After appearance of movie investigation "I Don't Believe" which took place on January, 20th which authors actually accused opposition of fight against church, opponents of the Kremlin decided to get rid of anti-clerical image and to begin dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church. Delegation of the commission of Coordination Council of opposition on work with national, religious and public organizations which includes Gennady Gudkov and Vladimir Tor agreed to meet the chairman of Synod department responsible for relationship of church and society archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin.
— Father Chaplin expressed readiness to meet. Tension between part of opposition and church is actively warmed up by the Presidential Administration and mode. The Kremlin uses this conflict for crushing of the opposition and its separation from broad public masses, — Tor is sure. — The Russian Orthodox Church is the most ancient institute in the territory of Russia which has high level of trust in the country.
According to him, broad social movement which fights for sympathies of citizens can't be in confrontation with the church.
In January, 2011 Tor already organized the meeting of father Vsevolod and Alexey Navalny, both remained satisfied.
Vsevolod Chaplin confirmed that he received invitation.
— I talked and will talk to different political forces, — he declared. — We have already met with Mr. Tor and now he called me up and offered meeting with Coordination Council of opposition, — Chaplin declared. — At present I think over such opportunity.
From editorial board: Coordination Council of opposition fights for sympathies of citizens or for a change of a political situation in Russia? Certainly, it is possible to answer that it fights for both. Though here we come across the question of principles - if CC is going to change political situation on the base of certain principles – it’s one thing, if it doesn’t care about principles, the aim is to get the power – it’s absolutely different thing. The second variant doesn’t differ from the position of either parliamentary opposition and the party in power – the last also has no principles and even no political position, it has one principle: "We are chiefs here!"
What are the reasons why political opposition reproaches church? First of all it’s direct violation of the constitutional principle of apartness of the church from the state. All other defects of modern church follow from it: both criminalization of church life as a result of too close contacts with the criminal state and penetration into all spheres of until recently secular state, as well as obvious contradiction of the church doctrine of "the orthodox emperor" to the republican constitutional organization of the state, the most important thing is medieval obscurantism.
The most interesting thing is that the main spokesman of these defects of the church is archpriest Chaplin. Gudkov reminded mass media that even Molotov met Ribbentrop in certain periods. Though analogy here is different - what would we say about Beria's meeting with Himmler with respect to common interests?
Here you are some especially characteristic sayings of archpriest Chaplin:
"I am convinced that the Lord condemns what they ("Pussy Riot" - editor's notes) made. I am convinced that this sin will be punished both in this life and in future life", - the priest declared about verge between art and blasphemy during the round table which was carried out by magazine New Times. On a question of journalists from where he knows it V. Chaplin answered: "I know, I think that God opened it to me".
Vsevolod Chaplin demanded rigid and inevitable punishment for accused. In his blog he wrote: "That action, that sin broke God's law. The most important law. "Punishment for a sin – death" (Rome. 6, 23)".
The chairman of Synod department of the Moscow patriarchy on relationship of Church and society, archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin suggested to check classical works of Vladimir Nabokov and Gabriel Garcia Marquez with respect to promotion of pedophilia. On September, 27 Chaplin declared it to "The Russian News Service".
In essence, CC publicly recognized itself populist organization avoiding any strong principles for the sake of political conjuncture. Leaders of the Great French revolution in medieval in its essence country, in the Catholic country weren't afraid to be anti-clerical – as well as Bolsheviks in peasant, semiliterate Russia weren't afraid to be anti-clerical. Therefore revolutions which were later called great took place - revolutions of principles. Unlike "near-to-revolutions" of white ribbons which got confused in maneuvers of their oddish leaders. They spent all year walking from Revolution Square to Bolotnaya Square, from the Kremlin walls to police department.
In 1943 Stalin opened both churches, seminaries and patriarchy - when revolution already came true irrevocably and the church as political organization became insignificant. Though it’s impossible to imagine Stalin's negotiations with the state priests approximately in 1916. It would be unscrupulous, then politicians tried not to make unscrupulous acts.
Today the Russian Orthodox Church acts as state corporation - what agreements "irreconcilable" oppositionists can achieve with the state corporation? Though such oppositionist as Navalny can even enter into state corporation Board of directors, so he really could get some agreements.
What’s than the difference of CC from the CPRF or LDPR? That parliamentary parties can lick the power directly on their place of duty on Okhotny Ryad, while unparliamentary are compelled for this purpose to come to specially chosen for it place?
Well, let’s wait for the same way productive meetings with other state corporations - Gazprom, Rosneft, Sberbank. Look, financing of Gazprom doesn’t interfere with the work of "Ekho Moskvy" or the same NTV... It’s high time to meet with the Presidential Administration to normalize relations.
Anatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk