The meaning of the council for religious affairs in the Orthodox encyclopedia tree. National legal Internet portal of the Republic of Belarus Commissioner for Religious Affairs

"Council of Ministers of the USSR RESOLUTION

From the editor:

24 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR. A whole generation of people has grown up who do not know what Soviet power is. Over the years, everything in our country has changed dramatically. Religious life is no exception. The situation within each denomination has changed. Now people do not need to hide their religious beliefs, the concept of “registration” for clergy is a thing of the past, and the relationship between the Church and the state is structured differently. In the media, among politicians, officials, and other social strata, the most common point of view is a purely negative assessment of the Soviet period in the history of the Church. But is this so clear?

The USSR existed for 70 years. At different periods of the country's history there were different attitudes of the Soviet government towards the Church, and vice versa. Many books have been written about this, many films have been made. Huge archives store a lot of as yet unknown documents. But let’s turn to the people themselves who lived and worked in this area in those years. Representatives of the older generation of clergy, comparing the past and modern periods, note that, oddly enough, in those years it was possible to “rely on the authorities”, contact the supervisory body with an appeal, a complaint even against the bishop.

Vyacheslav Georgievich, what was the institution - the Council for Religious Affairs?

In 1943, the Soviet government decided to create a state institution that would deal with the registration of religious communities and compliance with Soviet legislation on religious issues.

At first there were two Councils: Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church(it was headed G.G. Karpov) And Council for Religious Affairs headed by I.V. Polyansky, who oversaw all other denominations. Karpov was very loyal to religion and the church. Then he was offered to retire (due to age and, perhaps, in connection with the policies of N.S. Khrushchev), and from 1960 he was at the head of the Council Vladimir Alekseevich Kuroyedov. Before that, he worked as editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Soviet Russia”, from where he was called to “command” religions. It was he who put forward the proposal to create a single state body, believing that a unified state policy on religious issues should be in the same hands. Thus, the two Councils were united and the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR was created. What came of it? It turned out well. The structure of the institution was as follows. Several departments were created: for the affairs of Orthodox churches, Muslim and Buddhist religions, Protestant churches, Jewish religion and sects, Roman Catholic and Armenian churches, as well as a department for international relations. In addition, there was an international department and a general department (office). In total, the Council employed about 60 people.

Ivan Vasilievich Polyansky (1898 - 1956) - Soviet statesman, chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. From 1921 to 1947 - employee of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD-MVD of the USSR. Participant in the Civil War. In 1944, he headed the newly formed Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (the Council oversaw all denominations except the Russian Orthodox Church), which he headed until his death in 1956.

Vladimir Alekseevich Kuroyedov (1906 - 1994) - Soviet party and statesman, KGB lieutenant general. From 1960 to 1965, Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, from 1965 to 1984, Chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Head of the 4th Department (supervision over the Church) of the Fifth Directorate of the KGB of the USSR.

Chairman of the Council Vladimir Alekseevich Kuroyedov worked in this position for 24 years. He found the era and N.S. Khrushchev, and L.I. Brezhnev. At first he took the path of administration. Then I felt that this would not lead to anything good. In general, we can say that he was a wonderful person, smart, a good editor and even a writer. He could do everything, he knew everything. He knew the value of personality. If you needed to resolve some issue, he would always accept it. Indeed, in those years, many churches in the country were closed by administrative means, and believers went to him and asked him to return them... But the state treated these requests with restraint. There is a lot to be said about him. In 1984 he was sent into retirement. He was already old. They invited me and said: “Write a statement.” He didn't argue.

The “Orthodox” department in the Council was commanded by Furov Vasily Grigorievich, who received the nickname “Pobedonostsev”. He was the Deputy Chairman of the Council and my immediate superior. What can you say about him? In his worldview, he was an outspoken and convinced atheist who sought to eradicate religion in society. He was a strong proponent of closing churches! Entire lists of religious communities were deregistered! Why? Khrushchev once gave the task: close 50 percent of religious organizations! Everyone: Orthodox, Muslims, Catholics, etc. But... it didn’t work! V.A. Kuroyedov stopped this practice. It was thanks to him that they began to look into each case individually.

Curriculum Vitae

Vasily Grigorievich Furov(1907 - 1998) - Deputy Chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 1965 to 1981.

Furov, in comparison with Kuroyedov, behaved officially. He emphasized that he was an administrator. He himself was a party worker. He commanded the Pavlovo-Posadsky district, then the Orekhovo-Zuevsky district, gradually reached the Central Committee, then ended up in the Council. He didn’t want to retire, although he was approaching 80. Furov didn’t like the clergy or believers. But the clergy couldn’t stand him either, especially Patriarch Pimen. Let’s say the Patriarch needs to go to resolve some issue in the Council, but he keeps dragging on and on... In the end Shilovsky Grigory Petrovich(Furov’s deputy) called me and asked me to call and invite the Patriarch. Only after that did he come. But no.

Furov was sent into retirement in 1981. In his place, they invited Genrikh Aleksandrovich Mikhailov, who had previously worked as Commissioner for Religious Affairs for the Ivanovo Region. The head of the Muslim department was Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Nurullaev Abdul Abdulvagapovich. The Protestant denominations were led by Evlampy Alekseevich Tarasov. He was originally from the Old Believers, which is why he had such an unusual name for Soviet times. He was a very emotional person. The international department was the domain of the KGB officers. At first it was led by General Titov, and mostly retired committee members worked there. Then he was replaced by Vladimir Vasilievich Fitsev.

Tell about your family. Did your relatives have religious affiliations?

I grew up in a family where everyone prayed to God. Therefore, I simply could not offend the religious feelings of believers and the activities of V.G. He did not share Furov (of course, without showing it openly in those years). So it was not new for me, how to behave with believing people.

What religion did your family belong to?

Orthodox and Old Believers. My grandmother (on my father’s side) was from the Preobrazhensk Old Believers (Pomeranians). There were three sisters. They were religious and kept fasts.

Who were your parents?

Father is a participant in the war, a corporal. Mother first worked as a nurse, then got a job at an electromechanical plant as a warehouse manager. She never blasphemed God and never remembered him in vain. I went to church occasionally, maybe once a year, on Easter. According to her, life after the war was hungrier than during the war, and so our family left for the village. When I was one year old, in 1948, my mother baptized me in the Church of Frol and Laurus (Yaroslavl region, Myshkinsky district). I was baptized by a priest, who was already over 80, who had returned from the camp. He began to immerse me, as expected (Tikhonovsky pop!), and dropped me into the font.

Historical reference

In 1923, a schism arose in the Russian Orthodox Church. Orthodox members of the Russian Orthodox Church (“Tikhonites” - named after Patriarch Tikhon) were in antagonism with the Renovationist Church, which was characterized by a number of innovations in worship (new style, Russian language, etc.)

What kind of education did you receive?

I graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University in 1976.

What was the topic of your thesis?

“The Social and Ideological Origins of Religious Pluralism in the United States,” which examined the many faiths existing in the United States. There they talked about this multinational and multi-religious state, predominantly Protestant. They were characterized by a certain freedom of thought.

Do you have an academic degree?

No. It was not possible to defend ourselves.

Vyacheslav Georgievich, how did it happen that you came to work at the Council for Religious Affairs? Whose initiative was this?

This was in 1977. I was 29 years old then. This is the situation. They called me to the Leninsky district party committee. The party said: “Go!” And so I went. The district party committee was then located in the house of Denis Davydov (Prechistenka, 17). And he recommended me Ivan Ivanovich Brazhnik. He was the supervisor of my thesis, which I defended at the Department of Scientific Atheism at Moscow State University. At one time, he worked as first deputy chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs, but his relationship with his superiors did not work out. There was also Mikhail Petrovich Novikov, head of the department of scientific atheism at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University (later it was renamed the department of religious studies). At the department, Brazhnik was first an associate professor, then a professor. Novikov advised Brazhnik to find me.

Curriculum Vitae

Brazhnik Ivan Ivanovich(1923 - 1987) worked at the Department of Scientific Atheism at Moscow State University from 1971 to 1976. He gave lecture courses at a number of faculties of Moscow State University, a special course for students specializing in the department. Author of more than 20 works on the problems of sectarianism, including the monograph “Law. Religion. Atheism. Legal content of scientific atheism.”

Novikov Mikhail Petrovich(1918 - 1993) - Soviet and Russian religious scholar, specialist in the history and theory of atheism and religion. Editor and one of the authors of the “Atheistic Dictionary”, as well as three editions of the textbook “History and Theory of Atheism”, monographs “Russian Orthodox Church”.

What was your previous job?

In my third year, they called me to the dean’s office and offered me to work in my specialty - as a teacher or as a deputy for educational work. They sent me to vocational school No. 14 (on Taganskaya Street, where they trained signalmen) and gave me a position as assistant to the deputy director for educational work. Then for some time I worked at school No. 70 on March 8th Street. Here the relationship with the director did not work out. And I came to Hawkmoth and asked him to find another position for me. Brazhnik sent me to the department of history of foreign philosophy. After that, I worked in the party committee of Moscow University - I headed the educational part of the Marxism-Leninism office (in a high-rise building on the 10th floor). And from there Hawkmoth brought me to the Council for Religious Affairs. The council was located on Smolensky Boulevard, opposite the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This is my first time coming to the Council. Secretary Kuroyedov asks me:

— Is this you, Vyacheslav Georgievich?
- I.
- Wait, I'll report.

At that time Kuroyedov was already quite a few years old. They reported. I was allowed into the office. Kuroyedov asks me:

— Did you write a statement?
- Vladimir Alekseevich, no one told me anything. You called me, and I came.
- What did Furov tell you?
- Nobody invited me to see him.

Then I went to Furov. He calls Kuroyedov from one office to another and says:

- Well, how? He's too young! Vladimir Alekseevich answers:
— How old were you when you commanded the district party committee?
- Thirty.
- Why don’t you take it? I already have enough pensioners! Let him write a statement. We'll decide everything in two days.

Just like that, everything was decided in literally two or three days. So, one might say, I was “called”. It was with me that the change in personnel policy began. All the old KGB officers began to be gradually replaced.

Who worked on the Council then?

Old men and KGB men! There have always been people who were dissatisfied that religion “does not allow them to live”! We have to fight it! In this regard, I turned out to be a different person. What does it mean to “fight”? With whom? You are fighting with your own people! That's why they didn't like me.

What position did you take on the board?

At first I was an inspector. Soon I was made senior inspector. My job was to monitor the press (“Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”). And then they gave me a “personal allowance” - business trips. I was never afraid or embarrassed to travel. All complex issues were entrusted to me, complaints, etc.

The system was like this. In the department where I worked, the entire country was divided into 6 regions. 28 central regions of the Russian Federation were assigned to me. In addition, 2 people were in charge of Ukraine. One employee oversaw the whole of Siberia - Yu.M. Degtyarev. M.I. Odintsov was in charge of all the Union republics. This is by territory. In addition, one more person oversaw the monasteries, and one oversaw financial and economic activities, since there was a lot of money in the Church at that time. Some time later, Anatoly Nikolaevich Leshchinsky came to work with us. He made a request to G.A. Mikhailov(to the chairman of the Orthodox department):

- Genrikh Alexandrovich! Give me the seal, and let Vyacheslav take care of the Old Believers. He works well with people!

Before this, Colonel Anatoly Vasilyevich Nosov was involved in the Old Believers. He was sent into retirement after Furov left. So I was “entrusted” with the entire Old Believers in the USSR. After all, why was I put “on the Old Believers”? It was very difficult for my predecessor, because he was a KGB officer and an atheist. I told him:

- If the law is broken, let's look into it in fact. If they steal, prove it!

“We won’t build communism otherwise,” that’s the whole conversation.

Everyone tried to build communism. Build, what do I care? But people ask priests - give it to the people!

What was your job?

In those days, opening a community (that is, registering it) and building a house of worship was very difficult. Someone always objected! But it was necessary to settle things with the authorities: both local and Moscow. After all, at that time in Moscow there was only one Belokrinitsky church. And we also have Pomeranians, Fedoseevites, and Filippovites.

Vyacheslav Georgievich, at first you observed the press and communicated with the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Then you began to supervise the Old Believers. What impression did meeting them make on you?

The darkest! The way of thinking is different - you are one thing for him, and he is another for you! I was not offended by them, because I understood that they lived in the seventeenth century, and I lived in the twentieth. And if they live in the seventeenth century, what can be done with them? Then - the low level of education among the majority of priests and community representatives, and finally, some kind of secrecy... In general, from time immemorial there has been distrust of the Old Believers. They didn’t trust their political reliability, their state commitment... And if they don’t trust, then they restrain them.

What impression did the services make on you, especially for the first time?

Again - gloomy. As soon as I heard the Znamenny singing, my blood pressure immediately began to rise! N.G. Denisov helped me figure this out. And so - I have always treated all people tolerantly and loyally. This was my rule. It’s not that I didn’t love your brother, I just didn’t understand the rejection by many Old Believers of everything new and modern. On the contrary, I really liked Gorky’s priest Fr. Mikhail Shashkov: open-mindedness, friendliness, state approach to business. He was aware of the law and the situation, and not that “we don’t know this, we don’t understand...” I can remember Fr. Grigory Safronnikov (now deceased), who served in Moldova. He also made a good impression on me. In the past Fr. Grigory was a sailor, naturally stately and handsome. I could joke and laugh. After all, everyone came to me. And they argued! And to be honest, I allowed it. I was wondering myself: what do you have to say about this?

In December 1965, a new state body was created, which was to play an important role in the implementation of religious policy in the last decade of the USSR. The formation of the Council for Religious Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the Council - I.M.) under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which arose by combining the Councils for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and for the Affairs of Religious Cults, did not arouse widespread public interest within the country, but received resonance in the foreign press, which regarded this act as a reflection of the desire of the CPSU to establish complete control over all spheres of human activity. The Council was subordinate to the USSR Council of Ministers, but carried out the instructions of the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee and was in contact with the department for combating ideological sabotage of the KGB of the USSR.

In historical scholarship, there are ambiguous assessments of the role of the Council in the religious policy of the Soviet state. Using a historical analogy, M. I. Odintsov saw in his activities a revival of the system of the pre-revolutionary chief prosecutor, since not a single issue regarding the activities of religious organizations could be resolved without the participation of the Council.

According to G. Stricker, the Council exercised functions of control over religious societies, and the Canadian historian D. V. Pospelovsky argued that it became an institution that persecuted believers and suppressed their struggle for their rights. It turned out to be possible to clarify the historical role of the Council based on the analysis of archival documents, which until recently were inaccessible to a wide range of researchers. They contain information about the state of the religious network, personnel of clergy and their training in religious educational institutions, religious rituals, the organizational and financial-economic state of the Church, the safety of religious values, the situation of believers in the USSR, etc. The archival collections contain predominantly information about the relationship between the Council and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which remained the dominant denomination in the country.

The structure of the Council was finally formed by the mid-1980s. The central apparatus included: management, organizational and inspection department, departments for the affairs of Orthodox churches, Muslim and Buddhist religions, Protestant churches, Jewish religion and sects, Roman Catholic and Armenian churches, as well as a department for international relations, a department for relations with Muslim countries ( it was abolished in 1988), International Information Division, Statistics and Analysis Division, Legal Division, First Division, General Division. In addition to the central apparatus, the Council had representatives in the union and autonomous republics, territories and regions. The powers of the Council included the right to make decisions on the registration and deregistration of religious associations, on the opening and closing of houses of worship and houses, as well as the right to monitor compliance with legislation on cults. The Council checked the activities of not only religious organizations and clergy, but also government bodies and officials in terms of their compliance with relevant legislation.

The Soviet state viewed the registration of religious associations as recognition of the rights of believers and a guarantee of satisfaction of their religious needs. From the point of view of the authorities, the fact of registration meant that the religious association, while acting within the framework of the law, at the same time became under its protection. However, the registration procedure became a means of state control over the religious life of the country. The procedure for registering or deregistering religious associations was completed by decisions of the Council based on the conclusions of local authorities, which were drawn up based on statements from believers. The Council then informed religious societies or groups of believers about the decisions made. At the same time, the procedure for registering and deregistering religious associations reflected a change in the course of the Soviet state in relation to religion and the Church. Thus, during the “Khrushchev Thaw”, when the Council did not yet exist, deregistration took on the character of a mass campaign to close churches. During 1960 - 1964 More than 40% of the existing network of religious societies of the Russian Orthodox Church was deregistered, i.e. An average of 1,270 parishes ceased to exist annually. In subsequent years, the number of religious societies deregistered decreased: in 1965 - 1985. there were about 40 such cases annually, and in the decade 1975 to 1985. this figure fell to 22. It is characteristic that, as a rule, religious organizations were deregistered as having ceased their activities.

Closing of churches in the 1970s and 80s. was no longer widespread, but refusals of registration became widespread. A typical occurrence was the Council's protocols with similar content: "Minutes of the SDR No. 2 of 02/19/1970. Consideration of proposals for registration and deregistration of religious associations. Heard: Submission of the executive committee of the Odessa region. Council of Working People's Deputies of 05/28/1970 on the refusal of the request of believers to resume activities de-registered the religious society of the Orthodox Church in the village of Gederim, Kotovsky district, in 1962 and returned to them the building of the former church, converted into a village club in 1930. Decided: to accept the proposal of the Odessa Regional Executive Committee to refuse the petition to resume the activities of the Orthodox religious society in the village of Gederim, Kotovsky district, deregistered in 1962, given that believers can satisfy their religious needs in the church of Kotovsk, located 6 km from the village of Gederim." The number of religious associations continued to gradually decrease until 1976: if in 1966 there were 11,908 of them, including Orthodox - 7,481, then in 1976 - 11,615 and 6,983, respectively. Chairman of the Council V. A. Kuroyedov repeatedly informed the CPSU Central Committee about the facts of gross violations of the legislation on cults in various regions of the RSFSR, committed by local authorities. So, in 1965, he reported, for example, that in many villages of the Rostov region. Churches were illegally closed and even destroyed, and religious objects (iconostases, banners, vestments, icons, crosses, Bibles, Gospels, liturgical books, etc.) were taken to the steppe and burned. Believers wrote to the Council:

“Why is this attitude towards us? Help restore justice. We do not want or do any lawlessness. We are not fascists, not enemies of the people, we are believers, we pray for the well-being of our children, our beloved Motherland, government and for peace on earth. We are old, we have little time left to live. Open our temple!"

Registration of religious associations resumed in the late 1960s. (first Protestant, in the second half of the 1970s - Old Believers, Catholics, Lutheran and Muslim, and in 1972, after a 20-year break - Orthodox). But the closure of prayer buildings continued. Only in the mid-1970s. The situation has changed, and there is a tendency towards an increase in the number of registered companies. The state's interest in the religious sphere of social life is confirmed by the text of the 1977 USSR Constitution. In Art. 52 recognized the importance of the principle of freedom of conscience for a socialist society. The existence and activity of religious associations are beginning to be viewed as a necessary condition for ensuring freedom of religion, and this, in turn, is one of the components of the complex of “human rights”.

From 1974 to the mid-1980s. The Council carried out an action to streamline the religious network in order to put the functioning of all religious organizations within the framework of the law and to achieve the cessation of the activities of those that do not recognize the legislation on cults. In the early 1980s. It became obvious to the leadership of the Council that the results of the action turned out to be contradictory, and in part even contrary to the original plans. As a result of the reduction in the number of registered religious societies (especially in rural areas), the position of urban parishes was strengthened and the number of their parishioners increased, which caused a significant increase in cash receipts, as the population of “churchless” areas began to satisfy their religious needs in the cities. A new phenomenon has emerged - the urbanization of religious life.

On the one hand, the consolidation of religious societies as a result of the reduction of the religious network strengthened them materially. On the other hand, the ability of believers to fulfill religious needs was reduced. Therefore, the consequence of refusals and deregistration of religious societies was the rebaptism of Orthodox believers, especially in cases where there were no conditions to satisfy their religious needs. Employees of the apparatus of the Commissioner of the Council for the Byelorussian SSR, together with scientists, established that among the newly converted in sectarian communities, 31.6% were yesterday's Orthodox believers. The number of sectarian formations began to prevail over the total number of Orthodox churches in the North Caucasus, Central Asia and Kazakhstan, Siberia and the Far East. In the Altai Territory, for example, until the 1960s. There were about 200 associations of the Russian Orthodox Church, and by the mid-1980s. there are 6 of them left. Moreover, where Orthodox believers did not have the opportunity to satisfy their religious needs in existing churches, they became the object of sectarian missionary work. In addition, the number of unregistered societies that did not cease their activities increased.

In 1981 (as of January 1), there were 116 ROC unregistered societies operating in the country, including 32 in the RSFSR, 76 in the Ukrainian SSR, and 5 in the Kazakh SSR. In many regions of the country, due to the refusal of local authorities to register religious associations, a difficult situation developed. For example, in the village. Diveevo, Gorky region. There was not a single registered Orthodox church, but there were up to 10 unregistered Orthodox religious associations. To satisfy their religious needs, believers were forced to turn to churches located 60 - 65 km from the village. Diveevo. There was a constant increase in religious rituals in the area. There were up to 200 believers in the village, but local government officials did not take measures to streamline the network of religious associations. Trying to find out the reasons for this phenomenon, the leadership of the Council discovered many facts of local authorities provoking the collapse of registered religious societies by creating artificial obstacles to their activities. Attempts to arbitrarily close churches were also identified.

In the secret information of the Council for the Central Committee of the CPSU, it was suggested that local authorities in a number of territories and regions refuse to register actually operating Orthodox religious societies due to the reluctance to spoil the “prosperous” statistics, as well as due to fear of an increase in the number of petitions from believers, quantitative growth registered associations and revitalization of their activities. In 1983, V. A. Kuroyedov reported to the Central Committee of the CPSU: “Many officials prefer not to notice the existence of illegal religious associations. Sometimes they put up with their illegal activities. Regardless of the real situation, they categorically reject requests from believers to register their associations, considering it a concession to religion, a "minus" in ideological work. A particularly intolerant situation has developed in the Muslim cult. Unreasonable refusals to register religious associations occur in relation to Orthodox and Catholic societies. The most loyal, patriotic believers are often denied registration, which creates tension, not contributes to the cause of civic education of believers."

A natural result of the reduction of the religious network was the disappearance of numerous historical and cultural monuments. As in the 1920s and 1930s, a threat to the safety of Orthodox religious architecture and icon painting arose again, as large-scale measures began to reclaim and demolish empty religious buildings, which were considered by the Council for Religious Affairs as “important political work.” Officially, this action was explained by the process of Soviet people moving away from religion and the cessation of the activities of religious societies that did not receive the support of the population. In this regard, the “development” of religious buildings began, i.e. their use for socio-cultural and economic purposes. It was considered expedient to demolish or dismantle dilapidated buildings. But the activity of “restoring order” with religious buildings, from the point of view of the leadership of the Council, also had an ideological orientation. The disdainful attitude of the authorities towards the fate of churches that had lost their original purpose influenced the feelings and moods of believers. They arbitrarily occupied empty churches, repaired them, applied for registration of associations and applications for the transfer of empty premises to believers for their restoration and resumption of religious activities (Ukrainian, Moldavian SSR, Stavropol Territory, Vologda, Voronezh regions, etc.).

In addition, the presence in the country of a large number of church buildings that have ceased to fulfill religious functions attracted the attention of foreign opponents. As international tourism developed, the interest of foreign guests in Russia's historical past increased. Thousands of abandoned religious buildings “worked” against the Soviet regime, “were used by hostile forces in the ideological struggle against socialism.” The experience of “developing” inactive religious buildings showed that using them for economic purposes meant turning the church into a warehouse, a garage for agricultural machinery, a stable, a store, a workshop, etc. Almost everywhere, such religious buildings were in an unsightly state, were not repaired and turned into ruins. If a religious building was intended for socio-cultural purposes, then it became a museum, concert hall, cultural center, club or library.

The council stated that in the work on the use of former religious buildings, “formalism and haste were often allowed, and the religious situation and the real needs of the believing population were not taken into account.” Solving religious issues by administrative means, in particular the development of religious buildings, their demolition without appropriate preparatory work in a number of settlements in the Lviv, Ternopil, Transcarpathian regions. Ukraine and the Moldavian SSR led to opposition from believers. So, the church building in the village. Kocherovo, Radomyshl district, Zhitomir region. was dismantled on the eve of the Christmas holidays, which caused outrage not only among believers, but also among many village residents.

Such facts were condemned by the Council as “ill-considered actions,” “campaignism,” and “mismanagement on the part of individual officials.” In many closed churches, icons and church utensils remained, which became the object of interest for criminals. Since the mid-1970s. Numerous thefts of religious property, primarily icons, were recorded. The robbers were active in the Moscow, Arkhangelsk, Pskov, Yaroslavl, Kurgan, Kostroma, Kaluga, Kalinin, Tula, and Gorky regions, as well as in Moldova, Belarus, and the Baltic states.

The organization of accounting and preservation of religious property occurred at a slower pace compared to measures to reduce the network of churches and reclaim empty religious buildings. In August 1977, the commissioners of the Council received a special letter in which they were asked, in contact with local authorities, to take measures to establish order in the protection and accounting of religious property and to report every fact of theft of religious property to the Council. In May 1980, he approved the instructions “On the procedure for recording and storing cultural property in the use of religious associations.” The instructions were drawn up in order to strengthen the protection of works of art and antiquities of artistic, historical or other cultural value that are in the use of religious associations. The work of identifying and registering objects of certain historical and artistic value was carried out by the Ministry of Culture of the USSR, the ministries of culture of the union and autonomous republics and their local bodies with the involvement of employees of art, historical and local history museums, as well as specially created groups of specialist experts. Control over compliance with this instruction by religious organizations, as well as Soviet bodies and departments, was to be carried out by authorized representatives of the Council. Although the measures to take into account religious values ​​were not completed, this action made it possible to preserve a significant part of the country’s cultural heritage.

The control and supervisory powers of the Council made it possible to check the activities of religious associations. Particular attention was paid to accounting and control of the financial and economic condition of the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest denomination in the country. The documents of the Council recorded the annual increase in cash receipts of the Russian Orthodox Church: by 1985 they amounted to 211.1 million rubles. (in 1966 - 85.036 million rubles). There was an increase in the sale of religious objects, income from the performance of religious rituals and voluntary donations. Cash receipts per church increased (in 1964 this figure was 10.6 thousand rubles, in 1974 - 20.7, and in 1985 - 29.1 thousand rubles). In this situation, the Council, in line with state policy towards religion, implemented a system of measures to limit the financial activities of the church. This action in the documents of the Council was called the “removal of fat deposits” of the Church, and it was emphasized that this “delicate matter” must be carried out within the framework of the law.

The main objective of the restrictive measures was to curb the growth of church expenses for the maintenance of clergy, service personnel, choristers, repairs and maintenance of prayer buildings, and contributions to religious centers. The Council pursued a policy of using the financial resources of the Church in the interests of the state. The state annually received from the Russian Orthodox Church up to 70% of gross income from the sale of candles, income tax on cash salaries of all categories of clergy and service personnel (on a national scale - more than 20 million rubles), land rent, tax on buildings, insurance payments, deductions to funds for peace and protection of historical and cultural monuments. The commissioners were given repeated instructions to organize voluntary contributions from religious associations to the Peace Fund. As a result, they have increased significantly. In 1984, the Russian Orthodox Church contributed about 16% of its income to the Peace Fund and the Fund for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments (in the late 1960s - about 10%). In some regions and autonomous republics of the RSFSR, these deductions from the Russian Orthodox Church amounted to more than 20% of the gross income of churches.

Exercising constant control over the financial activities of the Church, the Council nevertheless, in April 1980, petitioned the Council of Ministers of the USSR to reduce the taxation of ministers of religious cults and members of the executive bodies of religious societies. Servants of religious cults, being essentially hired persons of religious societies, received fixed salaries, on which taxes were levied at an increased rate - from 25 to 80% of their earnings. Rent and utilities were charged to them at four times the normal rate. But the bulk of the clergy received relatively small salaries, on average up to 200 rubles. per month (the tax on this amount was 70 rubles). The Council drew the attention of the highest government bodies to the position of clergy, which caused discontent among them, and was interpreted abroad as discrimination against the clergy in the USSR. In June 1980, the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers accepted the Council's proposals to change the procedure for collecting income tax and rent from the clergy, despite annual losses of the state budget of up to 3 million rubles.

A special area of ​​the Council’s activity was “political and educational work” with the clergy and the study of their sentiments. The Council took over the task of “putting the Church and clergy in patriotic positions” from its predecessor, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. It was assumed that as a result of the work of the Council's commissioners, the clergy would pay more attention to issues of protecting peace and support the foreign policy of the Soviet government. Back in 1955, an instructional letter to the commissioners of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church emphasized that working with the clergy is not a campaign, but a daily and systematic activity, which “requires great skill, tact and a careful approach from the commissioner.” A mandatory condition for working with the clergy for all authorized persons is “prevention of administration, interference in the internal affairs of the Church (dogmatic, canonical, administrative and organizational), ill-conceived and unnecessary recommendations, and the imposition of individual events.” The Council not only did not give such instructions, but always demanded that the authorized representatives not interfere in the internal affairs of the Church. But not every commissioner followed these recommendations. The leadership of the Council made significant efforts to resolve conflicts between individual representatives of the episcopate and their authorized representatives, condemning those of them who did not take measures to create business relations with the bishops.

The Council monitored the process of reproduction of clergy personnel and took measures to streamline admission to the seminaries and the ordination of laity to the clergy. It was concluded that, given the demand for clergy, it would be more expedient to satisfy it through theological schools, where a certain system of patriotic work and instilling respect for the legislation on cults has developed. The Council examined questions about the number of applicants to religious educational institutions, motives for admission, age and educational level, national composition, membership in the Komsomol or the CPSU, the content of educational programs and cultural and educational work among seminarians. The documents of the Council stated an increase in the number of people wishing to become seminarians. Among the applicants, the percentage of Komsomol members remained high, and there were also communists. For example, in 1985, 54% of applications belonged to Komsomol members. Among the applicants to the Moscow and Leningrad theological seminaries in 1976 - 1980. 8% had higher or incomplete higher education (teachers, engineers, artists, doctors, economists, musicians), 85% had secondary technical or secondary education, and only 8% had incomplete secondary education. By social origin, applicants most often came from workers (about 50%) or peasants (about 20%), less often from employees (about 10%), from families of clergy (about 13 - 20%). Not only the seminary commission, but also representatives of the Council participated in the selection of candidates.

Work with the Orthodox clergy was carried out by the department for the affairs of Orthodox churches in various forms (conversations of commissioners with the clergy, meetings of the episcopate, clergy, church executive bodies with the leaders of regions, territories and republics, holding seminars and meetings of the clergy, at which industry experts and scientists spoke). The management of the department carried out individual work with members of the Synod of the Russian and Georgian Orthodox and the leadership of Old Believer churches, with ruling bishops, abbots of large monasteries, rectors of theological schools and other heads of synodal institutions. The focus of the Department for Orthodox Church Affairs was the preaching activities of the clergy, since it was considered as “the main mouthpiece of Orthodoxy, an effective means of promoting religion.” The Council Resolution of October 31, 1979 “On the study of the preaching activities of clergy” obliged the commissioners to take measures to improve the work of studying it, to know the nature of the sermons, their ideological and political orientation, and also to consider this task one of the main ones in their work. The representatives of the Council were obliged to suppress the attacks of “individual fanatical preachers trying to incite hostility towards non-believers and atheists,” who “introduce elements of fanaticism into religious life,” call on believers to isolate themselves from society and “renounce everything earthly,” and spread slanderous fabrications about the policies of the Soviet Union. states in relation to religion, incite believers to illegal actions. A study of the mood of the clergy convinced the leadership of the Council that the overwhelming majority of clergy showed loyalty to the political structure of society. Considering the presence among the clergy of circles that are oppositional to the state authorities and the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, the commissioners, talking with the clergy, tried to find out their attitude to the domestic and foreign policy of the state. Information about the responses of the clergy and believers to various events was regularly provided to the central office of the Council, and then transferred to the Central Committee of the CPSU.

The Council was particularly interested in the study of modern theology, reviewing theological scientific works and church periodicals. The Council coordinated the information and analytical work of scientists and graduate students of leading research and educational institutions in order to study the problem of modernization of theology. More than 300 theological dissertations were studied annually. Council experts drew attention to the increasing use by Orthodox theologians of secular historical, philosophical, art history and even atheistic literature as sources and noted an increase in the level of preparation of dissertations, as well as a variety of topics, forms of presentation, nature of argumentation, i.e. noted a tendency to improve the qualifications of theology. In theological dissertations of the 1960s - 1980s. The conclusion was often voiced that the destruction of churches and monasteries impoverishes the cultural heritage. All authors cited speeches of the secular press in defense of ancient monuments, welcomed their restoration and restoration, and called for the preservation of at least the remnants of the former civilization.

The most important activity of the Council was monitoring compliance with Soviet legislation on cults and coordinating the corresponding work of its representatives. In the 1960s - 1980s. qualified as a violation of the law: participation of clergy in economic activities, performing religious services without appropriate registration and registration, holding services in prohibited places (services at holy springs, funeral services for the dead in the houses of believers, participation of priests in funeral processions, listening to religious audio recordings in the houses of priests by believers) , selling photocopies of icons, performing baptisms at priests’ homes, involving children in church services, baptizing children without the consent of both parents. The executive church bodies allowed in their activities prohibited charity (for example, issuing money to fire victims), illegal spending and misappropriation of funds, illegal business transactions, staged “thefts” of money from the church treasury, issuing money to church activists and clergy in the form of bonuses, medical, holidays, etc. It is also important to note that the Council identified and suppressed violations of the law by officials who infringed on the rights of believers, denied religious associations registration and satisfaction of their legal requests, and made illegal demands. The Council condemned the illegal imposition of fines on priests by local authorities, their demands from religious societies to make contributions to the Peace Fund and the Fund of Historical and Cultural Monuments, purchase lottery tickets, make contributions for the improvement of villages, fulfill obligations for the maintenance of cemeteries and road construction, etc.

The secret certificates of the Council provided specific examples of identified violations of the law in relation to believers: “Local authorities forced believers, under the threat of deprivation of pensions, to leave the “twenty”, after which the church was closed under the pretext of the “collapse” of the religious society... The regional executive committee obliged the chairmen of city and district councils to take measures to prevent children and youth under 18 years of age from visiting churches and houses of worship, performing rituals... The local press fosters a contemptuous, mocking attitude towards believers, they are called “fanatics”, “obscurantists”, “hypocrites” ", "fanatics", "rabid elements"... For years, applications from believers to register religious associations have not been considered... Local authorities have given instructions to stop services in the church until all icons and other church utensils are impregnated with a fire-retardant compound ... There have been cases of expulsion from educational institutions and dismissal from work on religious grounds... They refuse to award the title “Mother Heroine” to I. I. Bobkova, who gave birth to and raised 10 children, among whom there are excellent students, only because the reason is that she is a believer, and her husband is a priest of the Old Believer Church... Believers are also often deprived of the opportunity to participate in the movement for communist labor, deprived of the title of drummer for religious reasons.

Certain officials subject believers to administrative sanctions, resort to threats and intimidation for trying to defend their rights..." It is not surprising that the Council annually received numerous complaints from believers, the flow of which was increasing. In the resolution of October 31, 1979, "On the state of work with letters and complaints from citizens" The Council demanded that its employees "provide an attentive, sensitive, principled and businesslike approach to the analysis of each letter and complaint, giving motivated, comprehensive answers to them. Take all necessary measures to satisfy fair requests and complaints of citizens, exercising effective control over their timely, high-quality consideration and resolution." In 1982, Kuroyedov, addressing the CPSU Central Committee with his next report, emphasized: "The desire to resolve purely ideological issues by administrative means, to replace an ideological struggle against religion, a struggle against the Church and believers, seems deeply erroneous."

However, in the mid-1980s. local party and government officials still continued to use methods of administrative influence on religious associations. In particular, K. M. Kharchev, who replaced Kuroedov as chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs in November 1984, wrote about this in one of his secret notes to the CPSU Central Committee. Analyzing the religious situation in the country, he noted that in a number of places believers are deprived of the opportunity to calmly satisfy their religious needs; they are prevented from registering their societies and purchasing prayer premises. In thousands of settlements, groups of believers of various faiths hold services illegally. Many of them have been applying for registration of their associations for years, but their requests, as a rule, are unreasonably rejected (Moldavian, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek, Georgian, Azerbaijan SSR, a number of regions of the Ukrainian SSR and the RSFSR). Legitimately operating religious societies are often prohibited from repairing houses of worship, using electric lighting, or sending a priest. There are facts of dismissal from work or expulsion from educational institutions on religious grounds, deprivation of believers of incentives for good work and infringement of their other rights.

The Council's statistical materials indicate that the quantitative indicators of registration of religious societies were very insignificant, since deregistration continued. In 1984, 99 religious societies were registered throughout the USSR as a whole, in 1985 - 65, in 1986 - 67, in 1987 - 104, including 34, 23, 28, 44 in the RSFSR, respectively.

The situation changed only after the January (1987) plenum of the CPSU Central Committee on issues of perestroika and personnel policy, which decided to democratize society and reform the party. The following month, Chairman of the Council Kharchev presented to the CPSU Central Committee an analytical note “On some issues of implementing the party’s policy regarding religion and the Church at the present stage.” The author of the note emphasized that over the past decades, significant changes have occurred in this area of ​​public life, requiring appropriate adjustments in the forms and methods of management, and a restructuring of the thinking of personnel. Kharchev believed that a materialistic worldview was firmly established in the public consciousness, although a certain part of the population still remains “under the influence of religious ideology and morality.” However, “mostly these are honest Soviet workers, patriots of their country.” According to the Council's forecasts, this group of the population (10 - 20%) will exist for a long time, and the departure from religion will develop as "a process of evolution of their consciousness, erosion of religious values, displacement of them by the ideals and moral norms of socialism." In general, the position of religion in the country has stabilized. By 1987, more than 20 thousand religious associations of different faiths operated in the USSR. In the last quarter of the 20th century. The level of religious rituals practically did not decrease. Confessions have significantly strengthened their material base. Cash receipts from believers and income from the sale of religious objects more than doubled. About 600 houses of worship were reconstructed, purchased and built. The personnel of the clergy was updated, its educational level increased, the number of clergy increased to 30 thousand people.

Referring to the decisions of the 27th Congress of the CPSU, Kharchev emphasized that the main means of combating religion should be the active involvement of believers in labor and social activities, the promotion of a materialistic worldview, the choice of such forms of state regulation of the activities of church organizations that would suppress religious extremism without offending at the same time, the feelings of believers and without violating the principle of freedom of conscience. However, local party and state cadres continue to fight against religion, on the one hand, using methods of abstract education, and on the other, administrative pressure. A significant part of party and Soviet workers show hostility towards believers, a desire to limit and infringe on their civil rights, while another part shows indifference and conciliation towards religious manifestations. Rough administrative control over the religious situation led to negative structural changes in the relationship between different religions. Over the last decades of the existence of the USSR, the number of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church decreased by almost half, but sectarianism, especially Baptistism, intensified, extremist elements became more active, and their missionary activity increased.

With the relative stability of the number of adherents of Catholicism, outbreaks of religious activity of Uniates seeking to legalize their activities are noticeable. New forms of religiosity are emerging, primarily among young people and the intelligentsia - mystical organizations and sects preaching pseudo-eastern teachings. Religiosity remains highest in areas of traditional Islam, where the process of ousting religion from the sphere of mass consciousness will take a longer time. But local party and government officials, not wanting to lag behind in the “cause of atheism,” do not register many religious associations and clergy. The situation is aggravated by the fact that, while maintaining a network of houses of worship and Orthodox churches visited by non-indigenous people, local authorities often close mosques, thereby provoking anti-Russian nationalist manifestations.

The consequences of a “cavalry charge” on religion, according to Kharchev, can lead to the growth of unregistered and uncontrolled religious communities, where extremist sentiments are most often born. The number of such unregistered communities in 1987 had already reached several thousand. Although in the 1970s - 1980s. the unjustified reduction of the religious network was suspended, and in a number of places the registration of the most active societies was even resumed; nevertheless, the practice of using administrative methods to combat religion remained. Kharchev’s conclusion was disappointing for the country’s political leadership: “All this suggests that there is a real danger of weakening the role and influence of the state in managing the processes occurring in the activities of religious associations and contributing to the reproduction of the religiosity of the population.” Possible consequences of this could be, firstly, the growing protest of believers, their uncertainty about the sincerity of the state’s policy on a religious issue, and secondly, the strengthening of “imperialist and clerical propaganda, imposing on world public opinion the image of the USSR as a totalitarian, anti-democratic state,” which would hinder the strengthening of the country's authority in the international arena.

The Council proposed that “along with every possible strengthening of atheistic education, not to aggravate relations with the Church” and, for this purpose, to revise the legislation on cults and improve the practice of its application, i.e. recognize for religious associations the right of a legal entity, and for parents - the right to raise children in a religious spirit, the right of believers to perform religious rituals at home and in hospital, the right of religious associations to conduct religious propaganda. To do this, it is necessary to abandon the hostile denunciatory tone towards religious associations.

An important problem in the activities of the Council during the perestroika years was the consideration of applications for registration of religious associations. In the country, about 16% of religious associations operated for a long time without registration, including: 52 societies of the Russian Orthodox Church, 74 Old Believer, 26 Catholic, about 300 Protestant, more than 320 Muslim, etc. Therefore, on January 28, 1988, the Council adopted a resolution “On the facts of violation the established procedure for considering applications for registration of religious associations." Analyzing the religious situation in the country, Council workers came to the conclusion that the majority of societies seeking registration recognized Soviet legislation on religious cults, but the applications of the founders of more than 260 such associations for registration were unreasonably rejected by local authorities, often with the connivance of Council commissioners. Local authorities of some regions did not consider the applications of the founders in the prescribed manner (Lvov, Ternopil, Chernivtsi, Khmelnitsky - in the Ukrainian SSR, Grodno, Brest, Vitebsk - in the BSSR, Perm, Lipetsk, Ryazan - in the RSFSR, Moldavian SSR, etc.). There were serious violations of the deadlines for considering applications from religious citizens for registration; complaints from believers and clergy often went unanswered.

In 1987, the Council received 3,015 complaints - almost 30% more than in 1986. Only from 5 regions of Ukraine (Volyn, Lvov, Ivano-Frankivsk, Khmelnytsky and Chernivtsi) in 1987, 556 letters were received, from Moldova - 115 letters, many of them were repeated. In 1987, 1,713 believers (808 groups), mainly from the RSFSR, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus, attended receptions at the Council. Thus, believers from the village of Ilemni, Ivano-Frankivsk region. came to the Council 7 times, from the village. Radoai of the Moldavian SSR - 8 times, etc. The Council informed the highest and local government bodies that delays in considering applications from religious citizens were a gross violation of the legislation on religious cults. The local staff of the Council was instructed to take measures to eliminate violations in the procedure for considering applications for registration of religious associations and to achieve its practical implementation.

In February 1988, the Council at its regular meeting considered questions about the draft charter of the Russian Orthodox Church and the holding by the Moscow Patriarchate of the Pre-Conciliar Bishops' Conference, the Local Council and the anniversary solemn act dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. The draft charter was presented by Patriarch Pimen and members of the Synod, and it was adopted as the basis. One of the important new statutory provisions was the recognition of the independent economic interests of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Moscow Patriarchate received the consent of the Council to hold the Pre-Conciliar Bishops' Conference, the Local Council and the anniversary solemn act. The commissioners of the Council for the Union Republics were instructed to carry out explanatory work with the episcopate, aimed at supporting projects developed by the Moscow Patriarchate during the bishops' conference and the Local Council. The leadership of the Council feared complications in the internal political situation due to the celebrations on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. Therefore, in March 1988, the Council gave instructions to intensify preventive work with believers, especially those with “extremist sentiments.” Local units of the Council, together with party and Soviet bodies, were instructed to develop, taking into account local conditions, measures to prevent negative manifestations in connection with the anniversary, create appropriate working groups and inform the leadership of the Union Council at least twice a month about the religious situation on the ground.

The Council also considered the issue of regulating the production of church utensils and religious objects in connection with the introduction of the law on individual labor activity. A letter from Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Pimen addressed to Kharchev stated that, according to the results of an inspection by the Main Financial Directorate of Moscow, there are already numerous groups of citizens manufacturing and selling church candles, icons and utensils without the appropriate permits from the Councils of People's Deputies. The activities of this category of persons are not controlled by anyone, and taxes to the state budget are not collected from them by financial authorities. The Patriarch reported that, according to current legislation, the workshops of the economic management of the Patriarchate contribute 69% of their income to the state budget, which amounts to an annual sum of 39 million rubles.

“Thus,” the Patriarch concluded, “the current legislation and practice of collecting taxes do not correspond to the interests of the state and society, the Russian Orthodox Church.” The Patriarch proposed adding to Art. 13 of the Law “On Individual Labor Activity”, paragraph 7, prohibiting the production of candles, icons and church utensils. As a result, the Council decided to submit a petition to the government of the USSR to adopt legislative measures prohibiting the production for the purpose of subsequent sale of church utensils and religious objects within the framework of cooperative and individual labor activities.

At the same March 1988 meeting, the Council decided to increase the circulation of religious publications in 1989 (the desktop calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church to 180 thousand, and theological works to 15 thousand copies). At the suggestion of the Department of International Relations, the Council increased the estimated expenses of the Moscow Patriarchate to 2 million foreign currency rubles in connection with the upcoming anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. (in 1987 - 1,591,450 foreign currency rubles). The publishing department of the Moscow Patriarchate was allowed to receive 500 thousand copies of the “Orthodox Prayer Book” in Russian as a gift from the Evangelical Church of Germany.

At the same time, non-Orthodox religious organizations were allowed to receive literature (Bibles, collections of spiritual songs, reference books, etc.), paper and materials for the repair of religious buildings as a gift from European religious organizations.

On the eve of the 1000th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity, the activities of the Council began to attract media attention. In May 1988, Ogonyok magazine published material about one working day of Council Chairman Kharchev, presenting him as a fair, responsive person, trying to help the Church and believers. In March 1988, he gave a speech to students at the Moscow Higher Party School, which caused a mixed reaction. Thus, the historian D.V. Pospelovsky considers Kharchev to be a cunning and proactive apparatchik who developed measures to “domesticate” believers by the state. Kharchev, for example, stated: “According to Lenin, the party must keep under control all spheres of life of citizens, and since believers cannot be avoided, and our history has shown that religion is serious and for a long time, then it is easier for the party to make a sincere believer also believe in communism "And here we are faced with the task of educating a new type of priest; the selection and appointment of a priest is a matter for the party." It seems, however, that the Canadian historian was somewhat biased in his assessment of Kharchev’s personal qualities when he mentioned his cunning.

The initiative of the “perestroika” chairman of the Council leaves no doubt. After all, the meeting in the Kremlin between M. S. Gorbachev and Patriarch Pimen and members of the Holy Synod took place on April 29, 1988 precisely on the initiative of the Council, which played a leading role in its holding. During the meeting, the state’s turn to dialogue with the Church and believers was confirmed and a decision was made to celebrate the approaching millennium of the Baptism of Rus' not only as a church anniversary, but also as a socially significant anniversary. Gorbachev responded with consent to the Patriarch’s official invitation to attend the anniversary celebrations, declaring that the Baptism of Rus' “is a significant milestone on the centuries-old path of development of national history, culture, and Russian statehood.”

At the beginning of May 1988, the Council informed the CPSU Central Committee about the religious situation in the country on the eve of the anniversary, noting that the majority of believing citizens of the USSR supported the course towards updating all aspects of the life of Soviet society. In church circles there was a growing tendency towards active cooperation with the state in the sphere of domestic and foreign policy. The attention of the clergy and believers to the problems of strengthening the family, conscientious attitude to work, combating drunkenness, preserving cultural heritage, etc. increased. The desire to democratize the activities of religious communities and to streamline the network of unregistered associations on the basis of the principle of freedom of conscience became increasingly persistent. Preparations for the anniversary revived the life of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the Old Believer Church, which was manifested in strengthening the organizational structures of religious institutions, increasing expenses for repair and restoration work, raising questions about the opening of new prayer and business premises, and increasing the circulation of religious publications.

In religious practice, there was a noticeable increase in the solemnity of divine services, the desire to emphasize the priority of the Church in the formation of moral values, to present it as an integral part of socialist society, a necessary element of national culture and statehood. The requirements of departmental instructions that contradicted the law on the mandatory presentation of passports by parents when baptizing children and the prohibition of ringing bells were abolished. All this contributed to the normalization of the religious situation within the country and caused a wide resonance abroad.

For 5 years - from 1985 to 1990. - 4,552 new religious associations were registered. A twofold or more increase in their number was noted in Georgia, Moldova, and Tukmenia; by a third or more - in the RSFSR, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Armenia. The situation in the Baltic states remained stable. These differences were explained by the fact that on the eve of perestroika in the republics of the USSR there were different conditions for the activities of religious associations, and the degree of commitment of authorities to administrative methods in solving problems in the religious sphere was also different. At the same time, the increase in the number of religious associations occurred in all faiths, but the changes were especially significant in the Russian Orthodox Church (3,402 parishes reopened, an increase of 49%), in the Georgian Orthodox Church (218), Roman Catholic (219), in the Muslim cult (382). ). The number of associations of Pentecostals, Seventh-day Adventists, Hare Krishnas, etc. has increased significantly. There were 77 monasteries operating on the territory of the USSR, of which 57 belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church. Among the registered religious associations in 1991, Greek Catholics, Baha'is and Apocalypticists appeared for the first time.

However, at the end of the 1980s. Differences arose in the religious policies of the union and republican centers. The republics of the USSR always had their own vision of resolving religious problems. The representatives of the Council in the Union republics, while formally subordinate to the Council, actually carried out the will of the local authorities. The latter sought to destroy the existing system of bodies for religious affairs and create independent de jure and de facto republican structures. Back in 1974, the Council for Religious Affairs was formed under the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR, and in 1987 - under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR. At the end of the 1980s. Almost all republics of the USSR expressed their desire to form bodies for religious affairs accountable to them. The result of this restructuring was the confrontation between the union and republican (RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR) Soviets, which was due to the divergent political courses of the leadership of the USSR and the named republics.

In July 1990, the consideration of religious issues was entrusted to the Committee of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on issues of freedom of conscience, religion, mercy and charity, which consisted mainly of representatives of various faiths and the Christian Democratic movement. The committee was headed by Orthodox priest V. S. Polosin. It seemed to the committee members that it was enough to destroy the previous system of relations between the state and religious organizations, repeal Soviet legislation on religious cults, and remove previous barriers to the activities of religious organizations - and the religious issue would be resolved. At the initiative of the committee, the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR and the positions (apparatuses) of its local representatives, as well as the fifth department (for combating ideological sabotage), which included the fourth (church) department in the KGB system, were abolished.

Significant changes also occurred in the activities of the Union Council, which was reflected in the new regulations on the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Cabinet of Ministers, approved on April 26, 1991. The 1991 regulations deprived the Council for Religious Affairs of all its administrative and control functions. He no longer considered materials on registration, refusal or deregistration of associations, on the opening or closing of houses of worship, on monitoring compliance with the USSR Constitution in terms of legislation on cults, checking the activities of religious organizations, etc. It was transformed into a body ensuring the right of citizens to freedom of conscience, equality of all religions and denominations before the law, and implementing the principle of separation of Church and state. The Cabinet of Ministers abolished the institution of Council commissioners in regions, territories, autonomous and union republics. In the conditions of the accelerating process of decentralization of the USSR, the Union Council had less and less influence on church policy in the USSR as a whole and in individual republics. With the formation of the CIS in December 1991, the Council for Religious Affairs was also abolished. Each of the republics began to independently decide the question of the advisability of having a state body for relations with religious organizations. To date, almost all former USSR republics have recreated them.

An analysis of the activities of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR shows that its main content was determined by the policy of the Communist Party and the Soviet government, which during this period was no longer aimed at forcing religion out of the public life of the socialist state, but at curbing the spread of religious views and strengthening positions ROC. In line with this policy, the Council carried out a set of restrictive measures to control the activities of churches, monasteries, clergy, and religious associations of believers. At the same time, the Council was the center of information and analytical work on the study of modern religions and the level of religiosity of members of society. Many of the conclusions contained in his documents were predictive in nature, determining the prospects for the development of the religious situation in the country for decades to come. In the system of the state apparatus, the Council carried out not only control and supervisory, information and advisory, but also human rights functions. It is historically unreliable to consider this body only as an institution that controlled and limited the lives of believers. The Council played a prominent role in protecting the rights of believers within the framework of existing legislation on religious cults.

By presenting annual information reports on the state of Orthodoxy and other faiths to the CPSU Central Committee, the Council drew the attention of the party and state leadership to strengthening the loyalty of the Church and clergy towards the Soviet state. Noting the reproduction of religiosity in new generations, the Council emphasized that a modern believer is a citizen of the country who loves his Fatherland and has the right to satisfy his religious needs. This conclusion was constantly present in the Council documents. The information provided by the Council to the highest authorities prompted the authorities to rethink relations with the Church and believers, a fundamental change in which occurred in the second half of the 1980s. Therefore, the Council, whose analytical work showed the political leadership an objective picture of the religious situation in the country, has a special role in preparing the state and society to turn to dialogue with believers.

Yu.V. Geraskin

The emergence and formation of the institution of the authorized Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR

Key words: church, temple, priest, commissioner, petition, believers

In 2008, it was 65 years since the founding of a special body that monitors the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and communicates with its leadership - the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. This body was created on September 14, 1943, a few days after the famous meeting of Stalin with the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Metropolitans Alexy and Nikolai, which took place on September 4. Georgy Grigorievich Karpov, a 45-year-old career employee of the NKGB of the USSR with the rank of colonel, was appointed the first chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Stalin's conversation with the metropolitans was preceded by a conversation with Karpov. Stalin rejected Karpov's proposal to organize a special body under the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in the form of a department for religious affairs and himself proposed calling it the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. The main function of the new state apparatus, according to Stalin, was to organize the relationship between the government and the church. At the same time, Stalin warned Karpov against presenting himself as the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, and recommended that his activities more emphasize the independence of the Church.

On September 14, 1943, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution on the formation of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. Somewhat later, on October 7, the Regulations on this state body were approved. The Council was entrusted with the task of “carrying out communications between the Government of the USSR and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' on issues of the Russian Orthodox Church that require consideration by the Government of the USSR.” From the government side, the activities of the Council in 1943-1945. supervised by Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V.M. Molotov. He examined the reports, reports, letters, and summary notes submitted by Karpov. Decisions were made, as a rule, during personal meetings. In addition, in the first years after the historic meeting with the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, Stalin personally considered church problems.

By the end of 1943, the central apparatus of the Council was formed. The members of the Council, in addition to its chairman G. Karpov, included 4 people: a deputy chairman, two members and an executive secretary. Candidates for these posts were approved directly by the Council of People's Commissars on the recommendation of Karpov. The posts of the chairman and his deputy were classified as nomenklatura positions, and their approval took place at a meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. With Molotov’s consent, Karpov also retained the position of head of the department in the NKGB structure. The combination of positions, initially conceived as short-term, dragged on until Karpov’s dismissal from the KGB of the USSR in 1955 with the rank of major general. Staffing the central apparatus of the Council (referents, instructors, service personnel) was slow and difficult. In 1945, it was possible to completely fill the staff of the central apparatus and recruit just over 40 people. By the beginning of 1944, only half of the allocated vacancies for the staff of the Institute of Local Commissioners were filled. Only by the end of 1946 was the personnel problem resolved, and almost all allocated vacancies were filled - there were 112 commissioners in the republics, territories and regions.

In 1943, Stalin proposed a new course in relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. The spiritual and religious factor was to play a very significant role in turning around the initially unfavorable course of military operations for the country and in the growth of national-patriotic self-awareness. The new course meant a rejection of the policy of militant atheism with class struggle against the clergy, which was characteristic of the previous period of Soviet history. The institution of the Church was officially legalized in the Soviet state. Although the state-church symphony was performed according to the notes of the state, and the representative of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church had more rights than the ruling bishop, and yet the ideological press of the 1920-1930s. gone.

On September 8, 1943, a council of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church was held, consisting of 19 archpastors, which elected Metropolitan Sergius as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The Moscow Patriarchate was allocated the building of the former German embassy in Chisty Lane, provided with vehicles, and allowed

publishing his own magazine, organizing candle factories, opening seminaries and academies. Some exiled bishops were released. Priests were exempted from military service. The main thing is that churches are allowed to open in regions where there were none or very few of them.

Since the end of 1943, the mass opening of churches began in the country. On November 28, 1943, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a resolution “On the procedure for opening churches,” according to which petitions of believers were considered by local authorities, and if approved, were sent to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. After a preliminary decision by the Council, they were submitted to the Council of People's Commissars and then again to the Council. A similar procedure was intended to dose the opening of new churches. In total in 1943-1944. The Central Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church received 5,777 applications to open churches, but only 414 applications were granted. During 1944 and the first half of 1945, 600 applications were received from believers in the Ivanovo industrial region. In 1944, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church received 300 petitions from the Ryazan region, but only 26 churches were opened.

Local authorities, due to inertia, often showed great reluctance to open once-closed churches. Many statements ended up in the regional executive committee without a clear answer. Only the establishment of the institution of commissioners for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church made it possible to speed up the flow of documents. However, the complex, multi-level procedure for considering applications, provided for by the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of November 28, 1943, allowed local authorities to regulate the process of opening churches at their own discretion. Ultimately, the fundamental decisions were made by the regional executive committees.

The petitions of believers to open churches were rejected for various reasons: the large distance from the temple to the populated area, non-compliance with construction and technical standards, sanitary conditions when using the church as a grain warehouse in cases where believers did not agree to repair the church building on their own.

The resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated December 1, 1944 obliged the district executive committees, which responded to the commissioner's requests with great reluctance, delay and evasiveness, to send certificates to the commissioners within 10 days from the date of receipt of the request. Often the central authorities in certain cases had to intervene directly and cancel their unlawful decisions. For example, the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR obliged the Ryazan Regional Executive Committee to allow a group of believers to s. Letovo, Rybnovsky district, to open a church in a building renovated with their funds. Earlier, on April 23, 1944, the regional executive committee rejected the believers' appeal.

On July 28, 1944, after the appeal was revised at the request of believers, it was again rejected. Then the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on August 28, 1944 overturned the decision of the Ryazan Regional Executive Committee. This gave reason to the old Bolshevik V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, who did not accept the normalization of state-church relations, to condemn Karpov for this, in his words, “The Kiss of Judas.”

How was the institution of regional commissioners for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church formed in the first post-war years? In the hands of the commissioners were concentrated: consideration of applications from believers to open churches, preparation of certificates, draft conclusions, decisions of the regional executive committee, registration of religious communities, ministers of worship (the fate of the priest depended on his decision), carrying out other decisions arising from the instructions of the Council to the local commissioners.

The duty of the commissioner was to monitor the situation, inform the Center about all illegal facts of administration in the sphere of state-church relations and amortize their negative consequences. For these purposes, a reception for the clergy and believers was established. The clergy visited the commissioner most often on registration of religious societies, other organizational issues, including assistance in the supply of building materials, as well as to resolve conflict situations that arose with local authorities. The main motive for the visit of the authorized believers is to find out the results of petitions for the opening of churches. They often came with complaints about obstacles caused by local authorities. Commissioners often found themselves in a difficult, contradictory situation when it was impossible to avoid problems, especially in cases of gross non-compliance with legislation on cults, arbitrariness towards believers on the part of local party and government bodies.

In most cases, criticism of local authorities also extended to the commissioner, to whom believers at a reception could directly declare: “... Why do you forbid us, Orthodox Christians, from performing our religious rites, and in the Constitution they wrote - freedom of religion, but are you still mocking Russian Orthodox people, he endures for a long time, but then he will speak firmly.” . In the first half of the 50s. from the believers of the Ryazan diocese

There were an average of 60-70 complaints and statements every year.

What was the general portrait of the Commissioner for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in the post-war era? As a rule, he came from a worker-peasant environment, a member of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)-CPSU, mostly with a low educational qualification (sometimes there were people with higher education). Most of the commissioners had experience working in the NKVD-NKGB (this was the initial setting of the personnel selection center). In a word, these were “soldiers of the party.” In the Ryazan region from 1944 to 1952, I.S. worked as a commissioner. Denisov, born in 1893, a member of the Bolshevik Party from March 1917, a participant in the events of the February bourgeois revolution in Petrograd, a member of the Petrograd Soviet in August 1917 and a participant in the defeat of the Kornilov rebellion. Before the Great Patriotic War he was in party and Soviet work. The biography contains interesting facts from the point of view of Denisov’s type of activity. On June 24, 1922, at the request of Ryazgubpart, he attended a meeting of clergy of the Ryazan diocese. In November of the same year he gave an anti-religious lecture in his native village. Inyakino. The lecture provoked a fight and the arrest of people who were hostile to the anti-God line of the party. Thus, Commissioner Denisov fully met the requirements of the party-state apparatus of the Stalin era.

At the same time, the commissioners, being, as a rule, from the provinces, could not help but act according to the concepts of traditional society, when the interests of their fellow countrymen were closer to the demands made.

On August 27, 1947, without waiting for the decision of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (it was adopted on April 24, 1948, and the standard agreement with the religious association of the village of Inyakino was concluded only on April 20, 1951), Denisov ordered the Shilovsky District Executive Committee to facilitate the opening of a temple in this village . Since the position of the commissioner was not directly incorporated into the local party-Soviet power vertical, his status was not entirely clear to the local nomenklatura. Therefore, at first, the district executive committees responded to the commissioner’s requests with great reluctance, with delay and evasively. His reception room was located in an old, damp wooden house, which constantly prompted Denisov to complain to the regional executive committee demanding normal working conditions. The Commissioner was not allocated a personal company car. Knowing the limited vehicle fleet of the regional executive committee, Denisov did not even raise the question of allocating him transport. Despite the fact that in March 1945 telegrams signed by

V.M. Molotov with the requirement to provide those authorized with the necessary working conditions, even

This kind of instructions was not always fully and unquestioningly carried out by local Soviet authorities.

The staff of the commissioner for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church usually consisted of three units, including the commissioner himself, a secretary and a typist. Cash fund of the staff of Ivanovo Commissioner S.A. Vinogradov was distributed as follows: the authorized person received 1,500 rubles, the secretary received 300 rubles, and the typist received 250 rubles.

The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars (Council of Ministers) of the USSR regularly inspected the work of the commissioners and heard their reports. In the spring of 1945, the Council considered the issue of the work of Voronezh Commissioner V.S. Gosteva. The Council noted that, in general, it had done significant work to study church life in the entrusted territory. At the same time, attention was drawn to such shortcomings in his work as “the slowness in considering the applications of believers, which caused the receipt of a large number of complaints from them,” insufficiently thorough study of the applications of believers, and the slow registration of priests and existing parishes. The commissioner was recommended to “not allow interference in the internal church affairs of the diocese (appointments, transfers, dismissals of clergy, meetings of deans, etc.) if these issues are not raised with the authorized ruling bishop.”

As a result of these recommendations, relatively normal relations were established between the Guest and the new ruling bishop Joseph (Orekhov), which, however, did not prevent the commissioner from writing a negative description of the bishop to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Until the beginning of 1947, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was under the tutelage of the MGB. In 1946, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted 6 resolutions and 33 orders based on information from the state security service. Despite the fact that a significant part of the staff of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church were state security officers, four commissioners were removed for extorting bribes from intercessors, and an investigation was carried out against another four. The personnel problem at the local level was extremely acute, since the work of the commissioner was not considered a sinecure, and there was no particular rush to do it. The following fact speaks to this. Chekist N.D. Medvedev, a former Tambov commissioner, who asked to return to his native department, was dismissed from the authorities in 1947 for underestimating the valuation of captured property. In 1949, only 20 commissioners came from the intelligence services. On August 4, 1952, Karpov complained to the Central Committee about the contamination of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in the center and locally with random personnel who were not ready for outwardly delicate and patient, but tough work with priests

and believers. He suggested that the new head of the MGB, Ignatiev, help the Council resolve the personnel issue and restore the order that was in the Council before Merkulov’s release from the MGB.

Based on the results of checking the work of the Ivanovo Commissioner, it turned out that he combines several positions and does not have a separate room. The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church raised relevant questions with the Ivanovo Regional Executive Committee about eliminating violations. In August 1945, the commissioner

S. A. Vinogradov was awarded the medal “For Labor Valor”.

In 1948, at the insistence of the Ivanovo Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church blamed Vinogradov for the opening of 39 churches. He was replaced by a new commissioner, I.I. Filippyuk, who before this appointment worked as the head of the secret department of the Rosglavkhleb trust in Ivanovo. In August 1948, Karpov informed the government that all applications were rejected in Ivanovo and a number of other regions. In 1949, Filippyuk submitted to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church a proposal on the advisability of stopping worship in rural churches for the period of field work, limiting the clergy only to the correction of religious requirements. The Council considered this proposal incorrect and untimely.

A similar replacement of the commissioner with a corresponding tightening of policy towards the Church took place in the Vladimir region, where P.A. Sergievsky, who had a higher pedagogical education, was replaced by the less educated but uncompromising K.M. Dead ends. Literally immediately after the personnel change, Bishop Onisim writes a complaint to the patriarch about the actions of the new commissioner.

In the 50s The personnel level of the commissioners becomes higher than it was during the war years, in conditions of feverish selection of people. In 1952, Sergei Ivanovich Nozhkin, born in 1904, a native of the Ryazan region, became the representative of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ryazan Region. It was quite suitable for the “thaw” era that followed some time later, which was characterized by a certain distrust of KGB workers. He was a teacher by education and differed from all Ryazan commissioners in his level of education. He had 13 years of teaching experience, worked as the director of the Ryazhsky Pedagogical College, and during the war years as a teacher of social and humanitarian disciplines in Tambov military schools. As a party worker, he oversaw cultural and educational institutions. Since 1950 - instructor in the propaganda and agitation department of the Ryazan Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.

Commissioner S. Nozhkin, according to the leadership of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, “basically built his relationship with the bishop correctly,” and he “listened to his recommendations.” However, Nozhkin did not limit himself to this and began to call for a conversation persons prepared by the Church for ordination to the clergy, thereby exceeding his authority. Tambov Commissioner P.I. Before his appointment to the post in 1961, Chauzov had to work as both a teacher and the head of the regional department of public education.

Since the opinion of the commissioners was decisive in matters regarding the opening or resumption of the activities of churches, attempts to “buy” the commissioners were a frequent occurrence on the ground. When delaying the consideration of believers’ petitions, one got the impression that the commissioner was doing this deliberately, expecting gratitude for the “trouble.” In 1952, on the part of priest N.G. Pronsky, rector of the church with. Nekrasovka Ermishinsky district, there was an attempt to give a bribe of 200 rubles to the Ryazan commissioner S.I. Nozhkin.

The bribe, according to the commissioner, was offered in support of a petition for an income tax reduction. Nozhkin filed a statement with the prosecutor’s office, but the investigation into the case was suspended because giving money was qualified as an attempt at a charitable contribution “for general humanitarian purposes.” Attempts to “appease” the commissioner were repeated later. In 1955, believers in the village of Elatma, seeking the opening of a temple, added 7 notebooks with 1032 signatures to the petition and collected 2 thousand rubles. for a bribe to the authorized person.

In a number of regions, interaction between bishops and commissioners was not easy. Serious conflicts took place in the Vladimir region. This is evidenced by a letter from Bishop Onisim dated March 4, 1952 addressed to Patriarch Alexy, which sets out a complaint against Commissioner K.M. Tupikova. The essence of the complaint is as follows: “It does not register the priest I appointed, does not report the reasons for refusing registration, and has begun to close churches

without notifying the Diocesan Administration about the closure and the reasons that led to this extreme measure.”

If 1939-1958 can generally be characterized as a fairly stable period in relations between the state and the church, then subsequently the state machine tried to eliminate religion in the process of building a communist society, to place the ritual and financial activities of the Church under total control. Local representatives of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church moved from an arbitration to a punitive policy. On this path, the party and state leadership was faced with the paradoxical vitality of rituals and the unprecedented financial contribution of the population to the economy of the Church.

During the years of Khrushchev’s persecution of religion, personnel corresponding to the nature of the decisions made were sought to supervise the activities of church structures. The reshuffling of personnel begins. After the critical speech of Patriarch Alexy I at the conference of the Soviet public on disarmament in February 1960, Karpov, who stood at the basis of the policy of normalizing relations with the church, and therefore did not take a course towards conflict with it, was dismissed from the post of Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. His successor was a party functionary, former ideological worker V. A. Kuroyedov, the author of a number of apologetic books on the position of the church in the USSR.

Personnel changes that meet the new requirements are also being carried out in the regions. In 1963, S. Nozhkin was transferred from the post of commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church to the post of deputy head of the culture department of the Ryazan Regional Executive Committee. Later he works as a teacher of scientific atheism at the Agricultural Institute and as a lecturer at the Knowledge Society. He is replaced by P. S. Maliev, a pensioner of the NKVD-MGB, who in the past served as the head of the personnel department of Smersh and the MGB in the Far Eastern and Volga military districts, the operational sector of the Soviet military administration of the state of Saxony in Germany, Kaluga and Ryazan regions. Representatives of a similar generation of commissioners were appointed in other regions. For example, in the Tambov region, a career NKVD-KGB officer also became authorized

A.I. Zverev.

In the early 60s. Relapses into secularism have clearly emerged in the religious policy of state bodies. Based on the oral order of the deputy chairman of the regional executive committee V.I. Maslova building of the diocesan hostel on the street. Lenina, 19 is allocated for the office of the Ryazan Commissioner for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Commissioner gives an order to the traffic police not to register 2 cars of the diocese as

purchased without written consent from him.

Ivanovsky Commissioner N.A. Zheltukhin characterized his relationship with the head of the Ivanovo diocese, Metropolitan Anthony (Krotevich) as follows: “Metropolitan Anthony. I built relationships with authorities correctly. All fundamental issues were resolved only in agreement with the authorized representative of the Council. Upon arrival in Ivanovo, he donated to the city the house of the diocesan administration, a library, and two Volga cars. Another smaller house was renovated for the diocesan administration. From diocesan funds he contributed quite significant sums (up to 40,000 rubles) to the Peace Fund.”

In 1965, a new body for implementing the state's religious policy was created - the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It combined the functions of the abolished Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Council for Cult Affairs (a body responsible for other faiths). The political leadership of the Brezhnev era set a course for further legalization of the Church with the aim of integrating its party-state machine into the concept of “developed socialism.” To the continuity in the views of Soviet leaders on the church as an outdated, archaic social institution, the Brezhnev political leadership added some new approaches. In general, the essence was to replace the spirit of true Orthodoxy with external forms that more or less satisfy Western public opinion.

Anti-religious actions have ceased to be large-scale. A line was taken to move away from the focus on quantitative indicators in atheistic work. Endowing the Church with the characteristics of a limited legal entity indicated a rejection of the policy of liquidating the church economy. Direct political violence is changed by strict regulation of the activities of the church, administrative and legislative control in order to identify and eliminate violations. Militant-atheistic propaganda is changing to scientific-atheistic. Church participation in patriotic, charitable activities and social service was taboo. In general, the previous line of ousting the Church from public life continued to operate, although it was no longer of a forced nature. Throughout all periods of Soviet history, the church was forced into one niche - peacekeeping activities. The Church never became a full-fledged subject of state-confessional relations during the years when Brezhnev was in power.

In the 1970s the posts of commissioners are beginning to be occupied by a new generation of representatives of the nomenclature

tours who are no longer from the intelligence services. On October 20, 1976, by decision of the Ryazan Regional Executive Committee, E.I. Borisov was appointed Commissioner for Religious Affairs. By this time, the fact of obvious personnel overexposure associated with the former commissioner P.S. Maliev had long become obvious. It was not so much a matter of Maliev’s retirement age. As a person endowed with the mentality of the “extraordinary” era, he did not correspond well to the new stage of state-church relations. The need to replace him with a “civilian” was obvious.

The new (and last) Ryazan commissioner was a typical representative of the middle-level party nomenklatura of the Brezhnev era. E.I. Borisov was born in 1925 in the Muromsky district of the Vladimir region. Mechanical engineer by training. After graduating from the Moscow Mechanical Institute, he worked his way up from a foreman to a shop manager at the Ryazan Machine Tool Plant. In the 50s worked as chief engineer of the regional MTS. Since 1962, in party and Soviet work: department instructor, 2nd secretary of the Zheleznodorozhny District Committee of the CPSU in Ryazan. After graduating from the High School under the CPSU Central Committee in 1967, he was appointed chairman of the Zheleznodorozhny District Executive Committee of Ryazan, and worked in this position for 9 years.

The new chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers, K.M., who replaced V. Kuroyedov with the beginning of perestroika. Kharchev personified a representative of the galaxy of promoters of the perestroika era. Occupying the post of Secretary of the Primorsky Regional Committee of the CPSU for Ideology, he did not work well with his immediate party superiors and was sent to study at the Diplomatic Academy. After training, he worked as ambassador to Guyana.

The figure of the chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs, K. Kharchev, became popular among journalists. In May 1988, in the Ogonyok magazine, correspondent A. Nezhny published an interview with Kharchev in order to show one working day in the life of the chairman of the Council, which consisted of receiving believers with complaints about local oppression and requests for permission to return or build the temple.

Canadian historian Pospelovsky believes that Kharchev’s bold speech in March 1988 to students at the Higher Party School reveals him as a cunning and proactive party apparatchik who developed measures to “tame” believers with the state.

The Chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs welcomed the support provided by Gorbachev’s political leadership to believers, noting the important role of believers in the renewal process: “Believers support the party’s course towards radical

renewal of our society. They see in perestroika the concern of the party and the state for the preservation of peace, for the establishment of the principles of social justice, for the pure moral atmosphere of society.”

On January 28, 1988, the Council adopted a resolution “On facts of violation of the established procedure for considering applications for registration of religious associations.” Having considered the proposals of its departments and commissioners for the legalization of the activities of religious associations that have been seeking registration for a long time, the Council noted that due to outdated stereotypes regarding religious citizens, proper measures are not taken to consider their applications. The result was a complication of the religious situation and the emergence of conflict situations. An all-Russian two-day seminar held in early April 1988 in Suzdal aimed the commissioners for religious affairs at strict adherence to socialist legality and ensuring constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion in the conditions of perestroika.

On the eve of the seminar in mid-March 1988, the Council for Religious Affairs sent an information letter to the localities, which gave examples of mistakes made by the party and Soviet bodies in the selection and placement of regional commissioners. Thus, in the Yaroslavl region, four commissioners were replaced in 4 years; some of them were dismissed for official and immoral misconduct (the Rostov commissioner was convicted under a criminal article).

At the initiative of the new chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs, the practice of presenting passports at baptism was abolished. But as soon as Kharchev made an attempt to free the Church from KGB control, he was removed from his post and sent back to diplomatic work. His place was taken by Yu.N. Hristoradnov. One of the reasons for disagreements with the First Deputy Chairman of the KGB of the USSR F.D. Bobkov was responsible for introducing a clause on alternative military service into the draft law on freedom of conscience. In 1989, on the pages of Ogonyok, Yu.N. Khristoradnov made a number of sensational revelations at that time, stating, for example, that one of his deputies was a full-time KGB employee.

Violations of the established procedure for considering applications gave rise to discontent among believers. In 1989, a fierce struggle between believers for churches began. In March, in Ivanovo, there was a hunger strike of 4 women demanding the legal transfer to believers of the Holy Presentation Church, the community of which was registered by the Council of Ministers of the USSR back in 1988. Commissioner A. A. Lysov, who was unable to promptly resolve the conflict situation,

became the object of criticism from the magazine Ogonyok.

In October 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations,” and the Supreme Council of the RSFSR adopted the Law “On Freedom of Religion.” According to the union law, the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers received the status of an information, advisory and expert center. Russian legislation

Instead of the Council for Religious Affairs, it provided for a Commission on Freedom of Conscience and Religion under the Supreme Council of the RSFSR. These legislative acts drew a line under the almost 60-year history of the institution of commissioners of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church (Religions) under the Government of the USSR, who, being a kind of intermediaries between the state and the church, carried out legal regulation of the activities of the religious life of society.

Bibliography

1. State Archives of the Russian Federation (GA RF). - F. R-6991. - Op. 1. - D. 1.

2. Dispute. - 1992. - No. 3.

3. GA RF. - F. 5446. - Op. 1. - D. 219.

4. Odintsov, M.I. Power and religion during the war / M.I. Odintsov. - M., 2005.

5. Shkarovsky, M.V. Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin and Khrushchev / M.V. Shkarovsky. - M., 1999.

6. Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI). - F. 17. - Op. 125.

7. GA RF. - F. R-6991. - Op. 1. - D. 3.

8. Historical magazine. - 1995. - No. 4.

9. GA RF. - F. R-6991. - Op. 2. - D. 1.

10. State Archives of the Ryazan Region (GARO).

F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 1.

11. GARO. - F. R-3789. - Op. 2. - D. 111.

12. Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. - F. 360. - K. 67. - D. 2.

13. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 55.

14. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 22.

15. GARO. - F. R-5629. - F. 3. - Op. 2. - D. 144.

Cor. 6. - T. 2.

16. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 117.

17. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 28.

18. Chumachenko, T.A. Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars (CM) of the USSR in 1943-1947: features of the formation and activities of the apparatus / T.A. Chumachenko // Power and the Church in the USSR and Eastern European countries. 1939-1958. - M., 2003.

19. State Archive of the Ivanovo Region (GAIO).

F. R-2953. - Op. 1. - D. 201.

20. State Archives of the Voronezh Region (GAVO). - F. 967. - Op. 1. - D. 11.

21. GAVO. - F. 967. - Op. 1. - D. 68.

22. GA RF. - F. R-6991. - Op. 2. - D. 2.

23. RGASPI. - F. 17. - Op. 132. - D. 65.

24. RGASPI. - F. 17. - Op. 1. - D. 130.

25. RGASPI. - F. 17. - Op. 132. - D. 569.

26. GA RF. - F. R-6991. - Op. 1. - D. 29.

27. GA RF. - F. R-6991. - Op. 1. - D. 323.

28. RGASPI. - F. 17. - Op. 132. - D. 6.

29. GAIO. - F. R-2953. - Op. 1. - D. 374.

30. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 869.

31. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 2. - D. 84.

32. State Archive of the Vladimir Region (GAVO). - F. P-100. - Op. 6. - D. 346.

33. GARO. - F. 3. - Op. 12. - D. 249. - Cor. 643.

34. Archive of the Tambov Region Administration.

F. 3443. - Op. 1. - D. 379.

35. Russian State Archive of Contemporary History (RGANI). - F. 5. - Op. 34. - D. 25.

36. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 42.

37. State Archive of the Tambov Region (GATO).

F. R-5220. - Op. 2. - D. 16.

38. GAVO. - F. R-3789. - Op. 1. - D. 1132.

39. GA RF. - F. R-6991. - Op. 1. - D. 869.

40. Kuroyedov, V.A. Soviet state and church /

V.A. Kuroyedov. - M., 1976.

41. Religion and church in Soviet society. - 2nd ed., add. - M., 1984.

42. GARO. - F. P-925. - Op. 62. - D. 36.

43. GAIO. - F. R-2953. - Op. 6. - D. 6.

44. Fedotov, A.A. Archpastor / A.A. Fedotov. - Ivanovo, 1998.

45. Fedotov, A.A. History of the Ivanovo diocese / A.A. Fedotov. - Ivanovo, 1998.

46. ​​Ambrose (Shchurov), archbishop. Word of the Archpastor / Ambrose (Shchurov). - Ivanovo, 1997.

47. GARO. - F. R-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 73.

48. Gentle, A. The Devil’s Commissioner / A. Gentle. - M., 1993.

49. Pospelovsky, D.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century / D.V. Pospelovsky. - M., 1954.

50. Science and religion. - 1987. - No. 2.

51. Dolmatov, V. Meeting in Suzdal of the Commissioners for Religious Affairs for the Autonomous Republics, Territories and Regions of the RSFSR / V. Dolmatov // Soviet Russia. - 1988.

52. GARO. - F.R.-5629. - Op. 1. - D. 167.

53. Light. - 1989. - No. 28.

THEM. Soviets

Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR: structure, functions and main areas of activity. (The era of V.A. Kuroyedov . 1966-1984)

December1965 The Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a resolution on the abolition of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Council for Religious Affairs and the creation on their basis of a new governing body, the Council for Religious Affairs. The year 1966 was the year of formation of this government body.The formation of the Council was viewed not just as another administrative reorganization, but as a transition in the state’s religious policy from “monitoring” to “control” over the religious situation and the activities of religious organizations.

The Council of Ministers of the USSR approved the Regulations on the Council, which incorporated the content of previous acts concerning the activities of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Council for Religious AffairsIn an effort to raise the status of the Council, its functions were somewhat expanded, and in terms of monitoring the implementation of legislation on religious cults, they were almost identical to prosecutorial supervision. Extremely important was the fact that cases of registration and deregistration, closure of churches and houses of worship were removed from the jurisdiction of local authorities and their final decision was transferred to the Council.

In accordance with the new Regulations onThe Council for Religious Affairs was assigned the following tasks:

· control over compliance with legislative acts that regulated the activities of religious organizations and determined the content of the principle of freedom of conscience

· study and generalization of the practice of applying legislation on cults in the country

· informing the Government about the activities of religious organizations

· assistance to religious organizations in the implementation of international relations, participation in the struggle for peace, and in strengthening friendship between peoples.

For permission For these tasks, the Council was endowed with the following rights:

· make decisions on registration (de-registration) of religious associations, opening (closing) of houses of worship, based on proposals from authorities

· check the activities of religious organizations in terms of their compliance with legislation on cults

· enter with the idea of ​​canceling decisions taken by authorities that are contrary to the law

· provide the necessary clarifications on issues related to the application of legislation on cults.

The Council was formed by the Chairman and his deputies, appointed by the Council by the Minister of the USSR, and members of the Council, appointed by the Council of Ministers on the nomination of the Chairman. The Council also included, as ex officio members, the Commissioners of the Council for the Union Republics . At Council meetings, as a rule. With the participation of invitees - regional commissioners, representatives of government bodies and employees of the central apparatus, issues related to the implementation of the tasks of the Council, the religious situation in various regions of the USSR and the state of religious cults, the activities of the Commissioners and proposals for improving legislation were discussed. In some cases, off-site meetings of the Council were also held.

In the autonomous republics, territories and regions, the Council had its own Representatives, who were subordinate to the Council in their official activities, and in terms of financial, economic and organizational matters were provided by local authorities. In reality, the Commissioners, whose candidacies were submitted by local party bodies, were more dependent on local party and Soviet bodies than on the Council, and therefore complex conflicts often arose between all these officials and bodies.

According to the Regulations on the Council, the Commissioners implemented the general tasks and powers of the Council within the regions; they were the link between authorities and religious organizations in the republics of the USSR and at the same time between the republican authorities and the Council in Moscow.

The commissioners were endowed with certain rights that allowed them to resist the “claims” of local authorities in their attack on right-wing believers. In particular,from now on they had the right:

· give mandatory orders to eliminate violations of the legislation on cults

· raise the issue of bringing violators of the law to justiceO cults

· enter with the idea of ​​repealing acts, contrary to the law, varnished to the authorities that accepted them, and to higher authorities.

In their practical activities, the Commissioners of the Council for Religious Affairs in the republics, territories and regions of the Soviet Union most directly communicated with the central apparatus of the Council,the structure and number of which were approved by the Chairman of the Council.Excluding service personnel, the central office consisted of about 50 employees, and they were distributed among the following departments:

· for Protestant Church Affairs

· for Muslim and Buddhist Religious Affairs

· on affairs of the Catholic, Protestant, Armenian churches, Jewish religion and sects

· international relations

· legal

· accounting

· Common department

V.A. was appointed to the post of Chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Kuroyedov, who previously served as Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR (1960-1965). He was well aware of the real place and purpose assigned to the Council in the command-administrative system and had no illusions about the Council’s ability to overcome the long-standing tradition of restricting the rights and freedoms of believers and religious societies. But still, he tried to undertake some changes in his department aimed at “restoring order” in religious associations. Among them are proposals: on the formation under the Council of a Coordination Group of representatives of law enforcement agencies to interact in the implementation of a single line in the application of legislation on cults; on the publication of the Council's Information Bulletin; on updating legislation on cults and adopting the “Regulations on religious organizations in the USSR; on involving the public in organizing and monitoring compliance with legislation on cults.

According to the established procedure of those years, proposals were sent to departmentsCentral CommitteeCPSU. The general focus of the Council’s efforts on “restoring order” was supported, and it was even recommended to intensify actions to prevent “undesirable processes” in the religious environment and to curb the activity of church structures. But I found specific support onlythe idea of ​​“engaging the public” by formingat the executive committees of local Councils, commissions for assistance in monitoring compliance with legislation on cults.In 1966, the Council developed Model Regulations on Commissions and within a few years such commissions were created almost everywhere. The commissions included representatives of party, trade union, Komsomol, scientific, educational and other public organizations. They were entrusted with the responsibility of providing assistance to local authorities and the Commissioners of the Council in the republics, territories and regions of the USSR in terms of compliance with laws relating to religion and the church.

New tasks of the Council were submitted to the all-Union meeting of the Council's representatives held in June 1966. The strategic goal of the Council was formulated by its chairman as providing conditions and opportunities to accelerate the “overcoming of religious prejudices” in the context of the accelerating “crisis of religion” in Soviet society. The latter was seen in the years 1960-1965. up to 30% of religious associations ceased to exist and were deregistered, that the number of baptisms of children in Orthodox churches decreased in 1965 compared to 1962 in the RSFSR by 6.2%, in the Byelorussian SSR - by 2.1%; that among the clergy there are widespread “pessimistic” conversations about the reduction of the flock and the “futility” of their activities. Although at the same time facts of the opposite order were cited: the baptism rate of children in the RSFSR was 23.8%, the Ukrainian SSR - 51.5%, Moldova - 57.5%, the BSSR - 31.4; The income of religious organizations increased annually while the number of operating churches and monasteries decreased; in the “Muslim regions” the flow of pilgrims to the “holy places” did not decrease and more than a thousand mosques operated without registration.

Analyzing the religious situation in the country, V.A. Kuroyedov pointed to two trends in the “ideological” activities of churches: opportunism (modernism) and traditionalism. Although he believed that both contained a “danger” for society and the state, he still called for great attention to the attempts of religious organizations to “adapt” to the realities of socialism. society.

In confirmation, let us quote a fragment of Kuroyedov’s speech: “The purpose of adaptation is to cover up the reactionary essence of religion, to prove its progressiveness and irreplaceability... For this purpose, the organization and tactics of activity are being improved, the history of religious organizations is distorted, the opposition of science and religion is denied, statements are used that religious beliefs and norms of communist morality are completely compatible... The adaptation of religion to modern conditions is carried out both organizationally and ideologically plan. Religious people are not At the same time, they stop at violating church canonical regulations, making amendments even to the traditional, centuries-old religious and ritual practice... Not a single religion escaped this process, and even sucha stronghold of conservatism, like the Russian Orthodox Church. But, of course, adaptation in no way diminishes the reactionary essence of religion in modern conditions; it leaves the basis of religion unchanged. The tendency to adapt religious ideology and practice clearly shows that the church does not think of laying down its arms and is trying with all its might and means to maintain and even strengthen its positions.”

Concern at the meeting was also expressed in connection with the “intensification of fanatical elements” in the confessions. This meant, first of all, the Council of Churches of Evangelical Christian Baptists. He was charged with violations of the legislation on cults, expressed in such actions as holding illegal meetings, rallies and other acts in defense of religious freedom; publication of religious literature; organization of cash collections; creation of schools and clubs for teaching religion to children and adolescents.

In relation to Orthodoxy, a manifestation of “fanaticism” was seen in the actions of priests Eshliman and Yakunin, who in 1965-1966. sent an “openletter"Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) statement to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR N.V. Podgorny They expressed demands for the repeal of current legislationOcults, about providingfreedomchurches. At the same time, both dissidents condemned the Moscow Patriarchate and the bishops for “submitting to the dictates of atheist officials” and betraying the interests of the church. Some of the provisions were supported by almost a dozen ruling bishops, who turned to the patriarch with similar ideas. By “concerted” actions of the Patriarchate and the Council, some of the “converts” were removed from active church activities, others were banned from serving.

In the second half of the 60s, the state, abandoning the extrajudicial mass repressive measures against believers and the religious associations they created, characteristic of the 30s and the era of the “Khrushchev Thaw,” placed its main emphasis on the primary use of administrative and criminal measures.

On March 18, 1966, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR adopted a decree “On administrative liability for violation of the legislation on religious cults.” Including violations that were punishable by a fine (50 rubles, a fairly high standard for that time), imposed by administrative commissions under the executive committees of district and city Soviets of Working People's Deputies, were the following acts:

· evasion of the leaders of religious associations from registering the association with the authorities

· violation of the rules established by law for organizing religious meetings, processions and other religious ceremonies

· organization and holding by clergy and members of religious associations of special children's and youth meetings, as well as labor, literary and other circles and groups not related to the practice of worship .

At the same time, the issue of improving the forms of criminal prosecution for violations of legislation on religious cults was resolved. In this regard, it was intended to provide an explanation of the application of Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (1960) . The Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR did this in March 1966 with a special Resolution “On the application of Article 142 of the UKRSFSR on violation of the law on the separation of church from state and school from church.” It explained thatViolation of the laws on the separation of church and state and school from church, entailing criminal liability under Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, means:

· forced collection of fees and taxes in favor of religious organizations and clergy

· production for the purpose of mass distribution or mass distribution of appeals, letters, leaflets and other documents calling for non-compliance with legislation on religious cults

· committing deceptive acts with the aim of inciting religious superstitions among the masses of the population

· organizing and holding religious meetings, processions and other religious ceremonies that violate public order

· organization and systematic conduct of classes on teaching religion to minors in violation of the rules established by law

· refusal of citizens to apply for a job or an educational institution, dismissal from work or expulsion from an educational institution, deprivation of citizens of benefits and advantages established by law, as well as other significant restrictions on the rights of citizens depending on their attitude to religion .

Information received in subsequent years by the central apparatus of the Council for Religious Affairs testified to how actively the Decree and Resolution of the RSFSR Supreme Court were used in the republics of the USSR in relation to believers and their leaders in order to limit or terminate the activities of religious associations.For example, a certificate from the legal department of the Council, summarizing the practice of 1967-1968, indicated that in 1967 1,300 people were brought to administrative responsibility (Russia - 520, Ukraine - 400, Belarus - 140, Kyrgyzstan - 45, Moldova – 44, Kazakhstan – 30, Latvia – 18, Georgia – 9, Tajikistan – 3, Lithuania – 1, Estonia – 1). Of these: 800 people are members of associations of Evangelical Christians-Baptists and the Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, 90 are members of associations of Christians of the Evangelical faith, 20 are members of associations of Seventh-day Adventists, 80 are members of associations of the Russian Orthodox Church .

Facts were also recorded here (Kyrgyzstan, Primorsky Krai; Rivne and Khmelnitsky regions of the Ukrainian SSR; Mordovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Orenburg and Kustanai regions (RSFSR) of illegal imposition of fines on citizens in such cases as the provision of their houses for holding a prayer meeting; bringing their children by believers at prayer meetings; as well as against ministers of religion for the presence of minor children at meetings. The following conflict was also pointed out: often local authorities, without proper grounds, refused to register religious associations. And then they themselves fined the leaders of these religious associations for carrying out “illegal "prayer meetings. The compilers of the certificate noted that the Commissioners of the Council did not adequately use the right granted to them to enter into instances to cancel decisions of administrative commissions adopted in violation of the law. In 1967, based on such appeals, only 30 cases of unjustified fines were canceled.

As part of “establishing order” in the life of religious organizations, primarily unregistered ones,and to ensure control over the activities of religious associations, the Councils of Ministers of most union republics adopted special resolutions. The instigator was the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, which adopted a resolution in July 1968“On strengthening control over the implementation of legislation on religious cults.” It initially stated on the part of the authorities a certain“weakening” of control over the local implementation of legislation on religious worship, the presence of “unreasonable refusals” in the registration of religious associations and facts of “obstacles” in the use of prayer premises, which, as rightly noted, “infringes on the rights of believers guaranteed by law.” In conclusion, it was “decreed”: to ensure strict control over the implementation of legislation on religious cults; streamline the registration of religious organizations. Deal with each of the unregistered religious associations and determine which of them are subject to registration in accordance with current legislation, and also take the necessary measures in accordance with the established procedure in relation to religious organizations that evade registration .

In practice, all the measures, seemingly correctly proclaimed tasks, came down to one thing - regional, regional, and after them - city and district Councils of People's Deputies developed special measures, the center of which, as a rule, was measures to stop the activities of unregistered associations of all faiths, despite the fact that many of them were simply “hostages” of the authorities’ reluctance to satisfy the legitimate appeals of religious citizens. Their registration was simply not provided for or planned in the work plans of the authorities.

The scale of the spread of unregistered religious associations and the practice of pressure on them varied in the Union republics. In the second half of the 60s. The “Muslim question” arose with particular urgency, because in almost all the Central Asian republics, in the North Caucasus and the Volga region (RSFSR), dozens and hundreds of unregistered mosques, clergy, and holy places operated.

In the summer of 1968, representatives of the Council, party and Soviet workers from the regions of the traditional spread of Islam specially gathered in Tashkent to discuss the state of affairs in the Muslim cult. Regarding the issue of registration of Muslim communities, V.A. Kuroyedov said: “There are several times more unregistered Muslim societies in the country than registered ones. For example, in the Kirghiz SSR, while there are 33 registered Muslim associations, 302 associations operate without registration. There are 67 clergy registered in the Uzbek SSR. Works alongside them 700 unregistered Muslim clergy. The nature of the activities of manyunregisteredMuslim bath associationsand a minister of worship doing almost nothingdifferent expects o t registered activities. Recently, in a number of places, cases of believers opening mosques without permission from authorities have become more frequent. From the point of view of the current legislation on cults, the very existence of unregistered associations is illegal. At the same time, mass registration and opening of mosques would cause serious damage to the cause of atheistic education.”

The Council was concerned about the situation in the Pentecostal cult. Especially in that part of it that was not part of the All-Russian Academy of Economics and Culture and operated outside of registration. According to generalized data, in 1967, 994 Pentecostal communities were registered in the USSR, in which there were 26,231 members, and they were served by 1,165 clergy. Most of these organizations were taken into account in Ukraine, the RSFSR, Belarus and Kazakhstan:

The Council directed the Commissioners and authorities to exercise strict control over unregistered Pentecostal societies, which were still viewed as an “anti-state savage sect.”

As already noted, the Council spoke out for the need to improve legislation on cults, and repeatedly sent its proposals to party authorities. There were, of course, objective reasons for this: in a number of union republics (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan) there were no republican acts regulating the activities of religious associations, and they were guided by the laws of the RSFSR; in others (Estonia, Tajikistan), the authorities, without having republican acts “on religious associations,” were guided by all-Union norms adopted in recent years. There was also no single all-Union legislation that would ensure equal rights for religious organizations in all republics and uniformity in its application throughout the USSR. Let us add that many of the provisions of the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of 1929 were outdated, did not correspond to the new realities of social and state life, and, moreover, the legislation on cults still retained its “closed” character, and was not fully known to believers and the clergy, who did not even have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with all its regulations and provisions.

However, at that stage of development of the legal framework of state-church relations it was unrealistic to expect fundamental changes, and the matter came down to the adoption of October 1968 instructions Council on the registration of religious associations, houses of worship and buildings, on the procedure for registration of executive bodies of religious associations and ministers of worship, which specified the entire scope of rights, powers and responsibilities of local authorities in the implementation of legislation on religions . It was established that local (district, city) executive committees of the Councils of Working People's Deputies must compulsorily form and maintain documentation for each registered religious association. Observation files must contain the following documents: applications from believers for registration; list of founding members (the so-called “twenty”); certificates of registration of the association, executive body and minister of religion; questionnaires for clergy; agreements with the G20 on the transfer of buildings and property; Inventory of all religious property; list of clergy and members of elected bodies of a religious association.

In the affairs of the Commissioner, according to the Instructions, all documentation (cards of the established form) about each (registered and unregistered) religious association and clergyman was also collected; the current “holy place”, religious center, monasteries, religious educational institutions; operating prayer premises and non-operating religious buildings with documents characterizing their condition and use. All this data, in the form of certificates filled out according to established forms, was annually sent to the Council, where it was concentrated into generalized statistical and other information on the Union republics and the entire USSR. The Council maintained a constantly updated card index of all (registered and unregistered) religious associations, religious buildings and clergy.

Thus, the Instruction was simply a kind of “instruction” in work for commissioners of the Council and local authorities. Naturally, it could not have a positive impact on the fundamental problems of the religious situation in the country and, above all, on such issues as the registration of religious associations.

As a result, the total number of unregistered religious associations in the 70s reached 20-30 percent of the number of registered ones. In Ukraine: Lviv, Dnepropetrovsk, Rivne regions; in Belarus: Gomel, Minsk regions; VM Oldavia; V RSFSR: RoStovskaya, Kaluga, Sverdlovsk regions; in Kazakhstan: Kokchetav region - the situation was even morespicy, since beforehalf of all associations operated without registration.

The situation in the Muslim cult has practically not improved in comparison with the previous decade. Local authorities, not wanting to take into account the real religious situation and the needs of citizens, with their own hands pushed believers into the “underground”, as evidenced by statistical data:

The situation was unfavorable in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz republics, in a number of regionsRSFSR, where they operated, mostly without registration,Mennonite, Adventist, Pentecostal, Baptist, membersGerman nationality.

Although still in 1974 G . parallel to the general course of developmentrelationsWithGermany, Central Committee of the CPSUby its special resolution and obliged the Council and local authorities to legalize their activities. But even after several years the result was disastrous. Only 7 societies were registered, which amounted to approximately one percent of the total number of unregistered societies, and was one of the reasons for the strengthening of emigration sentiments among religious citizens of German nationality, when not just a few, but dozens and hundreds of them applied to leave the USSR “for religious reasons.” motives."

The 70s also lifted the curtain on the real state of affairs in the Orthodox cult. As they say, with numbers in hand, it was officially recognized, Whatin Ukraine and Russia, in Belarus, Moldova and Kazakhstan, in tens and hundreds of settlements, Orthodox societies operated without registration. There was a confrontation between believers, in whose hands church buildings were located, and local authorities, who did not recognize the right of believers to act within the framework of the law, rejected submitted applications for registration and tried to expel believers from churches with all sorts of criminal, administrative and security forces.

The next step, more meaningful and constructive, towards the development of legislation on cults was the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR (June 1975). He introduced changes and additions to the Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and From HK RSFSR “On Religious Associations” (1929), freeing it from outdated norms, removing a number of restrictions on the activities of religious organizations and expanding their capabilities in terms of material and economic support. Following this, during 1976-1977. in those union republics where there were no republican acts “on religious associations,” they were adopted. The norms of Russian legislation were taken as a basis, although in some of their provisions these regulations also took into account the specifics of local conditions and traditions.

Middle 70 The 1980s was marked by a certain positive shift in the attitude of the ruling party and the Soviet state to religious problems. To some extent, this was due to the fact that the issue of human rights, including freedom of religion, is brought into the epicenter of the historical dispute between the capitalist and socialist systems. In the West, a campaign was expanding in defense of prisoners of conscience in the USSR, in defense of the trampled rights of religious associations and believers. Of great importance was the adoption of the final document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki (1975), in which the so-called the third humanitarian basket with its right to religious freedom and religious activity. The signing of this document obliged the USSR to follow, albeit timidly and inconsistently, the path of religious reforms.

Of course, it was impossible to immediately abandon the system of views on which the Soviet state’s policy towards religious associations was based, and, as a consequence, violations of the rights and freedoms of believers. It is no coincidence that in the report of V.A. Kuroyedov at the next all-Union meeting of commissioners (March 1977G.) it was said: “Unfortunately, there are a lot of facts of illegal actions of officials; they often interfere in the internal life of religious societies,administered: underthey prohibit religious services on various pretexts;committingreligious ceremonies; they refuse to register priests; prevent the acquisition and rental of buildings for prayer purposes, theirrepair;they deprive churches of electric lighting, and in some cases they even try to close churches without any reasongrounds" .

The geography of violations noted by the Chairman of the Council is also impressive: Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, the RSFSR, the Central Asian republics... To complete the picture, we can add examples of other illegal actions of government officials committed for religious reasons: they refused to hire or fired from work, expelled from higher and secondary educational institutions; the characteristics of school graduates indicated their affiliation with religion; mothers who are members of religious associations with 10 or more children were not nominated to the “Mother Heroine” order; in enterprises and institutions they “worked” at trade union meetings of citizens for performing or participating in a religious ceremony. And examples can be multiplied and multiplied.

In 1977, certain hopes for rectifying the situation were given by the development of a new Constitution of the USSR. Its draft was made publicfor national discussion in early June 1977. Article 52, concerning freedom of conscience, was as follows: “Citizens of the USSR are recognized as having freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess any religion, to practice religious worship or not to profess any religion, to conduct atheistic propaganda . Inciting hostility and hatred in connection with religious beliefs is prohibited. The church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church.”

It is worth pointing out that representatives of various religious organizations spoke, including publicly, on the text of the bill, both in general and on specific articles. From the records that remain at my disposal, I will quote information from some of the commissioners who reported to the Council about the mood among the clergy and believers. For example, the commissioner for the Smolensk region testified that Orthodox priests in conversations with him emphasized that “the text of the Constitution is the embodiment of Christian covenants.” So the priest Sh. from the city of Roslavl said: “From the new fundamental law there is a wise rule, sanctified by the Christian tradition: the care of everyone for everyone and everyone for everyone.” And the dean of the Kurgan region church, Archpriest M., even made a proposal: “It seems to me that, like in other socialist countries, our party will eventually allow believers to be admitted to the party. After all, the first word about communism came from the lips of Jesus Christ himself. And what we have achieved and what is written in the draft Constitution is the embodiment of the word of God in life.”

After a public discussion, the all-Union Constitution was adopted at the extraordinary seventh session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the ninth convocation on October 7, 1977. Its article 52, in a slightly modified form, read: “Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess any religion or not to profess any , practice religious worship or conduct atheistic propaganda. Inciting hostility and hatred in connection with religious beliefs is prohibited.The church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church.” .

But expectations for an accelerated departure of the party and state leadership from political and ideological stereotypes of the perception of freedom of conscience to the detriment of its legal perception did not materialize. The implementation of the proclaimed principle of freedom of conscience in the conditions of stagnation and the pre-crisis state of Soviet society practically stalled, faced with the prevailing opinion in the party-Soviet elite that protective and prohibitive measures “today” may be the only possible and sufficient to resolve the problems of the religious sphere . And the conviction in the correctness and fruitfulness of established stereotypes and methods of “atheistic work” was persistently brought into the public consciousness. Thus, this “work” itself became another obstacle to the renewal of society.Thus, the contradiction between the freedom of conscience proclaimed in the Constitution and the practice of its implementation grew. How could it be resolved, what path could the development of state-church relations take? It is unlikely that in those years anyone could answer these questions more or less intelligibly.

It should be noted that the provision introduced into the text of the Constitution for the first time in our history on the “prohibition of inciting hostility and hatred in connection with religious beliefs” caused subsequent controversy in government agencies and in the Council. Chairman of the Council V.A. Kuroyedov considered that in order to develop this norm, criminal liability should be established for inciting hostility and hatred in connection with religious beliefs. With this initiative, it turned to the USSR Minister of Justice V.I. Terebilov . Explaining his position, Kuroyedov insisted that this measure should be directed against “any antisocial manifestations under the guise of religion.”Who and what exactly was meant? It turns out that the activities of unregistered religious associations were primarily subject to criminal liability: the Council of Churches of Evangelical Christian Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventist Reformists, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses; as well as the publishing house “Christian” and “illegal” printing houses publishing religious literature .

It should be borne in mind that what, from Kuroyedov’s point of view, was an illegal act, was in fact the usual religious activity of organizations that wanted to preserve themselves and survive in difficult conditions of pressure and persecution: teaching children religion, publishing religious literature, establishing new religious associations, opening houses of worship, religious preaching, etc.

In the post-war period of Soviet history, starting from 1958, the essence and direction of state church policy were determined by the highest party bodies. Due to thisOne cannot ignore the topic of interaction between party bodies and the Council for Religious Affairs.The activities of the Council and its representatives were largely regulated by party authorities, and after them by state regulations on the problems of “atheistic education.” Let us mention the following: resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee “On strengthening atheistic education of the population” (1971), “On further improvement of ideological, political and educational work” (1979) and “On strengthening atheistic education” (1981); Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR “On measures to further strengthen the work on atheistic education” (1981).

The Council Reports invariably contained information on the implementation of such documents. Thus, in a report for 1971, the Council wrote: “after the release of the Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On strengthening the atheistic education of the population,” the Council and its local representatives, many executive committees of local Councils and administrative bodies began to deal more deeply with Pentecostal sects, to more quickly suppress their illegal activities actions. Basically, the most reactionary sectarian leaders and fanatics are identified, their behavior is monitored, their attempts to hold gatherings and recruit new members, especially from among the youth, are exposed. More than 220 sectarian leaders and fanatics were brought to administrative responsibility, 9 people - to criminal liability. About a hundred people were discussed at public meetings. The illegal actions of Pentecostals began to be exposed more often in the press, on radio and television.” .

At the turn of the 60s and 70s, a tradition developed of submitting annual reports of the Council to the department of propaganda and agitation of the CPSU Central Committee. They assessed the religious situation in the country in relation to each of the cults and to each of the union republics, the state of control over compliance with legislation;it was reportedabout the actions of the Council andhisauthorized persons; proposals were made. In general, especially from the second half of the 70s, the reports gave a fairly objective picture of the religious situation in the USSR and for each confession. There was sufficient analytical material in the reports so that the party state nomenklatura could take a step in adjusting its church policy. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, the authorities listened to the “reports” of the Council. It also happenedSoThe materials presented by the Council, quite substantial in volume, were not even opened by the inspectors-curators of the Council.

Of course, the Council not only “served” the apparatus of the Central Committee, but also, playing its own game, sought to rely on it when solving certain problems in the religious sphere. This was more evident when it came to the union republics, because Republican party committees had and pursued their own line on the religious issue, and sometimes much tougher. The Council alone could not overcome this barrier and sought to rely on the departments of the Central Committee. However, this did not mean that the Council would achieve its goal. Just one example. In Ukraine, Roman Catholic parishes were under strict dictatorship: churches were not opened, obstacles were created to registered societies, restrictionsnumberclergy, the formation of “Ukrainians” was not allowed c whom" bishop-kopata andchurchly-administrative management in the republic; was carried outlarge-scaleanti-Vatican and anti-Uniate propaganda. There were only 50 priests for 99 churches, and there was no talk of creating an educational institution in the republic. While the believers persistently raised the question of replenishing the missing number of priestsV.The leadership of Ukraine, refusing to establish a Catholic seminary on its territory, agreed only to the directionseveralperson to study inseminaries,werein Lithuania and Latvia. But even there, local leaders “do notlet in” Ukrainians, explaining this by the fact that “strangers” will take the places that were for themtheir no enough.In these confusing circumstances, the Council, through departments, had toCentral Committee of the CPSU alone persuade, to be “let in”, others - so thatsent to study.

The implementation of party guidelines for the “fight against religion” was most clearly manifested in the constant reduction in the number of religious associations and places of worship. As confirmation, we present a table compiled on the basis of the Council’s statistical data:

Intelligence

on the number of religious associations in the USSR

When examining the activities of the Council for Religious Affairs, we cannot ignore such an issue as its interaction with the intelligence services. Actually, it began from the moment of the creation of its predecessors - the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults, when not only the leadership, but also a considerable number of employees of the central apparatus and authorized representatives in the regions of the USSR (especially in the territories that were under occupation) were employees of special services or people from them. The Council interacted with those of their divisions that were directly involved in “religious and church issues,” and this connection is easily traced in all major events in the religious sphere. In the church environment, as was the case in tsarist times, in order to control political reliability and ensure the loyalty of religious organizations, agents were introduced; church and clergymen of different denominations and various levels were involved in cooperation with the special services. In the 60s and 70s, when the international activities of religious organizations were rapidly developing, the KGB attached particular importance to monitoring them.

Of course, the number of KGB employees among the central apparatus of the Council and its representatives in the 70s cannot be compared with the 40s. How he loved to talkV.A. Kuroyedov, a Council employee must be a bit of a politician, a bit of a diplomat, a bit of a party member, a bit of a scientist, and, of course, a bit of a security officer!

But there is no basis to assert any complete merger of the Council with the state security structures. Let us add that in the cooperation between the KGB and the Council there were, and quite often, acute moments of disagreement in views on the nature and direction of the church’s course.state policy. Moreover, the KGB was the force that tended to preserve the status quo in the religious situation and state-church relations and did not allow any fundamental changes in them.

The beginning of the 80s testified to the persistence of tension in the religious situation, the origins of which were largely rooted in the outdated conceptual basis of the state’s religious policy, built on a party ideology that was anti-religious in spirit.

Added to this was the fact of widespread non-compliance in the practical activities of government bodies at all levels with those formally correct provisions prescribed in legislation that protected freedom of conscience. Numerous collective letters, complaints, appeals from believers, clergy, and intellectuals received by the Council in the first half of the 1980s described the same vices of the command-administrative system and the consequences of the “anti-religious” propaganda of party authorities: religious associations were not registered, despite to long-term appeals from citizens; they were not allowed to repair or rebuild prayer buildings to replace burned or dilapidated ones; they were not allowed to build or acquire new religious buildings; unlawfully interfered with the activities of the clergy;religious citizens were unlawfully dismissed from work or expelled from educational institutions; believers were deprived of incentives for good work or were not nominated for government awards, citing their religiosity; ignored recommendations and did not implement decisions of the Council aimed at satisfying the legitimate requests of religious citizens .

DuringXXVICongress of the CPSU (1981) again raised the issue of improving legislation on religious cults, and it was decided to begin developing a union-wide act “On Religious Organizations in the USSR.” The first version of the bill known to us, entitled “Fundamentals of the legislation of the USSR and Union republics on religious cults” » refers to dDecember 1981. It consisted of the following sections:

I.General provisions (art. 1-7)

II . Religious associations, the procedure for their formation and activities (Article 8-13)

III . Houses of worship and religious property (vv. 14-17)

IV . Religious centers and ministers of worship (vv. 18-21)

V . Control over compliance with legislation on cults by local authorities (Articles 22-25)

VI . Liability for violation of legislation on religious cults (Article 26)

VII . International treaties and agreements (Article 27).

The coordinator of the preparation of the bill was the Council, but its chairman V.A. Kuroyedov did not show much initiative, and no completed version was ever created.

A significant part of the Council staff believed that it was necessary to change the policy of the party and the state on the religious issue. And this is understandable, since by this time representatives of the post-war generations already predominated among them, who entered conscious life in the 70s, had higher education, religious studies training, were very critical of “anti-religious dogmas” and proposed a different conceptual justification for policy in the sphere freedom of conscience.

But the situation in the Council was the same as throughout the country: the leaders (with rare exceptions) represented a “bygone era,” but, existing in a different reality that surrounded them and in many ways incomprehensible to them, they did not want to leave their posts . And, consequently, in a country that had outgrown the era of “Stalin-Chernenko”, the boiling point of internal passions acquired a character threatening its existence. Election in March 1985 as the new General Secretary of the CPSU.S. Gorbachev and his statements about the need to “renew the country” were perceived in society as long-awaited news of change, and was perceived as the starting point of the new history of the Soviet Union.

It could be assumed that sooner or later, the winds of change would reach the Council for Religious Affairs and would inevitably bring with them changes in the policy of the CPSU and the Soviet state in the field of freedom of conscience. In the end, this will happen, but this will be a different story for the Council for Religious Affairs and it will be connected with the new chairman of the Council K.M. Kharchev Text of the report by V.A. Kuroyedov published: “The Church is taking maneuvers to marry modernity, to grow into communism.” Report by V.A. Kuroedov at the All-Union Meeting of Commissioners of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. 1977 // Historical archive. 2009. No. 4 - P. 60-82 / Publication by M.I. Odintsova

Similar articles were included in all subsequently adopted constitutions of the union republics, including the Constitution of the RSFSR (1978). Gorbachev M.S. (b. 1931) – General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (1985-1991). President of the USSR (1990-1991).

See about this: Odintsov M.I. Religious reforms in the Soviet Union and Russia. 1985-1997 – M., 2010.