Церковная старина в современной России

The situation inside Russian Orthodox Church also aggravates the state of monuments and sites and threatens its safety. The Moscow patriarchy aspires to establish leader positions in the society and effectuates so-called «new Christianization» using in its activity the principal and outstanding monuments of culture. At the same time the ordinary believers show selfish and irresponsible aspiration to satisfy theirs religious needs without any responsibility monuments protection. I note that clergymen and laymen desire to assert through the return of monuments as a way of revenge to art workers for the expropriation of the Church property in XX century and the aims for the self-affirmation through refusal to follow recommendations of experts. In the Church grows the pragmatism, which opposites of the attitude towards Christian monuments as a form of Holy Tradition that belong to the historical Orthodoxy. The situation is influenced by mass fall of cultural and educational background of clergymen and laymen in Moscow patriarchy. The ideological transformation, theological mutation and changes of religious behavior as a result of neo-conservatism and acculturation also lead to the transformation of monuments and sites. The actual public and state control over religious organizations activities does not exist. I have to mention the wide spread system of corrupted relations between culture experts and heads of the religious organizations, who justify the actions of such organizations aimed at destruction or deformation of monuments. The religious minorities in present Russia as a whole try to respect the law on monuments protection; but Moscow patriarchy counting on the support of authorities dares violating existing norms. The deplorable situation with the protection of monuments and sites, used by religious organization, reflects the general state of cultural heritage protection and its use in Russian Federation, but bears some specific features.

Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 describe most typical situations in the area of culture monuments transfer to the religious organizations and their protection. I have chosen the main problem regions such as Novgorod, Kostroma, Ryazan, Jaroslavl, Rostov, Solovki, Valaam, Astrahan, Moscow and Saint-Petersburg. The most dramatic episodes and conflicts around the Vladimir icon (1993–1999) and Trinity icon (2008–2009) in Tretijakov gallery, Toropec icon in Russian Museum (2009), Trinity-Sergius monastery of the Moscow region (1992–2001), Ipatius monastery in Kostroma (1993–2005), Assumption church in Kadashi in Moscow (2004), Yaroslavl’s temples (2005), the Ryazan Kremlin (2004–2005) are described in detail. Problems occur in New Jerusalem monastery (Moscow region), Trinity cathedral and Miroza monastery in Pskov, Epiphany monastery (Kostroma), Aleksander-Svirsky and Tihvin monastery (Leningrad region) and in others places. Even the cases of physical abuse of experts working there made by monks are observed (Zeleneckij monastery, Leningrad region, 2004). One of the most scandalous cases is the demolition of several monuments of wooden architecture by local archbishopric including «house of Peredolskij» (XIX century) and dangerous and illegal situation at St. Sophia cathedral in Novgorod.

Activity of hierarchy aimed at property return increases when any anniversaries approach and when it is very probable to receive substantial state financing (1000 anniversary of Yaroslavl, celebrating of 400 anniversary of the dynasty of the Romanovs in Kostroma). The situation is characterized sometimes by «postponed conflict» when unresolved problems fade into the background and threaten to turn back as serious shocks. All these processes take place against the background of the weakness of the civil society. The professional associations set up especially for protection of monuments and sites are very unstable, an example — Novgorod society of the amateurs of Antiquity (since 1999). The All-Russia society for monuments protection (since 1965) has turned into conformist establishment. The Orthodox intellectuals commonly depend on the hierarchy position. The most consecutive fighters for protection of cultural heritages are the political organizations as they consider this action as a part of their political activity in general. A very good example is the position of regional branches of parties «Yabloko» and Union of Right Forces in the conflict around Ipatius monastery in Kostroma (2004–2005).