Changing Lenin to a cathedral

The Russian Orthodox Church took under protection the only exhibit of the Mausoleum, monuments to Ilyich and Soviet street names.

A week ago, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) proposed removing Lenin from the Mausoleum and demolishing the Ilyichs throughout Russia. “One of the symbols of the reconciliation of the Russian people with the Lord could be the liberation of Red Square from the remains of the main persecutor and tormentor of the 20th century and the destruction of the monuments erected to him,” the foreigners said in a statement.

The Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate responded quickly and decisively. Official speaker Alexander Shchipkov agreed that the mummy on display in the country's main square has nothing to do with Christian traditions. And he immediately added: “It is necessary to raise the issue of reburial after the cessation of various kinds of political campaigns.”

Unofficial speakers of the cultural, non-aggressive and at times controversial resource “Orthodoxy and Peace” in unison declared that neither Ilyich nor the monuments should be touched. Archpriest Alexander Ilyushenko believed that the people would perceive the removal of Lenin’s body from Red Square as violence against history. Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, on the contrary, is sure that if tomorrow a presidential decree appeared on the removal of Ilyich, no one would be indignant. But since nothing will change from this, we must leave Lenin in the Mausoleum. Priest Mikhail Kamyshin said that not a single monument to Lenin should be dismantled.

Along the way, the priests remembered what disasters Lenin and his comrades brought to Russia and the church. It was even proposed to place a sign with repressive statistics on each pedestal.

But the main message of the speeches seemed clear: the main persecutor and tormentor must remain unburied on Red Square, monuments to him are inviolable, streets with his name and the names of lower-ranking tormentors must be preserved.

To explain such unanimity on a completely non-dogmatic issue, we should return to Shchipkov’s words about the cessation of various kinds of political campaigns. At first glance, they are incomprehensible. There is not a single noticeable political force in Russia that consistently advocates decommunization of the country.

In Russia - yes. But in neighboring Ukraine, not so long ago there was a full-fledged “Lenin fall”, as well as a massive replacement of Soviet toponymy - from alleys to big cities. Not that this outraged anyone in the Kremlin: if there are Bolsheviks left there, they are Stalinists, not Leninists. Rather, a political superstition worked: if power falls, the stone Ilyichs fall. Since I don’t want to find out experimentally the feedback: Lenin fell - the president was overthrown, the street was renamed - Maidan began on the square, which means we need to play it safe. Well, since the initial statement was made by the ROCOR, the ROC should give a soft, loving, but consolidated rebuke.

Everything is clear, except for one thing: what benefit did the church itself receive from this story? Moreover, the benefit is in the sense of pressing events, one of which is the struggle for ownership of St. Isaac's Cathedral. Defenders of maintaining the status quo have a good argument - a reference to the Western experience of peaceful interaction between culture and the church, primarily the Roman Catholic one. There are cathedrals, which on certain days and hours are a house of prayer, and the rest of the time museums, in Venice, Florence, and Milan. Why can’t Isaac be left in the same status?

The Orthodox could raise a counter-objection: in which European country was a church museumized without an agreement with the church? In the 20th century, only Spanish anarchists broke into European churches without the consent of the clergy, and even then it ended very quickly and very badly for them. In other cases, it all began with negotiations between parties respecting each other. The Roman Catholic Church cannot support the entire church, which means it is necessary to decide which chapel will remain for services, what the dress code will be for tourists, etc.

In post-revolutionary Russia, the authorities simply notified the clergy and parishioners that from now on the temple is state property, you will not have a single square meter left in it, and say thank you that you are still alive. This is how the godless Leninist government behaved, so it is necessary to restore historical justice: give the churches to the church, and after that, in a European manner, begin negotiations with it, where there should be a museum and where there should be a church service.

This argument is not indisputable, and in the case of Isaac, it is not particularly indisputable. But it operates only on the condition that the church considers the communist regime criminal and consistently fights for the removal of Ilyich’s mummy. By advocating for maintaining the status quo of the Mausoleum, the church strengthens the position of those who are for the status quo of Isaac.

The saddest thing in this story is that the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church hardly thinks about arguments, convictions, etc. The authorities asked to speak out against the removal of Ilyich - they must speak out. For such complaisance - a tragicomic trial for Isaac. Well, the church leadership does not think and does not want to think about the fact that one day a government may appear in Russia with which it will not be possible to come to an agreement, but will have to interact within the framework of the law.