpose is located can and should contact the Federal Property Management Agency and then the Ministry of Finance with proposals on how to achieve the relocation of this or that another institution into a new building and how to obtain funds for this. There is such a possibility, and this was clearly stated during the commission meeting. And this means that state bodies that control this or that property for religious purposes are called upon to help today in ensuring that religious communities receive buildings for religious purposes, and schools, hospitals, other socially significant objects, and other government institutions that today occupy religious buildings have the opportunity not in the worst conditions to find a new home for yourself.

Of course, it is humanly understandable that government agencies that control this or that building are not at all eager to engage in the removal of an organization from this building into a new one, which today is comfortably located in a temple, monastery, Sunday school or seminary. But in order for the mentioned government bodies to still feel their obligation to do this, it is necessary for religious communities, first of all, to submit applications for the transfer of property for religious purposes, and then monitor how the law is implemented, and periodically remind themselves and that they expect to return historical building Churches.

Without the religious community formally filing an application for the return of property, the machine will not start moving. Without reminding believers that they are awaiting the return of the temple, monastery, Sunday school or seminary buildings, unfortunately, this machine will turn very, very slowly. We need to understand this clearly and we need to act.

It was also discussed next topic: there are buildings for religious purposes that are federal property, but at the same time are used by municipal or regional socially significant institutions. These are primarily museums, schools, and other socially significant institutions, and sometimes we are talking about healthcare institutions. The question arises that the rights to this property can be transferred from federal ownership to regional ownership.

A fear arose, and it was mentioned at the meeting of the commission by your humble servant, that in this case the responsibility would be removed from the state for ensuring that the buildings in question would ever be transferred to the Church and financial assistance would be allocated for so that the institutions currently located in these buildings receive a new home.

Let's look more specifically. What situations and how many buildings are we talking about? So far we are talking about nine objects - however, similar situations can be identified in a significant number of cases. There are seven objects in Yaroslavl region. These are church buildings that house quite significant museums, such as the Yaroslavl State Historical-Architectural and Art Museum-reserve, Yaroslavl Art Museum, Pereslavl-Zalessky State Historical, Architectural and Art Museum-Reserve, and so on. Relocating these museums to new buildings located in historical places is very, very expensive. It is clear that the regional budget is unlikely to accommodate such expenses in the foreseeable future, especially the budget of such a poor region as the Yaroslavl region.

These kinds of situations can arise in many places. And as a result, during the work of the commission, the meeting participants came to the conclusion that the possibility of the federal budget participating in the work related to the relocation of those regional institutions, including cultural institutions that today occupy church buildings, to a new building cannot be completely ruled out. It was proposed to the Ministry economic development Russia and the Russian Ministry of Finance to jointly make an explanation regarding how the issues will be resolved financial security and budgetary investments, including from the federal budget, associated with the relocation to new buildings of those structures that today occupy buildings that are churches and other objects of church property.

By the way, after many years of postponing the issue, a bill has made a little progress, which lifts the ban on state funding from the federal budget for restoration and repair work at sites cultural heritage, historical and cultural monuments that are transferred to the ownership of religious associations. New edition The law “On objects of cultural heritage, historical and cultural monuments of the Russian Federation” passed the second and third reading in the State Duma, but was rejected in the Federation Council and, obviously, conciliation procedures will now take place. However, a big step forward has been made because, as many people know, the bill in question long years was between the first and second readings in the State Duma.

Another topic that was raised at the meeting was the implementation of teaching comprehensive training course"Basics religious cultures And secular ethics» in the fourth grades of secondary schools. A fairly detailed report was given on how this course is taught. These are the data given: 45.8% of students study the fundamentals of secular ethics, 31.2% - the fundamentals of Orthodox culture, 18.8% - the fundamentals of world religious cultures, 3.7% - the fundamentals of Islamic culture, 0.4% - the fundamentals Buddhist culture, and about 0.1% study the basics of Jewish culture or do not study modules related to this subject.

Unfortunately, it turns out that in some regions, in particular in the Republic of Tatarstan, they are trying to deprive students and their parents of the opportunity to choose between the six modules that I just mentioned. It is the opportunity to choose that is the basis of the system that has been introduced throughout our country, without exception for one region or another, in accordance with the law and government regulations and in accordance with the practice that is probably the best in the world. Let us hope that free choice will be ensured, that no one will try to decide on the basis of their own political or personal will that in one region or another people can study, let’s say, only the basics of secular ethics or the foundations of all the world’s religious cultures taken together, but not can study the basics of Orthodox culture or the basics of Islamic culture.

By the way, one interesting thought was voiced during the meeting: some people believe that the basics of secular ethics are the basics of etiquette, and they choose this course precisely for this reason. It must be said that the course itself does talk a lot about etiquette, and therefore the choice is not entirely strange. The developers of the course on secular ethics themselves put a lot into this course regarding etiquette. The question arose: shouldn’t this course be renamed the fundamentals of secular morality or the fundamentals of morality for non-believers? Who knows, maybe there will be more clarity in this case.

Here are a few words about those rather complex, but at the same time discussed in a constructive spirit, issues that are on the agenda of church-state relations today, along with many other issues on which we sometimes argue, on which there are often divergent positions, but which, in the end, must be settled and resolved on the basis of consent government agencies and religious organizations, for the good of our people, so that people can live unconstrainedly and freely according to their faith and, despite existing differences in conviction, to work together for the common good of the people.