The reaction of the Church

Prominent personalities of the Russian Orthodox Church reacted firmly.

Archpriest Vsevolod (Chaplin), Chairman of the Synodal Section on interaction of the Church and society of the Moscow Patriarchate, is of the opinion that the detention of the group “will help to eradicate the illusion of impunity”, and their crime “should be exposed and condemned on the level of judicial authority decisions”. Archpriest Vsevolod expressed his hope that “the law enforcers and the society will realize the huge threat this crime poses, the schism between people it plants, the severe response it provokes. It may destroy the social peace, it may make huge masses of people clash”.

Archpriest Vsevolod also hopes that the investigation and the trial will give to this crime “an ultimately just appraisal”. He says: “It is excellent that the law enforcement agencies have taken seriously the investigation of the crime committed in the Temple of Christ the Savior”. The archpriest is convinced that it was no mere hooliganism, but sacred site, and that “it is obvious to anyone who reads the text of the performance by those ladies, available at the Internet”.

The minister of Church believes that the appraisal of the crime should be made in such a way, that “no one in the future would have so much as a thought of doing something like this. If neither the reason nor the respect to the feelings of others has any effect, let at least fear act, if these people are unable to understand anything without it. Certainly, this being the first time, mercy may be shown. There should be no imprisonment, perhaps, but punishment must be inevitable, and serious. Moreover, the respective provisions of the legislation require more strictness”. He adds that those politicians who fail to condemn the action may “stop counting with the support of the Orthodox Christians”.

V.Legoyda, Chairman of the Synodal Information Section of the Moscow Patriarchate, informed that the official representatives of the Church did not support the idea of imprisonment sentence on the case, but “urged for its civil condemnation and recognition as a crime”. V.Legoyda said: “The Church is always inclined to show mercy, even if those who act against it “do not know what they do”. However, he said that it must not be forgotten that “the girls who had committed the blasphemous and disgusting deed showed no sign of repentance during the whole time which passed since then”. The Chairman is of the opinion that “this is the case when the consequences of the act are worse than the act itself”, which “is not “innocent prank” and is not in any way related to the freedom of speech, or to human rights, or to any of the democratic values”.

Archpriest Vladimir (Vigiliansky), Head of the Press Service of the Moscow Patriarchate, believes that the society’s appeal to the Patriarch is based upon “first, the Church’s intervention in the affairs of the State; second, legal nihilism disruptive for any society”. The authors of the appeal “incite Patriarch Kirill to violate the constitutional separation of the Church from the State – this is unacceptable. The Church may not request that the State should not fulfil its public duty”. The archpriest stresses that “the society must defend itself from the provocations which divide people. The society that does not fight this, in fact, commits suicide”.

Finally, Metropolitan Illarion (not yet the first, but already not the second person of the Russian Orthodox Church), being interviewed by TV “Rain”, declared that the Church had no motives to request mercy to the girls, since the Church is separated from the State.

There is an impression that the more solid the position of the Church as of an organization under a rude provocative attack, the farther away from the source of Christianity it moves. Is this not a paradox? And would not the Church have to maneuver in the opposite direction in order to maintain its “identity”?

Insult and punishment

If the five-minute “show” in the Temple of Christ the Savior is regarded as a provocation, one may remember that no reaction is the best reaction to a provocation. The “punk worship” was held on Shrovetide, which is the time when, according to the canons of the Orthodox, ancient Russian culture, norms are broken, social cosmos crumbles. Many things not usually permitted were tolerated during Shrovetide: people dressed up as beasts, beasts were dressed up as people, a peasant could be seen wearing a Czar’s vestments, or a drunkard – a clergyman’s dress. It was regarded as amusement, not as sin.

According to the first impression of archdeacon Andrey Kuraev, Professor of the Moscow Spiritual Academy, the only successful reaction to the act of the Pussy Riot feminists would have been an unexpected one. Defenselessness has been the Christians’ main weapon for centuries, and the “reaction of evil” could be stopped by “not hitting back”. Had he been the Temple’s keeper of the keys, he “would have fed pancakes to the girls, given each a cup of mead and invited to come back to take part in a rite of forgiveness”.

But if we take into account the moral and social guidelines of Pussy Riot made clear in other actions and “art”, it is obvious that forgiveness and a Christian conversation would hardly cause those “hearts” to “soften”. The feminists – and others – would surely perceive such attitude as a demonstration of weakness, a sign that they may keep staging such cynical actions with impunity.

Had they even been brought to administrative responsibility under part 2 of Article 5.26 of the Administrative Offences Code (for insulting the religious feelings of citizens or defiling revered items, signs and world-view symbols), the punishment fixed by this provision is administrative fine of up to one thousand roubles, which would hardly stimulate them to refrain from holding such performances.

On the other hand, those believers and officials of the Russian Orthodox Church who did not show indulgence but demanded serious and unavoidable punishment for the punk feminists, acted, as perceived by a large part of the society, contrary to the religious, ethical and moral ideals of Christianity.

Andrey Kuraev expressed the following opinion: at first the Church acted “like a victim, like an offended side”, but in the course of the following two weeks It radically changed Its status in the perception of many people: “And today many people regard the Church as a generator of hatred, vindictiveness, and it is rather those feminist girls … who try on the martyr’s wreaths instead of ski masks they wore on February 21”.

“They imagined the Church as a shameless structure, which had merged with the state authorities (on which those feminists are too of a negative opinion), soulless and inhuman. Had we been able to stick to the position of an insulted victim, had we (the Church community) been able to tolerate the prank – we would have shown that that caricature within the “protestants’” heads had nothing to do with the real life of our Church. But as of now, it is happening that we have successfully persuaded them (and many others) of directly the opposite”, Andrey Kuraev wrote in his blog.

.

Ideological scheme

The archdeacon changed his attitude towards Pussy Riot case after the session of the Moscow Spiritual Academy was held on March 12 (certain media baptized the session “a comrades’ trial”), where his assessment was declared hasty. The case had another aspect - violation of limits of intervention in the life of other people: “Unless the temple is yours, you should not enter it with your own rules in order to create hindrances”. This moral imperative is no less important than the Christian maxims of mercy and forgiveness. And the problem is equally significant for the believers of the Russian Orthodox Church and for the members of other religious denominations.

However, “many people would applaud this action”, and certain Russian and foreign media try to propagate the idea that the prank by Pussy Riot has nothing to be condemned for morally: “it is their freedom of expression, it is their political protest”. Therefore, the problem lies not in the suspects’ personalities, but rather in “a certain ideological and political scheme”. Only the court may give legal evaluation of their actions, and the initiation of a criminal case is one of the forms of social admonition, alongside with moral admonition.

A.Kuraev explained the position of the Church: “It is not condemnation we want. It is not “criminality” that matters. We wish that the persons of democratic ideas would say that in such cases the pain becomes general, and an intended insult of a member of society, no matter his nationality and politics, is the problem of the whole society. Therefore, a moral veto should be voiced”.

“Conspirology” versions

But a part of the society and mass media do not condemn this despicable act and treat the suspects as martyrs, who have suffered for the “freedom of expression”. Could this be a sign of appearance of a new trend in the world, namely – of a growing anti-Christian ideology?

There is a version that some “world conspiracy” against Christianity – precisely and only. The version is quite wide-spread, even though, just like any other of its kind, it lacks direct proof. It is indirectly corroborated, for example, by stories, constantly served by the mass media, which give the impression that homosexuality and pedophilia and little else are the main occupations of Catholic priests. And hardly a few days have passed since the moment when the Cabinet of Ministers of the United Kingdom adopted a document according to which employers were entitled to prohibit the use of neck-worn crosses over the clothes and to dismiss those who refuse to hide their crosses. In that way, by taking the path of fighting Christianity, the British authorities decided to protect the rights of other denominations’ members and atheists. The British Christians capitulated to such “political correctness”. Were they not able to defend their rights? Haven’t they tried to? Don’t they want to?

A celebrated case “Lautsi vs Italy” comes to mind: in 2009, the European Court of Human Rights banned crucifixes from Italian schools following a complaint by an Italian citizen of Finnish origin. The woman complained that Christian symbols in the classrooms of the school her two sons went to impeded the secular education for them. The decision caused an explosion of indignation in Italy, where 90% of the citizens consider themselves Catholics. Italy appealed against the decision, and it was revoked in 2011 – unlike the Britons, the Italian Christians were both able and willing to fight for their values and ideas.

The existence of “world conspiracy” against Christianity is also completely feasible from the esoteric point of view. According to it, the planet and the humanity develop in age cycles. The Age of Pisces – a Christian symbol – comes to an end and the Age of Aquarius begins, when Christianity is bound to lose its current form. And a post-Christian era will begin.

In this case, the conclusion that the Church has taken the “punk worship” as an element of an offensive against Orthodoxy and Christianity as a whole looks legit. The same Andrey Kuraev supposes that the “punk worship” is “just a small breeze before a coming system storm”. The idea to make a “show” in the Temple might have been suggested to Pussy Riot by someone, and the girls, with their inclination towards uncommon ways of “self-expression”, were simply manipulated.

If this supposition is correct, does the Church have the right to defend Itself? Seemingly so. But if the Christians, contrary to the main ideas of their belief, do not “turn the other cheek” when faced by external manifestations of evil aimed at them, do they remain Christians in the full sense of the word? That is a question!

Another “conspirology theory”: the performance by Pussy Riot is nothing more than a hyperbolized answer to the participation of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill in the election campaign of a certain candidate to the Presidency of the Russian Federation (like some observers construed the position of the Head of the Russian Orthodox Church). If this is really so, then this stupid prank may be considered as just another episode of the election campaign, where, as history shows, all is fair. Pity, though, that many believes were unjustly offended.

Finally, we cannot avoid assuming that some personalities close to the Church, wishing to undermine the beginning dialogue between the Church and certain “high-life get-together” protagonists, organized this provocation (it would seem, it would not be so easy to get inside the Temple of Christ the Savior with guitars and sound equipment). They might have counted on cancellation of the potential turn of certain hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church towards the “meeting-going city people”. The authenticity of this version cannot be ascertained, but precisely such result of the provocation is starting to look evident.

The necessity to uphold the order Объяснение с точки зраения юриспруденции!!!!

Regarding the legal aspect of the situation. According to part 1 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code of Russia, hooliganism is a gross violation of social order expressing clear disrespect towards the society and committed: with the use of weapons or items used as weapons (clause “a”); form the motives of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or for the motives of enmity or hatred towards a certain social group (clause “b”). Part 2 of Article 213 stipulates responsibility for the same deed committed by a group of persons with previous concert or by an organized group.

Responsibility for hooliganism was established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and it remains in the legislation of several ex-USSR countries. Some European states beyond the post-Soviet territories have similar criminal law prohibitions, but the term “hooliganism” is not used.

Hooliganism appeared for the first time in the Criminal Code of RSFSR in 1922 in the Chapter on crimes against life, health, freedom and personal dignity. In the Criminal Code of RSFSR of 1926 the construction of the article on hooliganism was sufficiently changed, it was transferred to the chapter on other offences against the government order. The lawmaker attempted to ban the actions violating the Socialist law and order. The meaning of the terms like “gross violation of social order”, “clear disrespect towards the society”, “special audacity”, “exceptional cynicism”, through which the crime was defined, was construed ambiguously in practice and in theory.

During the 50-ies of the XX century, the hooliganism norm was moved to the chapter on crimes against social safety, public order and health of the population and formed in the following way: “Hooliganism, or gross violation of social order and clear disrespect towards the society…” (part 1 of Article 206 of the Criminal Code of RSFSR of 1960). The indicators of the corpus delicti were not laid out in a concrete manner, which caused a discord in the investigation and court practice.

Поиск по сайту: