Freedom: the Church's version

Bishops' Council approved the foundations of the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church on human rights

The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, one of the most powerful institutions in the country, has taken decisions that can have the most serious impact on the life of the Orthodox in Russia. This is the question of the church court, and the deprivation of the dignity of Bishop Diomede, and the doctrine of "the dignity, freedom and rights of man"

The Council of Bishops, which took place last week in Moscow, was not without scandal: the first day was marked by fisticuffs between supporters of Bishop Diomede of Anadyr and Chukotka and the “Orthodox corps” of the pro-Kremlin Nashi movement, which decided to defend Patriarch Alexy from the attacks of the bishop. On the last day of the council, the hierarchs decided to defrock the dissident bishop if he does not repent.

Between God and people

One of the most fundamental and in many ways painful issues discussed by the council concerned the church court. Already the provisional provision on ecclesiastical legal proceedings caused a lot of criticism: opponents called the judicial system proposed in it "unjust". The final version, adopted at the council, gives the bishops almost absolute power. Suffice it to say that if the diocesan bishop is not satisfied with the results of the consideration of the case in the diocesan court (in which he himself appoints three judges out of five), then he can return the case for a new trial. And in case of disagreement with the second decision, they have the right to issue their own preliminary verdict, which "takes effect immediately." And only then the case is sent to the General Church Court of Second Instance for a final decision.

It should be noted that in the Russian Church there have never been separate judicial instances: the right to “bind and solve” belonged to the diocesan bishop1 and the cathedral headed by the metropolitan or (when the councils were canceled) the Synod with the chief procurator. The question of special church courts was raised in the ROC twice: first, during the reforms of the 1860s, then at the Local Council of 1918. Both times the episcopate met the reforms with hostility. And it is clear why: the first draft, of the 19th century, introduced the election of judges for the appellate instance and the adversarial process. And the initiators of the second reform even allowed the participation of the laity in the composition of church courts and defended the principle of separation of church powers - into administrative and judicial. It is not surprising that the hierarchs did not agree to this: the reform deprived them of real power.

The current provision on ecclesiastical court does not seem to threaten archpastors with anything. It is noticeable that the authors of this third attempt at judicial reform in the history of the ROC made every effort to make it pass through the top of the Church: there is no question of any laity, competitiveness of the process, and even its openness. Not to mention the presumption of innocence.

However, perhaps those who believe that even in such a flawed form the court will be able to influence the bishop are right. “If earlier it was possible to completely ignore such realities as social and church consciousness, now it will be more difficult to do so,” hopes candidate of theology hegumen Veniamin (Novik). “It will become more difficult for a bishop to be completely independent of the clergy and flock around him.”

Svoboda: ROC version

The second of the documents adopted at the council is “The Fundamentals of the Teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on Dignity, Freedom and Human Rights”. According to experts, the text has changed compared to the original Declaration, adopted in 2006, and has changed for the better. No, the Church is still not ready to recognize the value of a free dialogue with the world, it is as if she is bargaining with it and agrees to endure it for the time being, if there is hope that sooner or later this world will come to the Church. “Because of the power of sin inherent in fallen human nature, no human effort is sufficient to achieve true good,” says the Fundamentals. “Consequently, a person cannot do without the help of God and close cooperation with Him, since He alone is the source of all good.” However, the new document, in contrast to the Declaration on the Rights and Dignity of Man of the X World Russian People's Council, at least recognizes the "ontological dignity of every human person", while the cathedral Declaration recognized only a certain "value" for a person, and he acquired dignity only "by doing good ".

Official church ideologists introduce their own gradation of freedom, distinguishing between freedom of choice and freedom as liberation from sin. Freedom of choice is not an absolute and final value. Freedom that makes a bad choice, that is, leads to sin, must be condemned. And good freedom is freedom that frees from sin. "Evil and freedom are incompatible," says the Fundamentals.

The weakness of the institution of human rights, from the point of view of the ROC, lies in the fact that, while defending freedom of choice, it takes less and less into account the moral dimension of life and freedom from sin. Meanwhile, the social structure should focus on both freedoms, harmonizing their implementation in the public sphere. Such an approach completely deprives human rights and the freedom to choose an independent value.

However, church ideologists are no longer as resolutely attacking secular human rights activists as they were two or three years ago and, it seems, they no longer pretend to introduce their concept into law enforcement practice. “Of course, this is primarily a church document,” Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said at a briefing. — It is meant to be used by pastors and laity. We should not impose on the secular world the understanding of freedoms and human rights that exists in the Church, but we offer this understanding for discussion and hope that secular institutions - authorities, international structures, the public of different countries - will study this document and express some thoughts, comments, criticism.

The adopted Fundamentals are the standard tool for dialogue in the international arena. Among Catholics, a section of the social doctrine, adopted at the Second Vatican Council, is devoted to human rights. Muslims have their own Declaration of Human Rights, drawn up by the Islamic Council of Europe in 1981. The main thing is that the Church really "does not impose" its rules on secular society.

Diomede - Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka (in the world - Sergei Ivanovich Dzyuban), accused the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church of "deviations from the purity of the Orthodox dogma" and "spiritual conciliation, subordinating the church authorities to the secular, often theomachy." In the Moscow Patriarchate, the priest's statements were called evidence of his "ignorance and ignorance".

_____________
1 The charter of the ROC defines a diocese as “a local church headed by a bishop and uniting diocesan institutions, deaneries, parishes, monasteries, farmsteads, spiritual educational institutions, brotherhoods, sisterhoods, missions”, and “the diocesan bishop, by succession of power from the holy apostles, is the primate local church, managing it with the conciliar assistance of the clergy and laity.