Big biographical encyclopedia. Reformer in the chair of an official Kharchev Council for Religious Affairs

The years of the second half of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexy (Ridiger) once called the time of the "second baptism of Russia." Indeed, at first the Soviet, and then the Russian state during this period went towards the believers. Barriers were gradually removed: they stopped persecuting people for performing “religious rites,” public church events were allowed, churches were handed over, leaders of the “party and government” began to meet with clerics.

Today, those days are forgotten. It seemed that quite recent, almost yesterday's history suddenly began to plunge into the abyss of ideological layers, myths and stereotypes. To understand a little about the facts of this time, we publish an interesting interview with the chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs Konstantin Kharchev.

Despite the fact that the material is devoted mainly to the events that took place around the relations between the state and the Moscow Patriarchate, it indirectly reveals the most important historical information about the events in the Old Believers of the same period. So, for example, Konstantin Kharchev dwells in detail on the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Russia. Events associated with it were widely held in the Old Believer spiritual centers, including Rogozhskoe (this will be discussed in our future publications). It also becomes partly explainable why many Old Believer churches were unclaimed in those years and to our days have been transferred to other faiths or sold into private hands. It is interesting that Konstantin Kharchev, having now become a believer, expresses his opinion why the mass churching of the 90s did not serve as a real spiritual transformation of the country.

Konstantin Mikhailovich, in April 1985 you had already worked for several months as chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs. Did the historic April plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU become a turning point in the history of relations between the Soviet state and religious organizations?

The party leadership came to the need to somehow normalize relations with believing citizens of the USSR even before the April plenum. Studies have shown that believers in the country are a significant proportion of the population. Not only was there no decrease in their number, but a gradual increase continued. In 1983, a party directive was adopted to celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia. It was adopted at the request of the ROC. There was a special letter from the Patriarch and the Synod, who asked to be allowed to celebrate. They were allowed, but within the church.

In October 1984, I was appointed chairman of the council, an institution that was ideological in nature. Of course, I started my duties with the appropriate attitude. Nevertheless, certain trends were visible even before the start of perestroika. When I was appointed to the council, Zimyanin, secretary of the Central Committee, received me. He told me:

We will forgive you everything, except for one thing - if you quarrel with the Church.

These words are not thrown around. Later, I concluded that the top of the party had already formed the opinion that there should be a Church in a socialist state.

When the acceleration course was announced in April 1985, it was necessary to attract the sympathy of the entire population to the plans of the government. The council was faced with the task of involving religious organizations in the plans for perestroika.

Was this point of view immediately accepted?

No, at first, out of inertia, they tried to respond to the increase in the number of believers with calls to intensify atheistic educational work. The ideological inertia was still very strong, the authorities saw religion as an ideological competitor, not an ally. When the April plenum passed, it was necessary to put its decisions into practice. However, besides the need to look for new approaches to revitalize the social life of believing citizens, the plenum did not specifically recommend anything. Moreover, the thesis about strengthening atheistic education was again voiced there. And at the 27th Party Congress it was the same.

So, perestroika did not initially imply surrendering the positions of state atheism?

Nothing of the kind was meant. They only recommended finding approaches to strengthening the atheistic education of the working people. The most difficult thing was to determine the place of the Church and believers in perestroika. There were no directives, including from the ideological departments of the Central Committee, which supervised us. And we started with the simplest. We made it so that the potential of believers was fully used. Believers were considered outcasts. At that time, few people in the labor collective could publicly confess their faith. Therefore, we decided that the believer should feel like the same Soviet person as everyone else. It was necessary to give signals on behalf of the state. First of all, give them the opportunity to freely practice their faith, including starting the return of churches. By 1985, the number of churches had been reduced to a minimum. There were less than 7,000 Orthodox churches left. The churches of the largest community, the Orthodox, began to open. The Orthodox Church was more or less tolerated in the USSR. The Russian Orthodox Church was the largest religious organization integrated into the state long ago, even usurped by it.

How did perestroika begin in relations between the Soviet state and religion?

The slogan of perestroika was: "Return to Lenin." Lenin's writings nowhere speak of the suppression of religion.

Yes, there were tactical instructions related to the current situation: at some point he could say that, they say, in such circumstances we can ignore the "priests" and even shoot them. But on a strategic scale - only an ideological struggle. The Church is a competitor of the Communist Party as the dominant ideological institution of tsarist Russia. The Bolsheviks at first suppressed the Church as their ideological competitors, but under conditions civil war this suppression, of course, proceeded by force of arms. And when power was established, unfortunately, the methods of dealing with the ideological competitor remained the same. Why? They were simpler, did not require costs and, most importantly, qualified personnel, which the Bolsheviks did not have. We began to pursue a policy that we considered Leninist. Believers cannot be suppressed, they have nothing to do with the church elite, they only need one thing: give free communion with God.

We carefully studied Soviet legislation and found that there are no prohibitions against religions in the Constitution and laws. But there was a whole layer of resolutions and decisions of the Council for Religious Affairs, which did not fit into any legislative framework, but were adopted by the Council on the initiative of party bodies and thus received legal recognition. In these decisions there were all sorts of absurdities, reaching the point of absurdity, for example, they limited the ringing of bells to two minutes. Explanation: What if schoolchildren hear, it prevents atheists from sleeping! Baptism only upon presentation of a passport. Do not appear on the streets in church vestments. We started by canceling all these decrees by our own decision. Temples began to open.

What was the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church?

Mostly benevolent, this reaction can be described as: "Wait and see." However, some of our actions caused discontent. It turned out that they affect material interests. This happened after the abolition of the order to perform baptisms only upon presentation of a passport. The fact is that priests, at the request of citizens, bypassed the rule, but for a certain bribe. People were afraid, especially party members. After all, immediately after the ceremony, information went to the place of work, and citizens found themselves in disgrace. Priests baptized secretly, at home, but for increased remuneration.

Met some resistance and our decision to open temples. This time at the clergy. There are the same number of believers, the same amount of money comes in, and there are more churches. Funds began to dilute. Bishops' incomes began to fall. I do not remember a single request from hierarchs and priests to open churches. They were afraid. They were flesh of flesh Soviet power. Look at their biographies - they are all the same. Some of them in their youth were even secretaries of primary Komsomol organizations. Then they created "biographies" for them. Slowly dragged through the main stages of the church career. They had to go through the post of rector of the academy, then the ruling bishop. They were translucent, as if on an X-ray.

Petitions to return the temple came to us from ordinary believers. Once a month, on Saturdays, the Council for Religious Affairs organized a reception for believers from all parts of the Soviet Union. It was a whole pilgrimage. The Council building was literally packed with people. One request: open the church. Prayer house. Mosque.

Much happened at the initiative of the Council. I do not remember that someone in the Russian Orthodox Church asked us to return the Tolga Monastery, Optina Hermitage. Optina Pustyn was offered to be returned by Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev. Calls me, asks: "How?" I say: "This can only be seen in a dream." He: "Let's try!" So they passed it on. The Council appealed to the Central Committee, they say, at the request of the Church ... The Tolga Monastery was returned in general only by the decision of the Council. Even more a prime example- Solovki. It was 1988. And they decided to give Solovki. Famous monastery! Take it! Didn't take...

How? Why?

We agreed this issue with all the members of the Synod, except for Patriarch Pimen. They were called to a Council meeting. Everyone agreed. But there was no patriarch. He was sick. I could get to him, but I did not go, so as not to disturb the sick person. It seemed to me that everything was so obvious that it was in the interests of the Church. I went to the islands, agreed with the local authorities. They were also in favour. We wrote a note to the Politburo. Then already, after the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of baptism, the mood of the authorities allowed us to hope for a positive response. Two days before the secretariat of the Central Committee, where the issue was to be decided, there was a call: “Has it really been agreed with the patriarch?” It became clear that someone had reported to the Central Committee that Kharchev was allegedly forcing the Church to take over the monastery without their consent.

I ran to the patriarch: “Your Holiness!” I always addressed him like that, although it was just a name or patronymic or “patriarch”. He liked it very much. Pimen lies in a sick cell. “Your Holiness, your confirmation of the transfer of the Solovetsky Monastery is required.” No answer. Then he says, "I can't." - "Why?" “There are too many of our bones.” “But the whole history of Christianity stands on the bones.” And again: "I can't." I went to duty assistant Fyodor Sokolov: “Fedya, what’s the matter?” Wrinkles. "Was there anyone at the patriarch's?" Wrinkles. "Who?" - "The highest rank of the KGB." I got it. That same evening I withdrew the note. The monastery was never handed over at that time.

Why is the Church now so actively advocating mass construction of churches in cities?

I served as chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs for almost five years. During this time, the Church has not received a penny from the state. They lived on their own means and even gave to the struggle for peace. And now? They gave the Novodevichy Convent to the Russian Orthodox Church. And who is restoring the bell tower after the recent fire? Who pays for the construction of Russian Orthodox Church churches abroad? The sleeping areas of cities are being built up with typical temples, and rural churches are still in ruins. Why? There is no material interest in restoring them.

When the Danilov Monastery was handed over to the Russian Orthodox Church before the millennium, the Church restored it with its own money. We helped in a different way. They gave their construction contractors, building materials, other funds, which was also a lot, because it was impossible to buy. Planned Economy! The council organized a headquarters for the construction of the Danilov Monastery, and I headed it. I remember once they figured it out: they stole 3 tons of copper. They were there in the evening, not in the morning. It turned out that they dragged their own for "personal" monasteries.

Then the Church was really separated from the state. Only through our Council could she interact with the state authorities, including on financial issues. No bishop had the right to address an official directly. At that time, this system ensured a real separation of the Church from the state, which, in essence, means the separation between the power of the church and the power of the state. Now there has been a merger of power. Yes, there was strict control then, but it had its own meaning.

When the mass opening of churches began, the ROC had a hard time without state support. Only Orthodox churches were opened two thousand across the country. The communities were then busy rebuilding them from ruins, hiring a priest, buying utensils and vestments. It's all expensive.

Did the party nomenklatura resist the opening of churches?

We opened each one with a fight. In the regional centers of the church there is a window to the window with the regional committee. And suddenly the bells ring! This conflict between the Soviet and the party organs spilled over into the pages of the press. There was such a publication in Ogonyok: “Will Constantine be a saint?” I still keep! Faced with the resistance of the ideological bodies of the Central Committee. After all, behind them were people and their interests. Entire armies of atheist propagandists, printed publications, travel expenses and so on. When we gave up the Tolga Monastery by our decision, only Yakovlev approved this decision in the Central Committee. And in the council itself, not a single decision passed unanimously.

Two or three years passed, and the mood of the party elite changed. Especially after the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia. At the top, they were preparing for a regime change. We needed an ideology. And here she is at hand. A ready-made Orthodox ideological machine with a thousand-year history.

Party leaders began to ask to be introduced to this or that bishop. This was done different ways. They put the bishop on a plane, on which a party leader was flying somewhere in the region. Or it happened during business trips. Party members couldn't just come to church. At that time, direct contacts between church and state authorities had already begun. This was the beginning of the merging of power.

Why did you organize these contacts, violating the established principles of the relationship between the Church and the state?

We then thought that the understanding of the problem by the top leaders of the party through personal contacts would help the liberation of the Church. Anatoly Lukyanov, who was then the head of a department of the Central Committee, in early 1988 instructed us to work out the question of the place of the Church in the structure of future state administration based on presidential power. Although then everyone denied that preparations were underway in the USSR for the creation of the post of president. The formation of the new government, which replaced Gorbachev, did not take place in one day. After 1991, the ROC really turned out to be inscribed in power. It turned out about the same as under the king. The church is a state department. Now she is in direct contact with all ministries and departments, concludes contracts, and tells us how to live. Of course, they do not need the Council for Religious Affairs with its control over the actions of the leadership of the Church in such conditions.

What about the Council members themselves? Were you tempted to exercise your control power?

There were cases, not without sin. I had a deputy, to whom the clergy carried boxes of cognac and who, at the same time, sometimes “pulled them by the hair.” They depended on him: whether or not he would allow a trip abroad, whether he wanted to be assigned to a good hospital. There were also more serious curiosities. After the meeting of the Council and the departure of the guests, I usually asked the assistant to check the premises. Then the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church were invited. I was an ambassador, I know these tricks. One day he sees: they left the case. Who was sitting here? No one has ever sat in this chair! He invited a commission of three people: open it! There are about 150 thousand rubles. Made an act. Nobody claims. So we ran around with these 150 thousand for two weeks. The Ministry of Finance does not take it: they require you to indicate the source of funds. The KGB also can not capitalize. They took it away only two weeks later. It's like in the "Golden Calf" happened. Of course, the money was not intended for charity.

How did the top leadership of the country feel about your reforms?

Gorbachev always had a neutral attitude to the issue of relations between the state and the Church. No matter how much I hinted and asked, in all the time I never met Gorbachev. I saw him only once, when, in connection with the 1000th anniversary, he received the patriarch and members of the Synod. Now I think that Gorbachev's neutral position was not the worst decision. The General Secretary then met with churchmen for the first time in decades. Before that, there was only the famous meeting of Stalin with the metropolitans in the Kremlin in 1943.

Yakovlev played a colossal role in the restructuring of relations between the Church and the state. He understood that the democratization of the country must begin with an attitude towards the Church, towards the faithful. Without him, reforms would not have been possible, because they tried to remove me every year. There was a meeting of the department of the Central Committee, back in 1987, at which we reported on preparations for the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of baptism. We were mixed with mud there. One of the leaders of the current Communist Party also spoke. Then he had the opposite position in relation to the Church, purely party. Sometimes it came to scandals.

You say that the Russian Orthodox Church fully provided for itself, but the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia was not without the support of the state?

Yes, we helped them. But how? The state provided a venue for celebrations, security, provided preferential conditions for movement for guests, hotels. Of course, here, without the state, they simply could not do anything. It was a public holiday. But no money was given directly to the Church. They organized a big banquet in "Prague" for their own money, paid for hotels. A concert at the Bolshoi Theater - yes, organized by the Ministry of Culture. But it was a state event, Gorbachev's wife, Raisa Maksimovna, was present there.

Why is she?

When the Council was developing a plan for the celebrations, it was supposed to start the holiday with a religious procession, which was supposed to begin in the Kremlin, near the Patriarch's Chambers. It did not pass. The majority, including the hierarchs of the Church, are in favor of making the solemn meeting the center of the celebrations. In a calm Soviet style. It was decided to hold the meeting at the Bolshoi Theatre. The presence of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU was planned. Rejected from the door. The government was represented by Nikolai Talyzin, First Deputy Prime Minister. At the last moment, a sensation: there will be Raisa Maksimovna Gorbacheva.

I went to Yakovlev to consult: with whom should she be planted next? On the eve of the solemn day, we coordinated this issue all day and could not agree on it. I called Yakovlev, he consulted with someone upstairs. In the end, he told me: pick up the most prominent bishop in the first row of the presidium, so that she, as a woman, would be pleased. The most imposing was Metropolitan Filaret (Vakhromeev) of Minsk.

In general, the issue of seating guests was important. Where to plant Catholics, whom the Soviet regime could not stand? Where - the Jews, so as not to offend? After all, assistance in contacts with the American side largely depended on them.

Of course, everyone squinted at Raisa Maksimovna. The presence of the first lady of the state gave a special flavor to the celebrations. I had not met Raisa Maksimovna before, but I always had great respect for her representational activities. In some ways, she was akin to Margaret Thatcher, with whom I was lucky enough to spend several unforgettable hours one on one. I accompanied her to the Sergius Lavra on the eve of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia. Both of them were a model of female attractiveness and regal-imperious behavior in public.

Already 15 minutes later, sitting with Thatcher in ZIL on the way to the Lavra, I realized that she understands the relations between the Church and the state in the USSR no worse than I do, and frankly, without diplomacy, answered her difficult questions. It seems we have found a common language.

With Raisa Maksimovna cordiality did not work out. There was a protocol. It felt like I didn't fit in. Why? Don't know. She was pleased with the organization of the celebrations and the concert. At the end of the concert, she leaned over to me and said: "Konstantin Mikhailovich, this is your finest hour." At first I took it as praise, and when I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that the “finest hour” could also mean the end of a career. Once you reach the top, then go down.

One of the results of your work was the law on freedom of conscience in its first edition, of 1990. How did the idea of ​​legal regulation of religious organizations come about?

It was the need of the times. In 1943, Stalin, figuratively speaking, gave the Church a residence permit in the Soviet state, but not citizenship. Citizenship is a law. Therefore, it was necessary to adopt a special law giving believers and the Church full rights. The Council has developed such a project. In coordinating legislation, all departmental interests collided. The Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs put their signatures. There were objections from the State Security Committee regarding alternative service in the Armed Forces. We did not agree with this, and the project left without editing them.

Then the law was necessary, but now it has lost its meaning, moreover, it has turned into a collar for religious organizations, which is constantly pulled by the authorities. The church has become a state within a state. Today it makes sense to abolish this law, and religious organizations should act on an equal footing with other public organizations and obey common legislation for all.

Freedom is not only rights, but also duties. This fully applies to the Church. The main goal of the Church is the salvation of the human soul. As Seraphim of Sarov said, save yourself - and thousands around you will be saved. The Church has a duty to be a moral example. As perestroika shows, they have given freedom, but so far it is bad with duties. Apparently, state control is needed here. Then it was the Council for Religious Affairs. In my opinion, it was precisely the control functions of the Council that became the decisive reason for its liquidation. Already under the new patriarch, at the request of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Council was liquidated. And before that, they removed me from my post on the letter of the metropolitans.

But after all, the letter against you was written under Patriarch Pimen?

Yes, but Pimen did not see this letter. He was already in a very bad state. It was signed by four metropolitans. Alexy (Ridiger) also initially did not want to sign. He had nothing to be offended by me. The first to sign were the metropolitans: Filaret of Kyiv (Denisenko), Filaret of Minsk (Vakhromeev), Metropolitan Sergius of Odessa (Petrov), the manager of the Patriarchate. Gorbachev signed the order for my dismissal, and most likely did not even understand what was the matter. I was later told that at the same time he signed 200 documents, and in general he was more interested in other cases.

That is, all the main contenders for the patriarchate of that time signed? Change of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia - after all, too milestone in the history of perestroika?

Yes, in 1990 the patriarch was replaced. I was no longer chairman. But preparations for the elections were going on even before Pimen's death. A fierce struggle ensued. Pimen asked to remove Alexy (Ridiger), who had been the manager of the Moscow Patriarchate for 25 years, away. He was transferred to a department in Leningrad. It was decided to make the elections of the patriarch free. Previously, the Council of Religious Affairs recommended to the bishops who to vote for, and they did not dare to disobey. It was bad, but the patriarch was chosen in the interests of the state. So, at one time they did not choose Nikodim (Rotov), ​​because he pursued an ecumenical policy of rapprochement with Catholicism. His activities were beneficial for improving the image of our country, but he was no longer suitable for the patriarchate. Catholic Church was then on the list of enemies of the USSR. Alexy was also not a favorite. The Council did not recommend him as a patriarch. In conditions of freedom, Alexy was chosen. Why? Hard to say. Perhaps, being the manager of the Russian Orthodox Church for 25 years and managing all the financial and economic affairs of the Church, he could better prove his superiority to the voters.

Our first place was taken by Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko) of Kyiv. This was explained by the fact that the majority of believers and parishes were on the territory of Ukraine. Filaret was an outstanding church diplomat. If he became a patriarch, today he would not let the Ukrainian believers move away from Russia. I think he would have made his own adjustments to the "Russian world" project. Is it possible to divide Christians into Russian and non-Russian worlds?

Despite the competition, all applicants had one interest: to escape from the financial control of the state. Then a stream of believers poured into the ROC, incomes increased. Employees of the Council reported that when, for example, the caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra were discovered, money was carried out from there in bags without any accounting. And it was also in the time of Philaret.

How did the standard of living of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church change during perestroika?

The first thing I understood when I came to the post of chairman: the hierarchs of the Church live the same way as the party elite. Nothing worse. They differed only in that they had more freedom in acquiring material benefits. The council gave apartments to the hierarchs. Addressed to me, for example, the same Alexy, I passed the request to the Council of Ministers. And there, as a rule, they did not refuse. Out of turn, they were given the same area as top-level party workers. For example, in Moscow they received a three-room apartment for one. They rested in the sanatoriums of the Central Committee. The bishop, as a rule, was provided with a 3-4-room suite, and more rooms for his guards and all the serving mothers.

They were not paid a salary, the ROC supported itself. But since there were few churches, and many believers, they always had money. Here is an example. We are going abroad together with the hierarchs. I get $26 in travel allowance per day. I'm afraid to go somewhere else. And the bishop, who is with me, invites me to a restaurant. I told him, "I can't." And he: “Don't worry,” and shows a wallet full of dollars. Who exchanged those dollars for him? State. Their money was exchanged for foreign currency. for their international activities. Approximately 3 million dollars were allocated per year. And the rate was, it seems, 50 kopecks per dollar.

Did other religions also feel relaxed during perestroika? Gorbachev received the head of the Unification Church Moon, didn't he?

Moon is money, capital. Then he was needed. Gorbachev was "slipped" on it. He did not accept other Protestants. We tried to put all religious movements in the same conditions. Synagogues were opened. Rabbis began to be trained in Hungary. In Moscow, they began to produce matzah. Krishnas were recognized at the request of the Indian ambassador. He called me and said: “As an ambassador, I ask you to see how you can help?” A decision was made, and for the first time our Hare Krishnas went to a convention in India.

Did you pay attention to whether the organization is of foreign origin or domestic, “indigenous”?

Then there was a slightly different approach. Many non-Orthodox Christian denominations were viewed in the USSR not as spiritual communities, but as purely anti-Soviet organizations engaged in subversive activities. In this sense, the ROC, especially its leadership, was under great control of the authorities. Nevertheless, the restructuring of relations between the state and religions concerned not only Orthodoxy, but also Islam, Judaism and other traditions.

In those days, Muslims were divided into traditional and non-traditional? Did they understand the danger of Wahhabism?

No, then there were no Wahhabis, because there was no influence of foreign Muslims on ours. The borders were closed, foreign "teacher" personnel did not come. An interesting story is the return of Osman's Koran to believers (the oldest manuscript of the Koran that has survived to this day. - Approx.). She showed how deep the faith of Soviet Muslims was. At the request of the Council, it was decided to hand over the Koran to the believers. This was an indicator that we are not only returning the holy relics to the Orthodox. The Koran was returned to the mosque. A huge number of believers gathered at the handover ceremony. There was security, the police were raised to their feet. They were knocked down, crushed. We couldn't get through to the platform in the square. The mufti had guards, strong guys. They had to work pretty hard with their shoulders and fists. Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin later recalled that the faithful jumped from apartments on the second floor just to touch the Koran. I was lifted onto the platform on my shoulders. Scary! I thought they would crush. In 1921, even Lenin handed over this Koran to Muslims, then his state took it away.

Probably, in the Muslim regions, the revival of religion was easier than in the European part of the USSR?

I remember how a madrasah was opened in Baku. When I arrived in Azerbaijan, Pasha-zade, now a living mufti, asked to open a madrasah. There was no religious school in Baku. The local party authorities did not agree, they fought to the death. I went to the members of the Republican Politburo. They sit, they are silent. I felt embarrassed. The Council for Religious Affairs agreed, but they are resisting! I could not stand it and said that I was ashamed that I, a Russian, asked them, Muslims by origin, to open a madrasah! I asked them: do not vote, who is “for”, who is “against”, just keep silent. And this was decided. No one could say yes, but no one said no either.

I have already used this technique before, when in Smolensk the council decided to open a cathedral. Kirill (Gundyaev) was then the archbishop there. He was sent there at the end of 1984, when he was removed from the post of rector of the Leningrad Theological Academy. He arrived in Smolensk, and there was devastation, temples in desolation. On the spot he was met by a local representative of the Council, placed, patronized. Not a single hierarch could do anything without our collaborator. Yes, the diocese was really poor. The council decided on the opening of some churches, and life slowly improved. Cyril gave me an icon of the Mother of God, in a silver setting. She is still at my house. Like the fold, donated by Patriarch Pimen.

On what occasion?

Probably for memory. For the fact that the Council helped to provide him with a ZIL government car. At first he had a Volga, a pretty decent one, and another cabriolet, a battered foreign car. At that time, ministers drove Volga, and only party leaders drove ZILs, there were a little more than a dozen of them in all of Moscow. The patriarch was ill, could hardly walk, he himself was overweight. Once I noticed that he had difficulty getting into his Volga. She's narrow. It became awkward. Set out to change the car. It was necessary to coordinate this with the patriarch. Somehow they were sitting in the Yelokhov Church, where they have a room under the dome. We were celebrating an anniversary. Approached him, told about plans to change his car. He looked at me, said nothing. The man was careful. Then his entourage comes up to me, passes the icon - a gift from the patriarch.

I ask: “How did the patriarch react to my proposal?” He: "Very well!" Then they asked the Council of Ministers to give something, a used car after a minister or a member of the Politburo. I called the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Nikolai Ryzhkov. It must be said that he always treated the requests of the Church favorably. And this time he offered to prepare a letter from the Council for Religious Affairs. Literally a week later, he called back and said that they had found a ZIL. Get it, he says, from the chairman of the KGB. He changes the car, and gives his own, only the special equipment will be removed. Transferred. Some time passes. An assistant to the patriarch comes in and asks to go downstairs: Pimen is waiting in the car. I look: sitting, the door is open. Gorgeous ZIL. Pimen says: “Konstantin Mikhailovich, please take a ride with me for the first time in a new car!” Sat down to him, went to Peredelkino to his residence. Here the most interesting began. The police don't know who is in the car. Everyone knows this car as the car of the KGB chairman. The light is blocked, guards salute. Pimen was terribly pleased.

Have you ever encountered dissident priests such as Pavel Adelgeim, Gleb Yakunin, Lev Regelson?

I had to. Then I got to know them. Just released from prison Yakunin. At that time, they had a good attitude towards perestroika. We met them on the street, they were all afraid that they were being tapped. But the Council did not deal with them. They, like dissidents, went along the line of the KGB. Interestingly, not a single hierarch of the Church at that time remembered that they were in prison.

During perestroika there was an attempt to bring the Church into power. Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger) was even elected to the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. What for?

Yes, it was with me. We even recommended him, and Pimen, and others. It seemed to us then that there is nothing wrong with the fact that the clergy would call from the stands for peace and compassion. We have a democracy. The question arose: what to do with religious figures? We wrote a note, gave candidates. Then they themselves refused to be represented in the legislative authorities, but not because of altruism, but because, together with everyone else, they had to be responsible for the decisions of the authorities. I think that the presence of clergy in the deputy corps would be useful now. Then the true attitude of the Church to certain decisions of the authorities would be clear.

How would you assess the results of perestroika 30 years later?

The question is not easy. It may seem like a fantasy, but I believe that the reforms should be continued. Changes are required today both in relations between the Church and the state, and in relations within the Church between hierarchs and priests, believers and clergy. Indeed, here big problems. Look at the position of the priests. Many compare this position with a slave. Apparently, changes are needed in the charter of the Church. I say this as a believer. Bring the charter, finally, into line with the charter of 1918, the time of Patriarch Tikhon. Then, perhaps, the Church will indeed be a brotherhood of fellow believers. In relations between the Church and the state, it is necessary to separate church power from state power. How? We need an independent state body that is not accountable to the executive branch, perhaps under parliament. Perhaps then no one will remember the corruption in the Church.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Konstantin Mikhailovich Kharchev(May 1, Gorky) - Soviet party and statesman. Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador .

Biography

With three years of age and until the end of the seven-year school in 1948 he was brought up in an orphanage.

In 1961-1964. First Secretary of the Vladivostok City Committee of the Komsomol.

In 1980-1984 - Ambassador of the USSR to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.

In November 1984 he was appointed chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. As Kharchev himself noted, since the state used the Church for its foreign policy activities, “when in 1984 the question arose of finding a new chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs, one of the main requirements for the candidate was<…>so that he “necessarily had experience in foreign policy work, preferably in the rank of a diplomat” .

According to Kharchev, it was he who, in 1986, proposed to widely celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia in order to strengthen the foreign policy image of the Soviet Union: “By that time, the USSR needed Western help, since the country had problems with the economy, they began to take more and more for borrow money abroad. The leadership of the state formed an opinion that from the point of view of foreign policy tasks and strengthening the positions of the CPSU within the state, it is necessary to change the policy towards the Church.

Under the chairmanship of Kharchev, the Council registered almost two thousand religious organizations, facilitated the transfer of religious buildings and property to them, streamlined the regulatory framework, including the abolition of secret circulars of the 1960s. When asked why he, a member of the CPSU, a long-term secretary of the Primorsky Regional Committee of the Party, suddenly began to open churches, celebrate the 1000th anniversary and cause dissatisfaction with the Politburo, Kharchev today answers: “We were simply returning to the Leninist norms of life. You remember that perestroika began under this slogan. Yes, and in our constitution, Stalin's, it was said: believers have the right. So we began to do as it is written.

Such active actions of the Council for Religious Affairs, according to Kharchev, “met with fierce resistance from the staff of the propaganda department of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the entire multi-million army of those who then fed themselves from atheistic propaganda. As a result, they managed in 1989 to achieve my removal from the post of chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs.

On September 11, 1990, by decree of the President of the USSR, he was appointed Ambassador of the USSR to the United Arab Emirates. After the collapse of the USSR, he became the Russian ambassador to this country.

On August 15, 1992, by decree of the President of Russia, he was relieved of the post of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Russian Federation in the United Arab Emirates.

After the liquidation of the CPSU, he did not join the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, explaining this as follows: “I will not go there; this is not the CPSU. I am a Monogamous" .

From 1993 to 1998, he worked in the central office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation: Chief Advisor of the Department for Relations with the Subjects of the Russian Federation, Parliament and Social and Political Organizations of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Engaged in teaching activities; Professor of the Department of International Law of the Russian State University of Justice.

Notes

Links

• Reformer in the official's chair Curriculum vitae and interview in NG Religion September 17, 2008
• Konstantin Kharchev In Yakov Krotov Library

AT recent history The Russian Orthodox Church has recorded the names of its outstanding figures - archpastors, clergy and clergymen, hundreds and thousands of laity who contributed to the revival of church life in Russia at the end of the 20th century. Among them, undoubtedly, is the name of Archpriest Theodore Sokolov.

Claiming this, I share not only a personal, subjective impression, but I give an objective assessment from the "other side". For several years I had to head the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR (the state body of Soviet power that regulated the activities of the Church in the country.) And on duty I often communicate with the future rector of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Tushino, Father Theodore. At that time he was an assistant to His Holiness Patriarch Pimen. He had yet to restore his temple, gather one of the largest communities in Moscow, lay the foundation for new relations between the Church and the Army, reconcile with God hundreds of lost souls in places of deprivation of liberty, and consecrate more than a dozen churches throughout Russia. And I had a short period of work ahead of me in the state field for the benefit of our Church and people.

After my resignation, I retained the most friendly relations with the entire Sokolov family, which makes it possible to combine an objective and subjective assessment of the personality of Father Theodore, and his death, which showed us all how short our life can be, forces us to take up the pen without delay.

Referent - a position that is not very high in the table of ranks: assistant, secretary. By position, he is not directly responsible for decision-making by the first person, despite the fact that he prepares this decision. But Fyodor Sokolov turned out to be an assistant to His Holiness the Patriarch at a time when relations between the Church and state power were just beginning to warm up. In this situation, his every word took on a special meaning. Of course, Fedor discussed all issues with the brothers, of course, he consulted with his wise dad, Archpriest Vladimir Sokolov. It was so with them: not a single issue was resolved independently. The Sokolov family is a collective mind.

Natural talents, spiritual strength, which Fedor drew from frequent services, being also a subdeacon with His Holiness Pimen, helped him to carry a difficult burden. I can testify that all questions to His Holiness Patriarch Pimen were prepared with his direct participation. He knew everything about the Church, he knew everyone in the Church.

My communication with him was initially limited to "working contacts". The interests of the Church and state power converged on both of us; we were the pillars of the bridge between them. Of course, the other referents of His Holiness Pimen, the brothers of Father Theodore: the future Bishop Sergius and Father Nikolai, were the same "supports".

Even before my conversion to the faith, I tried to understand why, having given 25 years of service to the party, and even as secretary of the regional committee in charge of ideology, the Lord chose me to mediate between the state and the Church, who, like quarreling children, were afraid to reach out to each other. . For now, insults are almost forgotten, through drying tears I see that he is ready to make peace, because I native brother, but...

But the old winds are still blowing in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The verified, minted decision of the party regarding the upcoming celebrations associated with the 1000-year anniversary of the Baptism of Russia, emphasizes the division of society into "us" and "they." Our church is separated from the state, and let it celebrate its anniversary, "not sprawling." It was decided that the authorities at all levels would not participate in the upcoming celebrations. However, in 1985, M.S. was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Gorbachev, and the attitude towards the Church began to change slowly. But even before his election, the loyal attitude towards the Church of some high-ranking party leaders caught my eye at the time of my appointment to the post of Chairman of the Council in 1984.

I got to this position from ... English penal servitude. For more than four years he represented the interests of the USSR in the Republic of Guyana, a former English colony, where the "humane" British exiled their criminals. The climate there is such that the average life expectancy of the Guyanese barely reaches 35 years, and therefore the Metropolis, not wanting to stain its hands with the blood of its compatriots, sent its criminals there. But I ended up in Guyana by decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, with the active efforts of M. A. Suslov, though not in shackles, but in the rank of ambassador.

By the time my American exile ended, I was summoned to Moscow. Having retrained from party workers to diplomats, I counted on a new appointment: I was assigned the post of ambassador to Nicaragua, and I was preparing to move there, but the Central Committee had a different opinion. They urgently needed someone to fill the vacancy for the post of chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

Applicants for this position were nominated by two people - the secretary, I think, of the Sverdlovsk Regional Committee and myself. The requirements for us were as follows: not older than 50 years old, practical; knowledge of international work and significant experience in the field of ideology at the level of the secretary of the regional or regional committee of the party. We both fit these criteria.

Although the post of chairman of the Council was an honorary one - after all, a position in the rank of minister of union significance - but my "rival" did not want to leave him as secretary of the regional committee. The 1st secretary of the regional committee stood up for him and defended. I was also pleased with the new diplomatic share (hard labor was over) and was not eager to change the freedom of the ambassador to the framework of the minister. But there was no one to put in a good word for me, and, despite my refusal, the secretary of the Central Committee, Zimyanin M.V., began to prepare my candidacy for approval. I remember he then said:

Given your unwillingness to leave diplomatic work, we will have to use the principle of party discipline.

My appointment took place, but before that, in our last conversation, Mikhail Vasilyevich uttered a phrase that is very important for understanding the new relationship between Church and state.

Remember, - he said, - we will forgive you everything: any mistakes and sins. We will not forgive one thing - if you quarrel with the hierarchy.

"Wow, - I thought to myself, - and for the members of the Central Committee, the priests are some kind of beginning."

I entered my new office no longer an atheist, but not yet fully aware of my condition. I talked with churchmen and saw their sincerity, I understood that even if they deceive others, you cannot deceive yourself. It means that they are sincerely believing people, and there is something in it. So my soul gradually matured to accept the faith, and about a year later I was baptized in the Church of the Resurrection of the Word at the Vagankovsky cemetery by Father Nikolai Sokolov. He made no secret of his decision, although he understood that such an act would hardly have been understood by my colleagues from the apparatus of the Central Committee and the highest party power. But I could no longer be outside the Church and carry out the work for which the Lord had chosen me.

For the first year, I only got to know the course of affairs, got to know people, delved into the peculiarities of relations between the state and Church authorities, comprehended church etiquette, and so on. At that time, the Church was preparing for the anniversary celebrations on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. Back in 1981, the Jubilee Commission was formed under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Pimen, who led this work, but it was carried out under the close supervision of the Central Committee, which issued the famous decree. The attitude of the authorities to the forthcoming celebration was quite tough, and I came to the post of chairman of the Council, being obliged to be guided by this very decision. But as soon as the position of M.S. Gorbachev, not only hostility or wariness immediately disappeared, but even a certain reverence for the Church arose. One could cite more than one name of the most famous party leaders at that time, members of the Central Committee, whom I, at their request, introduced to the highest hierarchs.

My first visit to the Patriarch was truly an event. Kuroyedov, my predecessor, used to summon the Patriarch to his place, and everyone got used to it, but I came myself. It was then that I met the Sokolov brothers.

From the very beginning, I had mutual sympathy with the closest assistants of the Patriarch. They were his chief consultants, took part in all negotiations and personal conversations of His Holiness Pimen, conducted his correspondence, called up and met with people on his behalf. They were an extension of his hands and eyes, which was extremely important for him, at that time already a seriously ill elderly man.

The first practical matter on which we came into close agreement was the enormous work of preparing materials for the glorification of Patriarch Tikhon. Considerable efforts were needed to restore his honest name, to remove the stigma "enemy of the people." The church hierarchy, which for decades was in a subordinate position to the state power, could not yet dare to take such a bold step. We had to do it together.

I had already gotten a little used to the place and began to think about the role of Patriarch Tikhon in the history of our society, about his wise leadership of the Church, about those steps of his that turned out to be the only correct ones, because he was guided not by the situation of the day, but by a higher goal. It was he who paved the way for the Church into a new historical era, he preserved it at the cost of the greatest sacrifices, including his own life.

You won’t immediately go to the members of the Synod with this, but my relations with the guys were very simple. There was no distance between us that is always present between a bishop and a layman, and this helped the common cause. We met at all events with the participation of the Patriarch. Every day I called them up, found out the state of health of His Holiness. My relationship with the brothers was not only simple, but also trusting. I did not hesitate to ask them about everything that was not clear to me, and they helped me to delve into a new field of activity for me.

The restoration of the name of Patriarch Tikhon is the fruit of our joint efforts. The brothers then took care of the documents, collected everything. We found an opportunity to organize a series of publications in the press and rehabilitated Patriarch Tikhon. And Patriarch Pimen then not only contributed, he pushed this process.

With the participation of the Sokolov brothers, an active return of church buildings began. They immediately felt the "wave", and reacted to changes faster than many bishops, realizing that the authorities can not only not be afraid, but also use the moment. When I took office, the Council had about 4500 churches, and by the celebration of the 1000th anniversary there were 2500 more.

But if the hierarchs nevertheless got used to the new trends in the Central Committee, then discontent grew on the other side of the "bridge". The first secretaries of the regional committees were resolutely against the return of church buildings. "What do we give away? There is, you know, the building of the regional party committee, and on the contrary - the church, which has long been adapted for warehouses or some kind of cultural institutions. To ruin an established life and listen to the bell ringing under the windows of the regional committee? But what about the religious ideology ?" Of course they were against it. Somehow they agreed to give up some out-of-the-way church, but the city's cathedrals - by no means.

And what happened in Ukraine?! There was a real war between the local authorities and the Council for Religious Affairs, which firmly took the position of the Russian Orthodox Church.

I remember what a big part all the Sokolovs, especially Fedor, took in the restoration of the Danilov Monastery. The monastery was returned to the Church in 1983, but active work on its restoration began later. Prior to that, there was a colony for juvenile delinquents, and it was necessary to turn the prison into the residence of His Holiness the Patriarch as soon as possible - for the upcoming celebrations on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia.

Of course, everything there depended on the secular authorities, on the Council for Religious Affairs. I sat in the monastery all day as a foreman and held planning meetings. The volume of work was colossal: restoration work, reconstruction, underground premises and, most importantly, a new building - the residence of the Patriarch.

It so happened that we first saw the layout of the residence building together with Father Theodore. For some reason, I was embarrassed by the lack of any symbolism on the building. I then turned to Fedor. I remember our conversation now.

Listen, - I say to him, - doesn't it seem to you that the building looks a lot like an ordinary institution? Still, there is nothing "patriarchal" about him. And what if you decorate it with the icon of the Savior? Look from the point of view of the canons, the general perception, would it be appropriate here?

He took up the issue in his own direction, I - in my own. And our offer passed.

Then Father Theodore came in handy with knowledge of construction and a taste for mosaics. He used them in his Transfiguration Church. As during the restoration of the Danilov Monastery, he also had to be at the forefront of disputes over the use of elements that were not traditional for Moscow church architecture. They demanded ordinary paintings from him, and he insisted on the only mosaic church in Russia. Then one had to have great courage to go against the established traditions, and in addition to courage - a sensitive soul, like his, to do the will of God, and not just be stubborn. Now, after his death, it can be argued that the Lord Himself led him by the hand.

There were no big or small cases in our work with him, all were equally important. Each of our steps required reflection, discussion. Even such a thing as gifts to His Holiness the Patriarch. In general, everything that concerned the personality of Patriarch Pimen was extremely important for the position of the Church in society, everything played on its authority. I can’t remember exactly on what occasion, but it seemed to me very timely to note the growth of the Patriarch’s authority with the authorities. Yes, many of the party dignitaries were drawn to the Church, some saw in her elevation a guarantee of the "irreversibility of the processes of perestroika", but how to demonstrate this to the people, how to emphasize respect for the Patriarch? And I decided to petition for the allocation of a ZIL car to him.

It was a political act. Until now, only members of the Politburo have ridden ZILs. In insignia, in the symbols of Soviet power, this machine was associated only with the highest power in the country. Moving around the city in such a car, the Patriarch, with his triumphal passage, testified to the people that the state authorities recognized his authority - he was equated with members of the Politburo, and from now on religion is no longer "opium for the people", and going to church will no longer entail tragic consequences.

But this project of mine still had to be "run in" at all levels. I began with the nearest cell-attendant of the Patriarch, Father Theodore. It was on the eve of some feast of the Most Holy Pimen, either the day of the Angel, or the day of his enthronement. I call Feda and say:

What do you think can be given to the Holy One to please him and, at the same time, somehow elevate him?

I can't even imagine, he says. I thought for a long time, went through the options in my head, and then I say:

What if we give him a ZIL?

I felt that he simply did not believe me. Maybe he thought that I was playing him, but he reacted quickly:

Throw this thought to His Holiness, listen to what he has to say.

And so, in the refectory of the Elokhov Cathedral, the permanent members of the Synod, the inner circle of the Patriarch, several other people and Protopresbyter Father Matthew Stadnyuk gathered around the table. I usually sat at the right hand of the Patriarch at all meals, and at Fyodor's signal, I quietly say to him:

Your Holiness, how would you react to the request of the Council for Religious Affairs to provide you with a Zilov car?

The patriarch froze. Usually he ate well, but then he stopped, looked at me, and everyone at the table fell silent. The pause was cleaner than in Gogol's The Government Inspector. Minutes pass - everyone is silent, the second - everyone is silent. I, too, am silent, picking at my plate with a fork.

The Patriarch spoke first. The wise man immediately turned the conversation to another topic.

Lunch is over. Well, I guess it's a denial. The question is so delicate. He understands that before I start to act, I must obtain his consent. Later I will write on his behalf: "Council for Religious Affairs, with approval or at the request...", etc. These are my questions, but I first need to enlist his support.

After dinner I - to Fedor.

You see how awkward it all turned out.

You did everything right.

Then Father Matthew Stadnyuk suddenly comes up and says:

Konstantin Mikhailovich, I would like to give you a present, - and he takes out an old-fashioned fold, - but I only have a request for you: that this thing never leave your house.

"Aha, - I think, - judging by the act of Father Matthew, one can understand that my grain fell on good soil."

Fedor calls me a day later and says:

Konstantin Mikhailovich, I can note with satisfaction that the Patriarch accepted your proposal positively.

So I can call "upstairs"?

His Holiness will be very glad if this work succeeds.

Two weeks after my call to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR N.I. Ryzhkov, a written appeal to him, the matter came to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev, and only then a resolution of the Council of Ministers was issued. But even after the decision was issued, I had to bother: call the Administration of the Central Committee of the CPSU, look for a dedicated car. It was not in the garage of the Central Committee (there were only 12-15 of these cars, and they were all serviced in a special garage), it turns out that it was still in the KGB. The fact is that the Patriarch was given the car of the Chairman of the KGB of the USSR Kryuchkov, and he was given a new one.

A few days later, I'm sitting in my office, suddenly a call. Secretary reports:

Konstantin Mikhailovich, Patriarch to you.

"What, - I think, - happened?" I never summoned him. My office was on the second floor, and how will he, the poor man, go up to me?

Who is there with him?

Yes, Fedor has arrived.

Let him come in.

Fyodor enters, smiling. I ask:

What are you?

The patriarch wants to ride with you in a new car.

I have affairs - above the head, and the offer is absolutely inopportune. And outside the window the birds are singing, in front of me is a smiling Fyodor, from whom it literally blows in the spring; in general, I put aside all the cases and decided to ride.

We go down, there is a ZIL without numbers, and in it is the Patriarch. Of course, all the KGB equipment was removed from the car, it was equipped with a special chrome-plated handrail, so that the Patriarch could easily get into it. Great car, just the way it is!

Through all of Moscow we went to see him in Peredelkino. All militiamen salute us. ZIL is coming! What's the red light - solid green.

The Holy One travels contented. We arrived at Peredelkino, his residence. Everything is brand new there, only everything was repaired for the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. He says:

Well, let's "wash" the car. I can’t have more than a glass, but you drink at least a bottle.

We sat down at the table, drank, talked, and then he told me how they reacted to my project in Yelokhovo then.

Here, under Fedor, I can say, he will confirm, I did not believe that you could organize such a thing. And no one at the table believed.

So, after a not very large-scale event, the church hierarchy finally believed that the authorities could do something for the Church. This story reminds me every day of a silver fold - a gift from Father Matthew.

But it would be a mistake to present the ways of rapprochement between the Church and the state as a straight road. After all, on both sides there are people, and we are all full of personal virtues and shortcomings.

I remember one of the receptions in the Kremlin. His Holiness Pimen had about two years to live. He felt very bad and sat in an armchair in the banquet hall. Behind him stood Father Theodore. And around the situation is quite a buffet: the guests smile at each other, clink glasses. The host of the reception, Mikhail Sergeevich, moves between them together with Raisa Maksimovna. I was supposed to be around. We approach the Most Holy Pimen. The Gorbachevs smile, greet each other, and Mikhail Sergeevich asks His Holiness a question:

How are you feeling, Your Holiness, how are you?

The patriarch thanks, nods his head, and he continues:

If your God does not help you, please contact us. We have the 4th Main Directorate, we will help you.

Whether this tactlessness was thought out, or Mikhail Sergeevich joked so awkwardly, I can’t say. Only Father Theodore and I (we later compared our impressions) had an unpleasant aftertaste from this contact. All the newspapers then walked around the picture" historic meeting". Fortunately, I did not get into the frame.

The reception in the Kremlin was one of the most important events on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary, which I was busy preparing for almost four years. Unfortunately, not all of the plans were realized. For example, despite our efforts with the Sokolov brothers, the Holy Synod abandoned the idea of ​​holding the main celebrations on the Cathedral Square of the Kremlin. His Holiness Pimen could not insist on this project, being only a member of the Synod. For some reason, the hierarchs wanted to sit in the Bolshoi Theater at a concert, instead of returning the chambers in the Kremlin to the Patriarchal Church even then.

Be that as it may, the celebrations were a resounding success. Even Raisa Maksimovna noted:

Yes, Konstantin Mikhailovich, this is your finest hour.

She said this phrase during a concert at the Bolshoi Theater. I then came home and thought about her words for a long time. People of this level are usually not specified. Is it possible that the decision on my matter has already taken place and that I again have a new career ahead of me?

The premonition did not deceive me. A year later, the Holy Synod asked the Central Committee of the CPSU to liquidate the Council for Religious Affairs, and, being already an Orthodox Christian, I left the post with the thought that I had done everything I could for the good of our Church. The secular and church authorities learned to be friends, and, thank God, they no longer needed the mediation of a special body.

The holiday ended, the toasts died down, time ran forward and, it seems, forever took away from us an amazing era - the beginning of the spiritual rebirth of our people. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II called the anniversary celebrations of 1988 "the second baptism of Russia", and the UNESCO General Assembly - "the largest event in European and world culture." This is an objective assessment of events. And the participation in them of the late Patriarch Pimen, Bishop Sergius and Archpriest Theodore Sokolov forever remained a reality of Church Tradition, the history of our Fatherland.

1988 A representative of the Moscow Kremlin Museum and Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) of Rostov sign an act of transferring Orthodox relics to the ownership of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the center in the background is K.M.Kharchev.
Photo from the archive of Anatoly Leshchinsky

The problems of the relationship between religion and society, religion and the state in Russia remain quite acute - this is evidenced at least by their regular discussion in the media. The question is periodically raised: does our country need a state body for religious affairs? In Soviet times, such a body existed. It was the Council for Religious Affairs (CRA). This year marks the 65th anniversary of the creation of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, which was later transformed into the SPDR. In this regard, the editor-in-chief of NG-Religions met with the former chairman of the SPDR, Konstantin Kharchev, with whom we offer our readers an interview.

– Konstantin Mikhailovich, allow me to introduce you. You were the ambassador of the Soviet Union to Guyana, then the chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the rank of minister, and, finally, the ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. You tried to become a reformer of the Church while sitting in a bureaucratic chair, which in itself is very difficult and even contradictory. I ventured to present you as a reformer. Do you agree with this?

- In my opinion, the word "reformer" obliges a lot.

– I remember that you were one of the participants in the Church and Perestroika Conference.

“I would not call myself a reformer personally. Almost everything that the Council for Religious Affairs did in my time was the complex, painstaking work of all its employees. It is hardly possible to call our work reformism. Rather, it was not reformism, but the implementation of a new state policy towards the Church. That, at any rate, was how I understood my appointment and my task when I came to work on the Council. There was perestroika, and it consisted (we believed in it!) in the revival of democratic principles in all spheres, including in the field of relations between the Church and the state. We did not have the goal of reforming the Church - this is not the business of the state, on behalf of which the Council spoke. We simply tried to formulate and implement a new state policy towards religious organizations. The task was set to reform the life of the entire Soviet state and society, and this could not but affect the religious life in the country.

– When you talk to the former head of the state agency for religious affairs, your namesake Konstantin Pobedonostsev, a man who pursued the policy of the Russian Empire in the Church, involuntarily comes to mind. Did you feel yourself a conductor of certain influences, or did you have any ideas or attempts of your own, if not to reform the Church, then at least to breathe a new spirit into the life of religious organizations of the Soviet period?

– I don’t know how appropriate such a comparison is, but Pobedonostsev, like the Council for Religious Affairs, at one time implemented the state’s policy towards the Church. And this is the similarity between our work and his. After all, the state is interested in believers being citizens of their country, so that they understand and accept the tasks of the state, and support it. If a believing citizen sees that the state is suppressing the Church, treats the faith and the believers with disdain, then, of course, he will not trust the state and make efforts to maintain it. In this regard, our goal was the same - for the believers of our country to feel like full-fledged citizens, feel protected, and have the opportunity to freely practice their faith.

- In this case, the question arises: was it necessary to protect the believing citizens of the USSR at the time when you became chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs? And if protected, then from what?

- First of all, from violations of the constitutional foundations of relations between the Church and the state, from encroachments on the freedom of conscience proclaimed by the Constitution.

- Was the legislation in the sphere of religion backward and did not correspond to the spirit of the times?

- Of course, it did not meet not only international legal acts, but also the Constitution of its country. Coming to the Council for Religious Affairs from the diplomatic service, I considered it quite natural that the basis of relations between the Church and the state should be based on approaches generally recognized in international practice.

- Simply put, you had to somehow resist the rabid atheistic line of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU Central Committee) in order to defend the interests of believing citizens ...

“I would say a ley line. It must be admitted that there were attempts to "influence" the work of the council, especially on the part of some workers of the Central Committee of the CPSU. But the time was already different! We were embraced by the ideas of perestroika, and we wanted, of course, to introduce a new, fresh stream into our work, into state-church relations.

– Which of the ideologists of perestroika at that time spoke in favor of the state protecting the rights of believers? Who was against?

- Everything that we managed to do in a fairly short period, namely: the registration of almost two thousand religious organizations, the transfer of religious buildings and property to them, the streamlining of the regulatory framework, the abolition of outdated and odious circulars, the opening of monasteries - Danilov, Tolgsky, Optina Pustyn, church schools - all this could not be carried out without the appropriate decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The leadership of the Politburo, represented by the secretaries, did not provide us with much support in this matter.

But it must be borne in mind that two trends fought in the Central Committee itself: perestroika and conservative. Such confrontation went on at the middle and lower levels.

Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, who at that time headed the ideological department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, provided us with great help and support. It was only with his assistance that the council decided to open the Optina Hermitage. This was the first time that the Council of Religious Affairs had given permission for the opening of a monastery, in an unprecedented decision. During the preparation of the law on freedom of conscience and religious organizations, Valery Legostaev (an assistant to Politburo member Yegor Ligachev) provided us with serious support. But, for example, Central Committee Secretary Vadim Medvedev or Deputy Head of the Central Committee Department for Ideological Work Alexander Degtyarev, on the contrary, interfered with our ideas in every way, were opponents.

I must say that it was quite natural. During the years of Soviet power, a whole layer of atheistic figures was brought up, who literally lived in atheism. Enormous state money was then allocated for atheistic propaganda, and these figures, if religion and atheism were equalized, would lose not only their ideological positions, but also their material well-being.

– All critics of the perestroika period say that the council performed the same functions as the State Security Committee, persecuted and controlled believers, and restricted the freedom of religious life. Some even believe that the council was simply a branch of the KGB.

“Maybe it used to be like that. But in the 1980s the situation was different. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the KGB, as a state agency, pursued the policy of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and implemented the relevant directives. True, and directives can be executed in different ways. Many KGB officers at the highest level during the period of perestroika did everything possible to streamline relations between the Church and the state. Yes, we also had serious disagreements with the KGB on fundamental issues. However, of course, it is not worth blaming the entire responsibility for the difficult relations between the Church and the state on the KGB workers. In this regard, I would remember with a kind word such leaders of the Fifth Directorate of the KGB as Bobkov and Abramov ...

- Let's explain to readers that the fifth department dealt with the problems of religion in the KGB. And it was supervised by one of the deputy chairmen of the committee, General of the Army Philip Denisovich Bobkov.

By the way, he comes from a simple working family. He was a sergeant and became an army general. With his head, with his service to the Motherland, he achieved everything. And I dare say that without the assistance of people like Philip Denisovich, we would not be able to solve many issues.

- I would like to verify the truth of some of the reports that I have heard. Namely: they say that the KGB sometimes even raised before the Council for Religious Affairs, before the Central Committee of the party the question of ... the need to publish the Bible in the USSR. Like, the border guards report that foreigners often smuggle Bibles into Soviet Union. However, the Bible itself is neither a Soviet nor an anti-Soviet book, but is a monument of culture and religious thought. In this regard, the KGB allegedly came up with an initiative: why don't we, Soviet citizens, publish it in a certain circulation, so that at least the believers would have it? And it had an impact. In particular, the Moscow Patriarchate published several editions of the Bible, and the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christian Baptists also published books of Holy Scripture. How true is this?

- It's true. Moreover, in matters of publishing religious literature, we acted together with both the clergy and the KGB. For example, the Institute for Bible Translations in Stockholm, with donations from Christians in Northern Europe, issued 60,000 copies of the three-volume edition of the Explanatory Bible, edited by A.P. Lopukhin. It was a gift to the Christians of our country in connection with the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. So, without the consent of the committee, we simply could not transport this literature across the border.

It has been almost 20 years since the Council for Religious Affairs ceased to exist. This is enough time to look back a little, cool down and learn from what was and how it was. The period of the 80s requires fundamental research that will put everything in its place. Including clarify the role of the KGB at the stage of perestroika. In any case, this was an important milestone in the life of our country and in state-church relations, which was marked by celebrations dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia, which took place in 1988 not only in Moscow and Kyiv, but also in other cities of the country.

Let's go back to the 1940s for a while. After all, the very creation of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943 was initiated by the NKVD, as evidenced by the transcript of the conversation between Stalin, Beria, Molotov and the NKVD colonel Karpov, who was specifically responsible for church and religious issues.

I dare say that this is an exaggeration. The political decision was made by the leadership of the country. But the preparation and supervision of this issue were entrusted to the NKVD. In particular, as General Pavel Sudoplatov testifies, the NKVD, represented by the Main Directorate of State Security, taking into account the patriotic role of the Russian Orthodox Church during the war, approached the country's leadership with a proposal to legalize the Church, expand its activities and elect a Patriarch.

- The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, according to Stalin, was supposed to bring to the realization the ideas of the government regarding religious life, and this concerned not only the Russian Orthodox Church, but also other religious organizations. For what later, by the way, the Council for Religious Affairs was created, and then these structures merged. All this, in my opinion, quite convincingly indicates that the state in the period before Khrushchev tried to normalize religious life in the country.

– There is one nuance here. Today we do not discuss the question of why Stalin made such decisions. Apparently, the decision to normalize relations between the Church and the state was based on purely political tasks. Of course, it was the most difficult time for the state. It was the height of the war, when it was not yet clear who was who, when it was necessary to mobilize all forces. It was a kind of counterbalance to Hitler's church policy, which played on the shortcomings and omissions of the Soviet government and began to flirt with the Russian Orthodox Church by opening churches in the occupied territories ... But today we are not talking about motives. Today we are talking about results. We acknowledge that at that time it was accepted the right decision. The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was created at one time as a guarantor of the implementation of legislative norms. It was a kind of buffer between the Church and the government. This concerned not only the Russian Orthodox Church, but also other religious organizations. Indeed, it was under Stalin that the Council for Religious Cults was organized, headed by Polyansky.

– What can be said about the Khrushchev period? Why did the role of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church begin to change?

– It is difficult to talk about this today without having the relevant Politburo documents at hand. Based on the available materials, one gets the impression that Khrushchev, against the backdrop of exposing the cult of personality and Stalin's activities, sought to show that everything was bad under Stalin. He looked for mistakes and easily found them, this also affected Stalin's policy towards religion.

- This is probably the darkest period in the life of the Council for Religious Affairs? When the council had to perform the functions of no longer protecting believers, as it was from 1943 to 1957, but rather a punitive body of an atheistic state ...

Nowhere is such a change in policy documented. Moreover, if all this was enshrined in law, then, as they say, God bless him, this is the policy of the state. But here this state policy was hidden, and its implementation, without any legislative basis, was entrusted to the Council for Religious Affairs. That is, the council has become an instrument of "crackdown", and not in the hands of the government, but in the hands of the party leadership.

Indeed, having no legal basis, the Council for Religious Affairs at that time began to implement the directives of the Central Committee, which became binding on everyone. And by doing so, he actually created lawlessness. Therefore, during the period of perestroika, when we began to pursue a balanced policy, we were forced to revise all departmental acts adopted in the previous period - for example, with regard to whether parents are required to have a passport with them when baptizing their children, is it possible to ring the bells for more than two minutes and at what time.

After that, we acquired a lot of ill-wishers, including among the clergy. For example, we allowed children and adults to be baptized without the passport data of the baptized or their parents being recorded in church books. (Very often, the fact of baptism became known at the place of work or study of citizens, and they were discriminated against.) It would seem that the Church should have welcomed this. But some of the clergy accepted this decision without enthusiasm - because, bypassing this requirement, they received remuneration from believers, which was illegal. We opened new churches - and again met with resistance from part of the clergy. Why? The fact is that earlier the Church had income from a certain number of parishes; when new churches were opened, money had to be distributed for their restoration, for the maintenance of the staff, and so on. As a consequence, parish priests' incomes declined.

You mentioned finance financial difficulties. Today it is clear that the state allocates funds for the restoration of certain church monuments, and partially subsidizes church education. The Church is also actively supported by big businessmen. In Soviet times, the church fund was formed from private donations from parishioners. But what can be said, for example, about the restoration of St. Danilov Monastery? Was the church budget involved here, or did the state allocate money?

- Let's remember what the economy was like then? Planned. A nail, a log, cement, roofing iron, even with money, could not be obtained without a warrant. And whose construction companies were? State. And who restored the Danilov Monastery? State restorers. The state and the Church acted together.

- During your time, there was no budgetary funding for religious organizations?

“Then let’s go back in time. In 1961, the ROC became a member of the World Council of Churches and a number of other international religious organizations. After all, she had to pay membership dues there ...

“And it was church money. The church was a self-sustaining organization. In financial matters, the Church was separated from the state.

– In the World Council of Churches or in the Conference of European Churches, Soviet rubles were not perceived as a full-fledged currency...

- Rubles at a preferential rate were exchanged for foreign currency. The US dollar at that time was worth 60 kopecks.

- The ROC also sent its delegates and representatives abroad, they received travel allowances. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, who worked abroad for five or even more years, also received a salary. On what money did they live abroad?

- They were transferred money from the USSR. The state annually exchanged about $2 million for rubles for religious organizations to ensure their work abroad.

- That is, the state itself did not pay any money and subsidies?

- Not. The principle of separation of church and state was strictly observed.

– It is known that the SPDR was involved in the personnel policy of religious organizations. There is no doubt that you coordinated all issues with the Central Committee of the CPSU. Did the Central Committee actually have any priorities? Which of the hierarchs did they like best? Who would they like to see as a Patriarch?

– Prior to the meeting of the members of the Synod with Gorbachev in 1988 in the Kremlin, members of the Politburo had not officially met with the hierarchs. Later, we were often asked to be introduced to this or that high-ranking hierarch. And that's when favorites appeared, possible candidates for the patriarchal throne... Then the opinion of the Central Committee about the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church was formed based on information from both the KGB and the council. And if the two points of view coincided, then a decision was made. All the Patriarchs were chosen very simply: each bishop knew in advance who to vote for, they had a preliminary conversation with him. This was the responsibility of the authorized local councils. So it was until the death of Patriarch Pimen. Then they decided to give the hierarchs complete freedom - let them choose for themselves. Passed the first free elections, which was won by Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger).

– We followed the activities of the Council for Religious Affairs step by step. Is there a need for such government agency?

– I think there is. Relations between the Church and the state, which can be traced through historical examples, play a very important role in strengthening the state and stabilizing civil society. After all, we are talking about the masses of believers, holding on to their religious beliefs, who unite around the Church or community. The state should not be indifferent to whether their rights are respected, whether their freedoms are guaranteed... This means that some kind of controlling body is needed!

- So you are tending to the fact that the Church and religious organizations were left without control?

– The point is not to control the activities of the Church, but to control the implementation of legislation on freedom of conscience and religious organizations. And there should be a body, such as the Ministry of Justice, which monitors the implementation of this legislation.

- So, maybe the activity of the Ministry of Justice exhausts this controlling function?

- Not. The Ministry of Justice deals with both political parties and public organizations. The religious sphere is much broader than that of public organizations, it has its own specifics. The state should have a body that will not only monitor the implementation of legislation relating specifically to religious organizations, but also implement the state's policy regarding religious organizations. In addition, laws should adequately reflect and take into account this policy, be improved - and this should also be done by a special body. The Council for Religious Affairs was just such a body. Its analogues are preserved today in many former republics of the USSR, even in a number of regions of the Russian Federation (for example, in Tatarstan), and in practice they justify their existence.

– Konstantin Mikhailovich, what would you like to say to our readers in the end?

- Taking this opportunity, I want to address through your newspaper to all believers who survived the years of communist rule. On behalf of all employees of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, all my predecessors as chairman, I want to ask them for forgiveness for the fact that the previous government was mostly unfair to them. For the fact that it limited their religious life and brought great grief to many of the believers. Today, together with you, I am glad that this is already in the past, but I am even more glad that I and my employees brought this present time closer as best we could.

KHARCHEV KONSTANTIN MIKHAILOVICH 1935. In 1988, chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. In 1989-1992, the USSR Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, later Chief Advisor of the Department for Relations with the Subjects of the Russian Federation, the Parliament and Social and Political Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

His memoir about his work in the council in connection with Fr. Feodor Sokolov, .

K.M. Kharchev: "The Church repeats the mistakes of the CPSU."

Interview of the last "Minister of Religions" of the USSR

10 years ago, one of the most odious institutions of the Soviet era was closed: the Council for Religious Affairs. Rumor firmly associated him with the persecution of believers. But out of only four chairmen of this body, there was one under which the direction of the work of the Council for Affairs ... turned upside down.

From 1984 to 1989 this organization was headed by Konstantin Kharchev, who had to carry out "perestroika" in the spiritual sphere. It was under Kharchev that the Council for Religious Affairs first began to open churches and mosques (several thousand were opened), because of this it came into conflict with local authorities, with the Politburo and the KGB (who considered such a restructuring too "fast").

The culmination was the all-Union celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia, about which Metropolitan Yuvenaly, a member of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), still says: "We were sure that it would be a small family holiday. And then it turned out ..." 1000th anniversary of Kharchev and not forgiven besides, the disassembly connected with the election of a new patriarch was approaching.

But in the end, Kharchev became famous in another unexpected way: the members of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, clearly catching the negative moods of the Central Committee, wrote a slander and went to complain about Kharchev ... to the Politburo! (The only such case in the entire history of the church.) As a result, Kharchev, once called to the post of chairman of the Council from the post of ambassador to Guyana, again left as an ambassador: to the United Arab Emirates.

And the metropolitans received a faceless leader under the characteristic surname Khristoradnov, who, in a year and a half, together with the synod, successfully transferred part of the functions of the Council to the Russian Orthodox Church and led it to close. When asked why he, a member of the CPSU, a long-term secretary of the Primorsky Regional Committee of the Party, suddenly began to open churches, celebrate the 1000th anniversary and cause dissatisfaction with the Politburo, Kharchev today answers: “We were simply returning to the Leninist norms of life. You remember, perestroika began under this slogan.

Yes, and in our constitution, Stalin's, it was said: believers have the right. So we began to do as it is written. " Today Kharchev is not a member of the Communist Party. He says: "I will not go there; this is not the CPSU. I am monogamous." But he remained a communist in the romantic sense of the word from the dawn of perestroika and glasnost. He still says: "working" instead of "Russians", "church" instead of the correct self-name of the confession, and simply "party" when he has I mean the CPSU.

So we left the interview in the text, which was taken by the Novye Izvestia columnist Yevgeny Komarov.

- Konstantin Mikhailovich, 10 years have passed without the Council for Religious Affairs. What changed?

The relations between the state and the religious sphere, which were set by the Council in the last years of its work, have not changed: in general, everything is moving along the rails that we embarked on in 1987-1990. The times when a believer was not considered a person, they were not allowed to pray in the church, they will never return in Russia.

In the 1980s, the party finally realized that the future could not be built on the suppression of religion. But if the Soviet state did not have to resort to the moral authority of the church, since its authority was already indisputable among the working masses, then the situation turned out to be the opposite for the new state that Gorbachev was building. With the collapse of the Soviet system, all the old values ​​flew to hell.

The state no longer had moral authority, it was forced to go and occupy it wherever possible - first of all, from the church - the benefit of the values ​​there are eternal. And this is where everything changed. When the church felt that it was impossible to do without it, it began to dictate its terms. First of all - material. Under the guise that the people must repent, they said that, first of all, the people must repent from the treasury.

They began to give budgetary funds for the restoration of churches, all kinds of financial benefits and quotas. - You want to say that the church took advantage of the right moment to simply improve their financial situation? - She acted quite naturally, any department would take the same position. You perform state functions, become an ideological shield of power - you claim a part of the national wealth. Like a salary.

- Are you talking only about the ROC?

This is true of all religions, but to varying degrees. The same with Muslims (depending on the region and national autonomy). AT lesser degree- with Protestants. Have you ever heard the church condemn the pulling away of the state, "predatory privatization", denationalization and the collapse of enterprises? What about the collapse of the USSR? No, she sanctified it all, and got her share for it. It is easier for everyone to fish in troubled waters. There can't be a healthy church in a sick society: in one apartment everyone suffers from the same diseases.

- And what does the liquidation of the Council for Religious Affairs have to do with it?

And that's why they liquidated it: it was a control body that did not allow stealing. We did not go into the dogmas of faith (they didn’t matter to us), but we controlled the per diems that the hierarchs received on business trips abroad. Do you understand? The state allocated more than US$ 2 million each year for the international activities of the churches alone. When there is privatization, why is there control of some kind of council?

And the state gave up this control in order, as I said, to give the church what it asked for in return for its blessing.

- But after all, each department should exist for something, in this case - to conduct its charitable and other social work ...

Even under Soviet rule, we started this process and pushed them to go to hospitals. We allowed them to do - please! - social issues. There was no particular enthusiasm on their part.

And just today, 10 years later, they gave birth to the "Fundamentals of Social Doctrine"! At one time, the Council for Religious Affairs proposed to introduce a voluntary church tax to finance social programs of the church - similar to the one existing in European countries. I discussed this in the Central Committee, with Secretary Zimyanin. He said: "This is too much, not yet in time." But why is no one talking about it now? Because it means control.

If I paid the tax, it means that you can't steal it like sponsorship money. - That is, you want to say that instead of transparent financing of religious organizations, a system of chaotic allocation of various benefits to them has developed, through which other people's money is "laundered". The press wrote that in economic terms, religious organizations today represent a kind of extraterritorial offshore. At what point did this system take shape? - This is without the Council for Religious Affairs. - Good.

But why doesn't the state now put things in order in this area? For example, as part of a campaign to strengthen the "vertical of power"? - This position is beneficial to today's bureaucracy: both church and secular. Both bureaucracies work in the same direction: they don't need a free man. Who sits under whose heel today - the power of the church or the church in power - is no longer clear, they have merged together, in a single "symphony". In fact, in the conditions of today's Russia, it would be more honest to make the church state.

And not just one, but all. It is impossible to further divide religions into "ours" and "not ours": all the religions professed by Russians are ours, ours. If the priest is, like the school teacher, a civil servant, this will mean his responsibility to society, put an end to accusations of financial abuse. The church tax will bring the church budget out of the shadows, will allow the society to make sure that the money really went to charity, and not to someone's pocket.

Let the Duma deputies openly discuss this budget.

- And why don't they do it?

Who is our state now? Clans. You yourself write. Do they need it? The Council of Religious Affairs was advocating a position that would ultimately prove to be unfavorable to either these bureaucrats or others. They realized this very quickly, otherwise they would not have rallied against us.

- Do you mean the situation in 1989, when both the Politburo and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church were dissatisfied with you at the same time?

The point is not that Kharchev was removed.

This is a special case. There was a struggle of concepts. Secretary of the Central Committee Vadim Medvedev was even afraid to show me the complaint of the metropolitans. He talked to me twice for two hours. In addition, there was a struggle for power in the church. One patriarch (Pimen Izvekov) was dying, and someone had to be appointed next. There was the same struggle as for the presidency, with all the dirty technologies.

Did you support the wrong person who won?

I did not support a person. I supported my vision of the problem.

Patriarch Pimen persuaded me for a year to agree to the removal from the post of the then manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate. (He was Metropolitan Alexy of Tallinn, who became patriarch a year later - ed.)

What arguments did he give?

Let's not violate the secrecy of confession.

- What did the metropolitans accuse you of in their letter to the Politburo?

That he wanted to run churches. I sat and made excuses that I didn’t drag anyone by the beard. But listen: The Council was created to govern the churches! And he ruled them all his life.

And not once did any of the hierarchs complain about it. And here they grew bolder, because the fate of the authorities was being decided. New Council just stopped all command. I went to the patriarch and to the session of the Synod, and did not call them to my place, as Karpov and Kuroyedov did. On the other hand, the KGB, the Central Committee had to find a scapegoat after the 1000th anniversary: ​​after all, the party seems to be supposed to fight religion, and then churches open. In addition, on my initiative, a meeting of the Synod with Gorbachev was organized.

- The Soviet leaders only twice met with the church leadership. Stalin in 1943 and Gorbachev in 1988. Was it his desire?

No. He oscillated all the time, like a pendulum. He never even accepted me, even though I asked. He was afraid of the religious question, and only at the last moment made up his mind. Didn't even go to the 1000th anniversary.

- Good. But today the head of state has a confessor, and two concepts of relations between the state and religious organizations have appeared on the Internet at once. What can you say about them?

Paper cost more. In fact, from the point of view of the state, religious organizations are ordinary public organizations of workers with interests. There is nothing unusual about them. Another thing is that there are religious structures: institutions and departments in which professional clergy work. Those are definitely special. But it is necessary to separate the official church structure and believing citizens who unite in public organizations.

For the latter, no special law "on religious organizations" is needed: the Constitution is sufficient. But professional church structures - yes, they need a law, because they want it to give them special privileges. And if we want to talk about freedom of conscience, we must understand the difference between the freedom of a person to practice his faith and the freedom of a department to receive financial benefits.

These concepts that you are talking about, as well as the current law on "Freedom of conscience and religious organizations," hinder the development of religious public associations of workers. Everything is confused there: there human rights are replaced by the rights and privileges of institutions. In 1990, the most liberal legislation in the field of freedom of conscience was developed in the USSR. It was more humane, more liberal, took into account the interests of all confessions more fully than the current law. Nobody was given any privileges.

And now they call "traditional" mostly Orthodox, Muslims (there are many of them and they are afraid), Jews (you can't do without them - they will be hunted down in the international arena) and Buddhists, as the most harmless. Who needs such a law? Just the same bureaucracy. Both church and state: it always has other interests than those of the working people.

- I think the heads of the official religious organizations of our country would hardly agree with you. They claim to be the leaders of the millions of believers.

Still would. They don't want society to control them. - But such public associations of believers that you dream of simply do not exist. Those who are not employed in these institutions do not have any right to vote, they do not influence either the policy of their confession or the appointment of its leaders - even the lowest level. Suffice it to recall that parishioners do not have the right to choose their own rector of the church.

Even in the state, no matter how imperfect its democratic system, there is the election of local governments ... - So I'm talking about what. Recently there was a Civil Forum, you criticized it. But if the executive power has recognized that it cannot govern further without the development of civil society, then special attention should be paid to these public associations of believing citizens. Life has shown that they are numerous and strong in our country: the history of Russia is like this.

Here, they pass the law on parties. But how many percent of people are actively working in our parties? And how many believers? How many go to church? It is necessary to develop public associations of believing citizens - that's where the true school of democracy could be. - It seems that this is not even a question ... - The process is going on, but slowly, as it is hampered by the same bureaucracy. After all, the formation has changed in our country. There used to be a collectivist phase: and in Ancient Russia, and under 70 years of communism.

And now, when there is no more collective property (neither in the communal pre-revolutionary version, nor in the communist collective-farm version), private property is now developing. These changes must be matched by changes in ideology, including religion. Western Europe went through this 500 years ago. Then the Catholics also held the line, their bureaucracy tried to resist, but to no avail. The people realized that the king is not Christ on earth, and the servants are not the apostles.

Then Protestantism arose in the church as a democratic, man-centered structure of church life. He came when it was time to liberate people's consciousness.

- In your opinion, is Protestantism awaiting post-communist Russia?

I am not against Orthodoxy. I am for. I love the Orthodox Church, I am Orthodox myself. But in order to survive in the new conditions, it must change, otherwise it will be swept away by competitors.

After all, she has been on the defensive for a long time and is trying to protect herself from Protestants, from Catholics with the help of extraneous state tools: life itself is crushing her. If the church intelligentsia does not realize this, we will reach a dead end. Or Orthodoxy will adapt to the new conditions, as it has adapted in the USA, in Finland.

Some Marxism...

That's how I was brought up. But here this approach is correct. And tomorrow the state itself will demand it. We do not encroach on dogmas, they suit everyone.

This is their internal affair: if they believe that "all Protestants are assholes" - let them do it. But work with believers must be in line with the democratic path of development. For example, a priest must go to the army. But not in order to educate imperial patriotism and cover hazing, but to fight this hazing. To protect a person, the guys who are beaten. Is this what a priest in the army does today? It was under feudalism that the church supported the state in everything.

And now even the political parties are not all for Putin and criticize him. And look who our church criticizes? Praise to all, bless all, cover all with an omophorion. Is the world that exists in our country divine? Christ's? Are there no more beggars and homeless people? The Church must turn its face to the individual, not the state, to defend the individual, not the system. - How to do it? - To grow strong communities of believers who will say to the priest: “You serve well.

But we will solve earthly affairs all together. "- The people are usually silent. - He is silent for some reason: in order for him to speak, he needs spokesmen for his ideas. And there are none today.

- There was Alexander Men ...

Here it was removed. Whom could he disturb the most? Party and church bureaucracy. Unfortunately, believers are mostly after fifty. When life has already beaten you and you think: "I need to get ready for heaven, why am I going to make a fuss about this? I have already lived my life." Here they are silent.

And young people, you know, strive to make a career for themselves within the framework of the existing bureaucratic system.

The leaders of confessions disperse unnecessarily independent communities. What a lot of examples. For example, the community of Father Georgy Kochetkov. - And he makes the same mistake as my own CPSU. It also eliminated the independence of the primary organizations to such a degree that the entire budget was confiscated from them in favor of the Central Committee. And it ended with the fact that the party organizations began to think: "Why the hell do we need such a Central Committee?" Further you know. They built huge houses of political education, but you had to go to the people, stand in the same queue for sausage with them. Now they also gilded the domes, bought cars for the clergy.

Look, there was never a priest in that house in Mitino. At least once someone came and simply asked: "How are you doing? Do you need any help?" Even the deputies - and they go before the elections. But the priests are not threatened with elections.

- Protestants go...

There is another, democratic, system. There, a believer is a citizen. With the money that went to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, many social programs could be launched. In 1988, that is why I objected to its restoration.

But now they have decided to build a new Palace of Congresses - the example of the CPSU has not taught them anything. That is why they go to the Protestants: they have a person in the structure of real power. There, a person feels like a person, and not a "wheel and a cog" - so who else is a Marxist! They even go to Muslims (there are already a lot of Russians there) - because the umma is an order of magnitude more democratic than the parish. - Is this situation in the highest interests of the state? - Not.

But you understand: bureaucratic bureaucracy is only interested in one thing: to reproduce and maintain their power. And then: where is the Politburo now? Where is the Council for Religious Affairs? Where is Gorbachev? Where is the then Cabinet of Ministers? And only in the Synod - the same people! One person from "candidates" to "members" moved to replace the deceased; the permanent composition has not changed for about 20 years. The bureaucracy has one interest, the working people have another. Some have a hierarchy - others have believers. They must realize this.

Creation of public associations of believers is a real way to a civil society. - It is necessary to recreate the Council for Religious Affairs? - The bureaucracy will object to this by all available means.

http://www.rusglobus.net/komar/church/harchev.htm

double mortgaged

The decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU will finally be fulfilled Consecration of the foundation stone. 1988 Tomorrow, September 1, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexy II, will consecrate the laying of a new church in the Moscow microdistrict of Orekhovo-Borisovo. The long-suffering Trinity Church in the park on the banks of the Borisovsky Pond will be laid for the second time: the first time it was done by the late Patriarch Pimen (Izvekov) in June 1988.

The idea of ​​building a huge complex (the church itself, meeting rooms, administrative premises, numerous underground parking lots, etc.) in memory of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia belongs to the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Its chairman, Konstantin Kharchev, included the construction of the temple in the official program of celebrations and passed the decision through the Central Committee of the party. Not only was a permit issued and a place allocated, but the issue of "funds" was also resolved: the party allocated building materials for the temple.

The laying was carried out pompously, with a huge confluence of foreign guests. For example, the famous fighter for the rights of blacks, the South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, delivered a sermon. However, the ROC did not comply with the decision of the Central Committee on the construction of the temple. For 12 years, the granite foundation stone stood forlornly on a slope not far from the Orekhovo metro station. True, in 1989 - 1990, in the wake of publicity, an open competition was held for the design of the temple.

In February 1990, about four hundred (!) Projects presented were put on display at the Permanent Building Exhibition for review. Patriarch Pimen (+1990) put on Soviet awards for the consecration of the church. 1988 public opinion. The Commission of the Synod, under the leadership of the current Patriarch of Kyiv and All Ukraine Filaret (Denisenko), liked the version of the architect Pokrovsky the most: it resembled a greatly elongated Church of the Intercession on the Nerl.

They say that this layout ° 186 attracted the attention of the metropolitan because its domes shone more than others: polished metal ones were hoisted on a paper temple, while others had simply painted ones. The true reason for the church's failure to comply with the party's decision was most likely the lack of its own funds: the project cost at least 20 million Soviet rubles. Then everything was overshadowed by the construction of the KhHS on Volkhonka.

Today, when it is over, Yuri Luzhkov agreed to combine the re-laying of the anniversary church with the day of the city - despite the protests of some residents of Orekhovo-Borisovo: they wrote, for example, that they would have nowhere to walk because of the construction.

But the main thing is that the ROC found a freebie: the financial and industrial group "Baltic Construction Company" - the author of the office building of the Ministry of Railways and the reconstructed Lokomotiv stadium in Moscow, the Ladoga railway station in St. Petersburg and the reconstruction of the October Railway roads. True, the old foundation stone was slowly moved to the other side of the Kashirskoye highway: to a more cash place, closer to residential microdistricts.

The former winning project was also abandoned: the Baltic Construction Company ordered a new project from the workshop ° 19 of the former Mosproekt-2, with which it constantly works. Former Chairman Council for Religious Affairs Konstantin Kharchev, who once came up with this construction, recalls: “The party made the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia. The party made a decision, the party allocated funds, decided to build and open churches.

Party members built the Danilov Monastery, worked on all the events of the 1000th anniversary: ​​from the reception of foreigners to the registration of participants. "So the new temple will be the fulfillment of the last, posthumous decree of the great party: the perpetuation of the 1000th anniversary of "religious survivals" in Russia. Novye Izvestia"

http://www.rusglobus.net/komar/church/twice.htm ·