What is the social doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church in brief? "the foundations of the social concept" of the Russian church as a manifesto of Orthodox conservatism. Basic theological principles

This document, adopted by the Consecrated Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, sets out the basic provisions of its teaching on issues of church-state relations and on a number of contemporary socially significant problems. The document also reflects the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate in the sphere of relations with the state and secular society. In addition, it establishes a number of guiding principles applied in this area by the episcopate, clergy and laity.

The nature of the document is determined by its appeal to the needs of the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church over a long historical period in the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate and beyond. Therefore, its main subject is fundamental theological and church-social issues, as well as those aspects of the life of states and societies that were and remain equally relevant for the entire Church Plenity at the end of the twentieth century and in the near future.

Basic theological principles

I.1. The Church is a gathering of believers in Christ, into which He Himself calls everyone to enter. In it, “all things in heaven and on earth” must be united in Christ, for He is the Head of “the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all” (Eph. 1. 22-23). In the Church, through the action of the Holy Spirit, the deification of creation is accomplished, God’s original plan for the world and man is fulfilled.

The Church is the result of the redemptive feat of the Son, sent by the Father, and the sanctifying action of the Holy Spirit, who descended on the great day of Pentecost. According to the expression of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Christ led humanity with Himself, became the Head of the renewed human nature - His body, in which access to the source of the Holy Spirit is gained. The Church is the unity of the “new man in Christ”, “the unity of God’s grace living in the multitude of intelligent creatures that submit to grace” (A.S. Khomyakov). “Men, women, children, deeply divided in relation to race, people, language, way of life, work, science, title, wealth... - the Church recreates them all in the Spirit... All receive from her a single nature, inaccessible to destruction, nature, which is not influenced by the numerous and deep differences by which people differ from each other... In it no one is at all separated from the general, everyone seems to dissolve in each other with the simple and indivisible power of faith” (St. Maximus the Confessor).

I.2. The Church is a divine-human organism. Being the body of Christ, it unites in itself two natures - divine and human - with their inherent actions and volitions. The Church is connected with the world by its human, created nature. However, she interacts with him not as a purely earthly organism, but in all her mysterious completeness. It is the divine-human nature of the Church that makes possible the grace-filled transformation and purification of the world, which takes place in history in creative collaboration, “synergy” of the members and the Head of the church body.

The Church is not of this world, just like its Lord, Christ, is not of this world. But He came into this world, “humbled” Himself to its conditions - into a world that it was up to Him to save and restore. The Church must go through a process of historical kenosis in fulfilling its redemptive mission. Her goal is not only to save people in this world, but also to save and restore the world itself. The Church is called to act in the world in the image of Christ, to bear witness to Him and His Kingdom. Members of the Church are called to participate in the mission of Christ, His service to the world, which is possible for the Church only as a conciliar service, “so that the world may believe” (John 17:21). The Church is called to serve the salvation of the world, for the Son of Man Himself “came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

The Savior says about Himself: “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27). Service for the salvation of the world and man cannot be limited to national or religious boundaries, as the Lord Himself clearly speaks about this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Moreover, members of the Church come into contact with Christ, who bore all the sins and sufferings of the world, meeting every hungry, homeless, sick, and prisoner. Helping those who suffer is, in the full sense, help to Christ Himself, and the eternal destiny of every person is connected with the fulfillment of this commandment (Matthew 25:31-46). Christ calls on His disciples not to disdain the world, but to be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world.”

The Church, being the body of the God-man Christ, is God-man. But if Christ is the perfect God-man, then the Church is not yet perfect God-man, for on earth she wages war against sin, and her humanity, although internally united with the Divine, does not express Him in everything and corresponds to Him.

I.3. Life in the Church, to which every person is called, is unceasing service to God and people. All of God's people are called to this service. Members of the body of Christ, while participating in general service, also perform their own special functions. Each one is given a special gift to serve all. “Serve one another, each one with the gift which he has received, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10). “To one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to others gifts of healings by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Yet one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He pleases” (1 Cor. 12:8-11). The gifts of God's manifold grace are given to each individual separately, but for the joint service of God's people (including service to the world). And this is the general service of the Church, performed on the basis of not one, but different gifts. The difference in gifts also creates a difference in ministries, but “there are different ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of actions, but the same God works all things in all” (1 Cor. 12:5-6).

The Church also calls on its faithful children to participate in public life, which should be based on the principles of Christian morality. In the High Priestly Prayer, the Lord Jesus asked the Heavenly Father for His followers: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You keep them from evil... Just as You sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John. 17. 15,18). Manichaean suppression of the life of the surrounding world is unacceptable. A Christian’s participation in it should be based on the understanding that the world, society, and the state are the object of God’s love, for they are destined for transformation and purification on the basis of God-commanded love. The Christian must see the world and society in the light of its ultimate destiny, in the eschatological light of the Kingdom of God.

The discernment of gifts in the Church is particularly evident in the area of its public ministry. The indivisible church organism participates in the life of the surrounding world in its entirety, but the clergy, monastics and laity can exercise such participation in different ways and to varying degrees.

I.4. Fulfilling the mission of saving the human race, the Church does this not only through direct preaching, but also through good deeds aimed at improving the spiritual, moral and material state of the world around us. For this purpose, it interacts with the state, even if it is not of a Christian nature, as well as with various public associations and individuals, even if they do not identify themselves with the Christian faith. Without setting the direct goal of converting everyone to Orthodoxy as a condition for cooperation, the Church hopes that joint charity will lead its co-workers and surrounding people to the knowledge of the Truth, will help them maintain or restore fidelity to God-given moral standards, will move them to peace, harmony and prosperity, in conditions whom the Church can best carry out her saving work.

The new socio-political conditions in which the church lives today have prompted it to develop principled positions on all issues that have arisen in connection with this. “Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” approved by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on August 15, 2000, define the basic provisions of the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on issues of church-state relations and on a number of modern socially significant problems. The document reflects the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate in the sphere of relations with the state and secular society. In addition, it establishes a number of guiding principles applied in this area by the episcopate, clergy and laity.

The Concept emphasizes that the position of the church in relation to the state and society, its assessment of modern phenomena in social, economic and spiritual life follow from the basic provisions of Christian doctrine. However, the religious interpretation of the role and place of the church in society and the state, as a rule, does not conflict with the norms of current legislation.

Church and nation constitute a concrete historical unity. Being by nature a universal, universal religion, Christianity does not give preference to some nations over others. However, in historical life, every nation creates a national Christian culture, the core of which is the church. Therefore, while condemning any manifestations of nationalism and xenophobia, the Russian Orthodox Church sees in Christian patriotism, which presupposes the defense of the fatherland, work for its benefit and participation in people’s life, as the moral duty of the believer.

Church and State. As a divine-human organism, the church does not consider it possible to give preference to any type of government structure, any political movements and parties, but strives to be a reconciling and unifying force in society. Since the purpose of the church is the spiritual salvation of people, and the state is the organization of their earthly life, the church does not have the right to take on functions that belong to the state. Just as the state should not interfere in church life, so the church limits itself from interfering in the sphere of secular affairs. This concerns the inadmissibility of clergy membership in political associations participating in election campaigns, as well as their involvement in pre-election political campaigning. Restrictions do not apply to lay people, who can participate in political organizations and create them themselves. However, such organizations cannot act on behalf of the Church. Expressing the official position of the Church is the prerogative of church councils, the Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod.

At the same time, the Church is ready to actively interact with the state and secular public associations in the areas of peacemaking, charity, solving social problems, preserving and developing cultural heritage, and caring for public morality. In this regard, the practice of signing agreements between the Moscow Patriarchate and central government departments, as well as the interaction of dioceses with local authorities, is positively assessed.

The leadership of the church recognizes the validity of the constitutional principle of legal equality of religions and strives to maintain friendly, respectful relations with the Muslim, Buddhist, and Jewish religious associations traditionally existing in our country. At the same time, he considers it legitimate for the Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” to recognize the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture.

The division of state power into legislative, executive and judicial, as well as the presence of various levels of government: national, regional and local, determines the specifics of the relationship of the Church with authorities and management.

Relations with the legislative branch represent a dialogue between the Church and legislators on issues of improving national and local law related to the life of the Church, church-state partnerships and areas of public concern of the Church. In contacts with the executive authorities, the Church must conduct a dialogue on issues of making mutually satisfactory decisions, for which purpose contact is maintained at the appropriate level with central and local executive authorities.

The relationship of the Church with the judiciary at various levels should be limited to representing, if necessary, the interests of the church in court. Interfaith conflicts, as well as conflicts with schismatics that do not affect issues of doctrine, can be brought to a secular court, which cannot be said about intra-church disputes.

Contacts and interaction of the Church with the highest bodies of state power are carried out by the Patriarch and the Holy Synod directly or through their representatives. At the regional level, such functions are carried out by diocesan Right Reverends. With local authorities and self-government - deaneries and parishes with the blessing of the diocesan Right Reverends.

The religious and ideological neutrality of the state does not contradict the Christian idea of the social service of the Church, which is called upon to counteract the establishment of total control over the life of an individual, his beliefs and relationships with other people, as well as the destruction of personal, family or public morality, insult to religious feelings, damage to cultural spiritual identity of the people or the emergence of a threat to the sacred gift of life. In implementing its social, charitable, educational and other socially significant programs, the Church counts on the help and assistance of the state. It also has the right to expect that the state, when building its relations with religious associations, will take into account the number of their followers, their place in the formation of the historical, cultural and spiritual image of the people, and their civic position.

The Church considers the following areas of cooperation with the state:

Peacemaking at the international, interethnic and civil levels, promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between people, nations and states;

Concern for the preservation of morality in society;

Spiritual, cultural, moral and patriotic education and upbringing;

Works of mercy and charity, development of joint social programs;

Protection, restoration and development of historical and cultural heritage, including care for historical and cultural monuments;

Dialogue with government authorities of any branches and levels on issues significant for the Church and society, including those related to the development of relevant laws, regulations, orders and decisions;

Care for soldiers and law enforcement officers, their spiritual and moral education;

Works on crime prevention, care for persons in prison;

Science, healthcare, culture and creative activity;

The work of church and secular media;

Environmental conservation activities;

Economic activity for the benefit of the Church, state and society;

Support for family, motherhood and childhood;

Countering the activities of pseudo-religious structures that pose a danger to individuals and society.

In most of these areas, the Concept formulates the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and substantiates the vision of the causes and ways of solving the most pressing problems and contradictions for Russian society.

I. BASIC THEOLOGICAL POINTS
II. CHURCH AND NATION
III. CHURCH AND STATE
IV. CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND SECULAR LAW
V. CHURCH AND POLITICS
VI. WORK AND ITS FRUITS
VII. PROPERTY
VIII. WAR AND PEACE
IX. CRIME, PUNISHMENT, CORRECTION
X. ISSUES OF PERSONAL, FAMILY AND PUBLIC MORALITY
XI. HEALTH OF THE PERSON AND THE PEOPLE
XII. PROBLEMS OF BIOETICS
XIII. CHURCH AND ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
XIV. SECULAR SCIENCE, CULTURE, EDUCATION
XV. CHURCH AND SECULAR MEDIA
XVI. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. PROBLEMS OF GLOBALIZATION AND SECULARISM

The fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church are intended to serve as a guide for Synodal institutions, dioceses, monasteries, parishes and other canonical church institutions in their relationships with state authorities, various secular associations and organizations, and non-church media.
On the basis of this document, the Church hierarchy adopts definitions on various issues, the relevance of which is limited to the framework of individual states or a narrow time period, as well as a rather private subject of consideration. The document is included in the educational process in theological schools of the Moscow Patriarchate.
As state and public life changes, and new problems significant for the Church emerge in this area, the foundations of its social concept can develop and improve. The results of this process are approved by the Holy Synod, Local or Bishops' Councils.

I. Basic theological principles

The Church is the result of the redemptive feat of the Son, sent by the Father, and the sanctifying action of the Holy Spirit, who descended on the great day of Pentecost. According to the expression of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Christ led humanity with Himself, became the Head of the renewed human nature - His body, in which access to the source of the Holy Spirit is gained. The Church is the unity of the “new man in Christ”, “the unity of God’s grace living in the multitude of rational creatures that submit to grace” (A.S. Khomyakov). “Men, women, children, deeply divided in relation to race, people, language, way of life, work, science, title, wealth... - the Church recreates them all in the Spirit... All receive from her a single nature, inaccessible to destruction, nature, which is not influenced by the numerous and deep differences by which people differ from each other... In it no one is at all separated from the general, everyone seems to dissolve in each other with the simple and indivisible power of faith" (St. Maximus the Confessor).

I.2. The Church is a divine-human organism. Being the body of Christ, it unites in itself two natures - divine and human - with their inherent actions and volitions. The Church is connected with the world by its human, created nature. However, she interacts with him not as a purely earthly organism, but in all her mysterious completeness. It is the divine-human nature of the Church that makes possible the grace-filled transformation and purification of the world, which takes place in history in the creative collaboration, “synergy” of the members and the Head of the church body.

The Church is not of this world, just like its Lord, Christ, is not of this world. But He came into this world, having “humbled” Himself to its conditions - into a world that it was up to Him to save and restore. The Church must go through a process of historical kenosis in fulfilling its redemptive mission. Her goal is not only to save people in this world, but also to save and restore the world itself. The Church is called to act in the world in the image of Christ, to bear witness to Him and His Kingdom. Members of the Church are called to participate in the mission of Christ, His service to the world, which is possible for the Church only as a conciliar service, “so that the world may believe” (John 17:21). The Church is called to serve the salvation of the world, for the Son of Man Himself “came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

I.3. Life in the Church, to which every person is called, is unceasing service to God and people. All of God's people are called to this service. Members of the body of Christ, while participating in general service, also perform their own special functions. Each one is given a special gift to serve all. “Serve one another, each one with the gift which he has received, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10). "To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another diversities of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Yet this one and the same Spirit does this, distributing to each one individually as He pleases" (1 Cor. 12:8-11). The gifts of God's manifold grace are given to each individual separately, but for the joint service of God's people (including service to the world). And this is the general service of the Church, performed on the basis of not one, but different gifts. The difference in gifts also creates a difference in ministries, but “there are different ministries, but the same Lord; and there are different actions, but the same God, who works all things in all” (1 Cor. 12:5-6).

The Church also calls on its faithful children to participate in public life, which should be based on the principles of Christian morality. In the High Priestly Prayer, the Lord Jesus asked the Heavenly Father for His followers: “I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You would keep them from evil... Just as You sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John. 17. 15,18). Manichaean suppression of the life of the surrounding world is unacceptable. A Christian’s participation in it should be based on the understanding that the world, society, and the state are the object of God’s love, for they are destined for transformation and purification on the basis of God-commanded love. The Christian must see the world and society in the light of its ultimate destiny, in the eschatological light of the Kingdom of God. The discernment of gifts in the Church is particularly evident in the area of its public ministry. The indivisible church organism participates in the life of the surrounding world in its entirety, but the clergy, monastics and laity can exercise such participation in different ways and to varying degrees.

II. Church and nation

II.1. The Old Testament people of Israel were a prototype of the people of God - the New Testament Church of Christ. The redemptive feat of Christ the Savior marked the beginning of the existence of the Church as a new humanity - the spiritual descendant of the forefather Abraham. With His Blood, Christ “has redeemed us to God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). The Church, by its very nature, has a universal and, therefore, supranational character. In the Church “there is no difference between Jew and Greek” (Rom. 10:12). Just as God is not the God of the Jews only, but also of those who come from pagan nations (Rom. 3:29), so the Church does not divide people either by nationality or by class: in it “there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in all” (Col. 3:11).

In the modern world, the concept of “nation” is used in two meanings - as an ethnic community and as a collection of citizens of a particular state. The relationship between the Church and the nation must be considered in the context of both the first and second meanings of the word.

In the Old Testament, the words “am and goy” are used to denote the concept of “people”. In the Hebrew Bible, both terms received a very specific meaning: the first denoted the people of Israel, God’s chosen; the second, in the plural (goyim), refers to the pagan peoples. In the Greek Bible ( Septuagint) the first term was rendered by the words laos (people) or demos (people as a political entity); the second by the word ethnos (nation; pl. ethne - pagans).

The contrast between God's chosen people of Israel and other nations runs through all the books of the Old Testament, which in one way or another touch on the history of Israel. The people of Israel were God's chosen not because they were superior to other nations in numbers or in anything else, but because God chose and loved them (Deut. 7:6-8). The concept of God's chosen people in the Old Testament was a religious concept. Feeling national community, characteristic of the children of Israel, was rooted in the consciousness of their belonging to God through the covenant concluded by the Lord with their fathers. The people of Israel became the people of God, whose calling is to maintain faith in the one true God and testify to this faith in the face of other nations, so that through them the Savior of all people, the God-man Jesus Christ, would appear to the world.

The unity of the people of God was ensured, in addition to the belonging of all its representatives to one religion, also by tribal and linguistic community, and rootedness in a certain land - the fatherland.

The tribal community of the Israelites was based on their descent from one forefather - Abraham. “Our father is Abraham” (Matt. 3.9; Luke 3.8), said the ancient Jews, emphasizing their belonging to the descendants of the one whom God destined to become “the father of many nations” (Gen. 17.5). Great importance was attached to maintaining the purity of blood: marriages with foreigners were not approved, since in such marriages the “holy seed” was mixed with “foreign nations” (Ezra 9.2).

The people of Israel were given by God the promised land as their inheritance. Coming out of Egypt, this people went to Canaan, the land of their ancestors, and, at the command of God, conquered it. From that moment on, the land of Canaan became the land of Israel, and its capital - Jerusalem - acquired the significance of the main spiritual and political center of God's chosen people. The people of Israel spoke one language, which was not only the language of everyday life, but also the language of prayer. Moreover, Hebrew was the language of Revelation, for God Himself spoke to the people of Israel in it. In the era before the coming of Christ, when the inhabitants of Judea spoke Aramaic, and Greek was elevated to the rank of the state language, Hebrew continued to be treated as a holy language in which worship was performed in the temple.

Being universal in nature, the Church is at the same time a single organism, a body (1 Cor. 12:12). She is the community of the children of God, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a special people... once a people, but now the people of God” (1 Pet. 2:9-10). The unity of this new people is ensured not by national, cultural or linguistic community, but by faith in Christ and Baptism. The new people of God “do not have a permanent city here, but are looking for the future” (Heb. 13:14). The spiritual homeland of all Christians is not earthly, but “high” Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26). The Gospel of Christ is preached not in a sacred language accessible to one people, but in all languages (Acts 2:3-11). The gospel is preached not so that one chosen people will retain the true faith, but so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11 ).

II.2. The universal character of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians do not have the right to national identity and national self-expression. On the contrary, the Church combines the universal principle with the national. Thus, the Orthodox Church, being universal, consists of many Autocephalous Local Churches. Orthodox Christians, recognizing themselves as citizens of the heavenly fatherland, should not forget about their earthly homeland. The Divine Founder of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not have an earthly refuge (Matthew 8:20) and pointed out that the teaching He brought was neither local nor national in nature: “The time is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem you will worship the Father" (John 4:21). He, however, identified Himself with the people to which He belonged by human birth. Talking with the Samaritan woman, He emphasized His belonging to the Jewish nation: “You do not know what you worship; but we know what we worship, for salvation belongs to the Jews” (John 4:22). Jesus was a loyal subject of the Roman Empire and paid taxes in favor of Caesar (Matthew 22:16-21). The Apostle Paul, who in his epistles taught about the supranational character of the Church of Christ, did not forget that by birth he was “a Jew of Jews” (Phil. 3.5), and by citizenship he was a Roman (Acts 22.25-29) .

The cultural differences of individual peoples find their expression in liturgical and other church creativity, in the peculiarities of the Christian way of life. All this creates a national Christian culture.

Among the saints revered by the Orthodox Church, many became famous for their love for their earthly fatherland and devotion to it. Russian hagiographical sources praise the holy noble prince Mikhail of Tverskoy, who “laid down his soul for his fatherland,” comparing his feat with the martyrdom of the holy great martyr Demetrius of Thessaloniki, “a good lover of the fatherland... a remark about his fatherland Selun city: Lord, if you destroy this city , then I will perish with them, if you save them, then I will be saved.” In all eras, the Church called on her children to love their earthly fatherland and not spare their lives to defend it if it was in danger.

The Russian Church has blessed the people many times to participate in the war of liberation. Thus, in 1380, the Monk Sergius, abbot and wonderworker of Radonezh, blessed the Russian army led by the holy noble prince Demetrius Donskoy for the battle with the Tatar-Mongol conquerors. In 1612, Saint Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', blessed the people's militia to fight the Polish invaders. In 1813, during the war with the French invaders, Saint Philaret of Moscow told his flock: “Evading death for the honor of faith and for the freedom of the Fatherland, you will die a criminal or a slave; die for the faith and the Fatherland - you will receive life and a crown in heaven.” .

The holy righteous John of Kronstadt wrote about love for the earthly fatherland: “Love the earthly fatherland... it raised you, distinguished you, honored you, and satisfies you with everything; but especially love the heavenly fatherland... that fatherland is incomparably more valuable than this, because it is holy and righteous , incorruptible. This fatherland is deserved to you by the priceless blood of the Son of God. But in order to be members of that fatherland, respect and love (its) laws, as you must respect and respect the laws of the earthly fatherland.”

II.3. Christian patriotism simultaneously manifests itself in relation to the nation as an ethnic community and as a community of citizens of the state. An Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his blood brothers living throughout the world. Such love is one of the ways to fulfill God’s commandment to love one’s neighbor, which includes love for one’s family, fellow tribesmen and fellow citizens.

The patriotism of an Orthodox Christian must be effective. It is manifested in the defense of the fatherland from the enemy, work for the benefit of the fatherland, concern for the organization of people's life, including through participation in government affairs. A Christian is called upon to preserve and develop national culture and national identity. When a nation, civil or ethnic, is wholly or predominantly a mono-confessional Orthodox community, it can in some sense be perceived as a single community of faith - an Orthodox people.

P.4. At the same time, national feelings can become the cause of sinful phenomena, such as aggressive nationalism, xenophobia, national exclusivity, and interethnic hostility. In their extreme expression, these phenomena often lead to restrictions on the rights of individuals and peoples, wars and other manifestations of violence.

It is contrary to Orthodox ethics to divide peoples into better and worse, and to belittle any ethnic or civil nation. Moreover, we disagree with Orthodoxy with teachings that put the nation in the place of God or reduce faith to one of the aspects of national self-awareness.

By opposing such sinful phenomena, the Orthodox Church carries out the mission of reconciliation between the nations involved in hostility and their representatives. Thus, during interethnic conflicts, she does not take anyone’s side, except in cases of obvious aggression or injustice shown by one of the parties.

Anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church

Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church

I. Basic theological principles

II. Church and nation

III. Church and State

IV.Christian ethics and secular law

V. Church and politics

VI. Labor and its fruits

VII. Own

VIII. War and Peace

IX. Crime, punishment, correction

X. Issues of personal, family and public morality

XI. Health of the individual and people

XII. Problems of bioethics

XIII. Church and environmental problems

XIV. Secular science, culture, education

XV. Church and secular media

XVI. International relationships. Problems of globalization and secularism.

PThe full text of the “Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” can be read in the magazine “Moscow Diocesan Gazette”, No. 8-9, 2000, as well as on the Internet on the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church: http://www.russian-orthodox- church.org.ru.

On the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church

Archpriest Vladislav Sveshnikov

In accordance with the decision of the Holy Synod, a working group was created in October 1996 to prepare the project “Social Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church” . In June 2000, at the “Church and Society” symposium, the chairman of the Synodal Working Group, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, reported the main provisions of this project.

This article was written after hearing the report of Metropolitan Kirill, but before the Council of Bishops, at which this document was adopted. After the document was adopted at the Council in August 2000, the article was revised to take into account the changes made to the document. After discussing the project at the above-mentioned symposium, in the title of the document and in the text, the word “doctrine” was replaced by the word “concept”, which, of course, has a different connotation, not so categorical and pretentious. But, in essence, the text of the document remains the same.

First of all, is it necessary at all? such document? If it contains a claim to have doctrinal, doctrinal character, one can answer quite definitely: certainly not.

The word “doctrine” itself and its derivatives are unusual for Orthodox consciousness and hearing. This word reeks of something nicely Catholic for some church circles who are wary of strict Orthodox consciousness. The doctrinal spirit of this document suggests that it will have no real impact on the life of the Church. At the same time, this document, drawn up from a more lively and definite position, could be of extreme importance. But for this it is necessary to remove the touch of doctrinaire from it - not only from the title, but also from the content as a whole. This is, firstly.

Secondly, the document is very uneven and shows traces of various influences. In places it is filled with harsh ideologism, which is not inherent in the essentially living Orthodox worldview, and, on the contrary, is common for the dead totalitarian consciousness. Of course, the true opposite of totalitarian ideologism is not anarchic sentimental illegality, but the creative spirit of open religious experience, operating with such force within the framework of Orthodox tradition.

On the other hand, on the contrary, there are so many well-known, long-established and even formally accepted by the church evidence in the text, which are presented as something sharp and new “with the learned air of an expert,” that such an approach is striking in its pompous triviality.

The document contains some provisions that are not related to the relationship between the Church and society (for example, on marriage), but are practically related to internal life of the Church, and their place in this concept is unclear.

At the same time, too little and vaguely is said about what should be the main content of the concept: living relationship between Church and society, in particular, through social (not political) movements - such as the World Russian Council.

There is quite a lot in the text that is indisputable, but there is also a lot that calls for at least debatability, and even causes complete bewilderment and disagreement.

The most controversial issue is the question of the collective sin of the people and collective repentance. Not to mention the inappropriateness of the secular word “collective” - which rather recalls collective farms or Jung - one can see that the working group sweeps away an entire direction of spiritual consciousness - both in the Old and New Testaments and in church history. Is it necessary to mention the Old Testament prophets, who constantly denounced the people of common sin and called for common repentance (remember, for example, the history of Nineveh in connection with the prophet Jonah)? Is it necessary to recall the call of the Forerunner and the Savior Himself: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2)? Should we ignore the call of St. John of Kronstadt: “Russia, repent!” and the fiery words of the saint. Patriarch Tikhon in his messages to the church people in 1918-1919? Should we ignore many of the modern searches for popular repentance? Have the Russian people finally repentantly overcome their communist (Komsomol, Pioneer) ideological past? Doesn’t the consumer approach in all its sinful content still largely determine the life of Russian society? The point, of course, is not in the form of national repentance - it is known that its opponents, ironizing about the possible form, reduce it to the status of a caricature. Apparently, those who sharply deny the possibility folk repentance - and personally They do not know how to truly repent and reduce their repentance solely to a psychological process.

The term “balance” is very characteristic of the document, which in fact reveals compromise, instability, indifference to the truth and uncertainty of position.

The most important problems of the concept: relationship between Church and state, global problems of our time, moral crisis, Church and public life.

There is a lot of uncertainty and confusion regarding the relationship between the Church and state power. Thus, the authors, speaking about the obedience of the church people to the authorities, unwittingly (?) confuse this issue with the moral and social position in relation to many actions of the authorities - regardless of whether these actions have a directly atheistic character or not. It is quite understandable that the Church as a whole, in view of the need to observe a certain silent tradition, is both inconvenient and technically difficult to reveal its position (although, in fact, it is not clear why?), but to deny this right to social movements and entire layers within the Church and even to individual church members - isn't this too doctrinaire?

Yes, the Church should not take on government functions. But the Church must have a moral position on all issues of state and public life - without this, it loses respect in the eyes of society. And as if accustomed to such a priori disrespect, the working group timidly suggests: "Church has the right turn to the state with a request to use power in certain cases...” It’s good that it hasn’t yet been said in Byzantine: “beg most humbly.” “And even with the atheistic demands- the report says - Church Maybe take some action..." Or maybe not?

A serious error in the text is its “balanced” indifference to the type of power. Of course, we cannot talk about dogmatizing any type of power (monarchical statehood) as the only possible one. But one cannot ignore that monarchical rule like a type represents an ideal, because, firstly, its essence is moral unity of the supreme power with the people; and secondly, the norm of his moral and spiritual existence - responsibility and service- categories that fundamentally have their existence in the Christian consciousness, and outside of Christianity they manifest themselves only illegally. This understanding of Tsarist power has nothing to do with the romantic-paranoid monarchical hysteria that is widespread in some circles of society (including the church part).

But the most important mistake in this section is that, having listed many areas in which the state and church could interact, the document does not offer any mechanisms interaction, and therefore everything remains an empty dream, a play of the imagination.

The position of the working group regarding the process of political and economic globalization seems, at a minimum, very controversial. The report says: “I think that our position should be balanced: we are not against globalization, but not for it either”. Now this is called “balance”. We are not against fornication, but we are not for it either! In modern socio-political life, as we know, there is no greater sin than the so-called “globalism”, which sharply leads towards anti-Christian (and anti-Christian) ethics, civilization and life activity, which many people of Western and even not entirely Christian consciousness now understand. If we are “balanced” and “not against” globalism, it will not ask us how we feel about it. She will confidently and brazenly continue to successfully pave her way, and we, until she devours us, will look at her with fascination and balance from our distant reservation.

“We call on those in power,” the document further says, “to defend the spiritual and cultural identity of peoples.”- “those in power” will have fun! Imagine that in yesterday’s times these “calls” would have been heard by Gaidar and Chubais, and in today’s times by Berezovsky and Abramovich! “It is planned lay a call to comprehensive control over transnational corporations”, - start shaking with fear from the corporation when you hear the call.

Most of the uncertainties in the section about the moral crisis of society. The authors of the working group themselves are partly aware of this when, for example, they state that many issues related to ethics in biology and medicine have not yet been resolved. This, however, is not entirely accurate, because some of the issues listed in the document have been resolved and quite well even according to the text of the Duma bill on bioethics. But that's not the point; - Can unresolved issues be proposed as doctrine?

At the same time, a number of problems (for example, ecology), on which a fully qualified church judgment has developed, are covered in the document superficially and declaratively.

In recent years, so much has been written about the moral state of society that, it would seem, the working group would only have to generalize the available material; she did this, but only in the form of an incomplete list of theses on the main issues. At the same time, not the slightest attempt has been made to outline creative ways out of the crisis. It is impossible to get by with statements and appeals alone.

The weakest section of the doctrine is this is the relationship between the Church and society, despite the fact that, apparently, there is more accumulated material here. The problems discussed in this section are described as if the authors do not know (at least in practice) what public life is, and constantly confuse it with concrete politics. The ideological content of public life and the attitude of church knowledge to it is practically not shown even in the theses.

The key term of social activity and consciousness - “service” - remained only named without the slightest attempt at disclosure. As for the political realities, among which would be “fearlessness” and “will” - it is not very difficult to decide - there is complete interrogative uncertainty in the proposed concept.

Of course, in the changing world of political realities, we cannot talk about unconditional a priori support for any parties. But within the Church, a well-defined socio-ideological position may well be developed and spelled out in detail, with which various political programs and corresponding specific activities can be compared, and on the basis of these comparisons, it is reasonable to draw conclusions about possible support (even if cautious), or, on the contrary - about complete and open rejection of these programs.

Despite all the “balance”, the document contains a number of careless judgments about science and culture.

Terms such as “the official position of the church”, “transnational Orthodoxy” and so on cause confusion.

The report begins by saying that there are “diametrically opposed views” on many issues. But this can mean either a completely acceptable antinomy in life, or a complete untruth of any of the positions.

The social concept is not simply “rooted in Sacred Tradition” - as the authors of the text think - but forms part of the tradition, for the most part written down and even codified. Contrary to the declarations contained in the text, it sometimes touches on and attempts to resolve “short-term” topics.

A brief overview of the relationship between Church and State is written as if the working group discovered the problem as unexpected. Meanwhile, many works have been written about this (St. Philaret of Moscow, Katkov, Ilyin, Tikhomirov). Can all specific forms of interaction between the Church and society be “registered” in their entirety - as the authors of the text dream of? Write down your life!

The relationship between law and ethics is an issue so broad that it can only be considered and resolved in special monographs.

An excursion about free will is both too brief and inappropriate in such a document. The same can be said about work as “working together with the Lord.”

The phrase is remarkable in its ironic relevance: “The Church teaches (!) that non-payment of money earned by honest labor is not only a crime against a person, nor a sin before God.”

These are just some of the noticeable imperfections in the text. The Concept adopted by the Council of Bishops contains some very specific ideas that are unacceptable to the strict Orthodox consciousness in the modern situation. But this is not even the most important thing, because if there is good will and a willingness to abandon biases, they can be corrected without much difficulty. The main defects of the document are much more serious, and it is difficult to do anything about them.

The main vital and verbal approach of the concept in its relation to social reality is an appeal based on a simple statement. And there is something a priori weak-willed in this, doomed to defeat. One of the main questions of the proposed concept is: “What is needed for the moral voice of the Church to sound clearly in the era of secularism?” - for almost all positions there are no answers at all. At best, calls are proposed that for a very long time, after decades of a stable habit of May and October calls in the Soviet Union, do not excite anyone, and even if they are seriously relevant, cause a reaction no greater than the slogan “glory to the CPSU” did in its time.

There are two more features of the document that make it unacceptable in this form. The first is structural: it does not have the character of harmonious unity, integrity, it seems to represent a set, a list of things that are not very interconnected, which in reality, of course, is not the case.

The second is about life. It was already said at the symposium that it has the character of such a strange social optimism, in front of which the current tragic secular apostasy reality fades away.

The document is raw - although in places very valuable - material that needs serious revision and processing. The Council of Bishops accepted it, but it would be correct, after adopting the “Concept” “in the first reading” (as they say in political reality), to complete the work with the involvement of wider circles of the Orthodox community.

The concept in the current reality is extremely necessary for the following reason. In the modern Church in Russia there are a lot of people who are drunk and not of sound consciousness. Some of them masochistically drive themselves into a reservation, living there with a cozy, but somewhat angry joy; the world and society are for them nothing more than an object of self-righteous denunciation. Others, on the contrary, merge in an embrace with the secular world, finding in it some final rationalistic delight and responding to Orthodoxy only as one of the materials (partly decorative, partly mental) for such delight.

Of course, even the best text, even if it is written in fiery letters, will change little in the position of those people who do not want to change anything in their understanding. But, thank God! - there are not so few people who are looking for the right life understanding and incentives for their activities.

Appendix 3

Social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church on marriage and family (Council of Bishops, Moscow, 2000)

The difference between the sexes is a special gift of the Creator to the people He created. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them(Gen. 1:27). Being equal bearers of the image of God and human dignity, man and woman are created for integral union with each other in love: Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh(Gen. 2:24). Embodying the original will of the Lord for creation, the marital union blessed by Him becomes a means of continuing and multiplying the human race: And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.(Gen. 1:28) (X, 1).

Christianity complemented pagan and Old Testament ideas about marriage with a sublime image of the union of Christ and the Church. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body; but just as the Church submits to Christ, so do wives to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her, in order to sanctify her, cleansing her with the washing of water through the word; that he might present it to himself as a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that she might be holy and without blemish. Thus should husbands love their wives as their own bodies: he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and warms it, just as the Lord does the Church; because we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is great; I speak in relation to Christ and the Church. So let each of you love his wife as himself; and the wife is afraid of her husband(Eph. 5: 22–33) (X, 2).

The Church has never treated marriage with disdain and condemned those who, out of a falsely understood desire for purity, disparaged marriage relations (X, 1).

Initially, Christians sealed marriage with a church blessing and joint participation in the Eucharist, which was the oldest form of celebrating the Sacrament of Marriage (X, 2).

The Church insists on lifelong fidelity of spouses and the indissolubility of Orthodox marriage, based on the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: What God has joined together, let no man separate... Whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery(Matt. 19:6, 9). Divorce is condemned by the Church as a sin, because it brings severe mental suffering to spouses (at least one of them), and especially to children. The current situation is extremely worrying, in which a very significant proportion of marriages are dissolved, especially among young people. What is happening becomes a real tragedy for the individual and the people (X, 3).

In accordance with ancient canonical instructions, the Church... does not sanctify marriages concluded between Orthodox Christians and non-Christians, at the same time recognizing them as legal and not considering those in them to be in fornication. Based on considerations of pastoral economy, the Russian Orthodox Church, both in the past and today, finds it possible for Orthodox Christians to marry Catholics, members of the Ancient Eastern Churches and Protestants who profess faith in the Triune God, subject to the blessing of the marriage in the Orthodox Church and the raising of children in Orthodox faith. Over the past centuries, the same practice has been followed in most Orthodox Churches (X, 2).

In the pre-Christian world, there was an idea of a woman as a being of a lower order in comparison with a man. The Church of Christ has fully revealed the dignity and vocation of women, giving them a deep religious justification, the pinnacle of which is reverence Holy Mother of God. According to Orthodox teaching, the gracious Mary, blessed among women (Luke 1:28), revealed with Herself that highest degree of moral purity, spiritual perfection and holiness to which humanity was able to rise and which surpasses the dignity of the angelic ranks. In Her person motherhood is sanctified and the importance of the feminine principle is affirmed. With the participation of the Mother of God, the mystery of the Incarnation is accomplished; thereby, She becomes involved in the cause of salvation and revival of humanity. The Church highly reveres the evangelical myrrh-bearing women, as well as the numerous faces of Christian women glorified by the exploits of martyrdom, confession and righteousness. From the very beginning of the existence of the church community, a woman actively participates in its organization, in liturgical life, in the works of mission, preaching, education, and charity (X, 5).

The Lord called adultery, which desecrates the sanctity of marriage and destroys the bond of marital fidelity, the only acceptable basis for divorce. In cases of various conflicts between spouses, the Church sees its pastoral task as using all its inherent means (teaching, prayer, participation in the Sacraments) to protect the integrity of the marriage and prevent divorce. Priests are also called upon to conduct conversations with those wishing to get married, explaining to them the importance and responsibility of the step being taken (X, 3).

The community of faith of spouses who are members of the body of Christ is the most important condition for a truly Christian and ecclesiastical marriage. Only a family united in faith can become "home Church"(Rom. 16: 5; Phil. 1: 2), in which the husband and wife, together with their children, grow in spiritual improvement and knowledge of God. Lack of unanimity poses a serious threat to the integrity of the marital union. That is why the Church considers it its duty to encourage believers to marry "only in the Lord"(1 Cor. 7:39), that is, with those who share their Christian beliefs (X, 2).

Apostle Paul... condemns “the hypocrisy of liars who are burned in their conscience and forbid marriage”(1 Tim. 4:2–3). The 51st Apostolic Canon says: “If anyone... withdraws from marriage... not for the sake of the feat of abstinence, but because of abomination, forgetting... that God, creating man, He created them husband and wife, and thus blasphemes, slandering the creature, - either he will correct himself, or he will be expelled from the sacred rank and rejected from the Church.” It is developed by the 1st, 9th and 10th rules of the Gangra Council: “If anyone condemns marriage and abhors a faithful and pious wife who has intercourse with her husband, or condemns her as unable to enter the Kingdom [of God], let it be under oath. If anyone is a virgin or abstains, moving away from marriage as one who abhors it, and not for the sake of the beauty and holiness of virginity itself, let him be under an oath. If any of those who are virgins for the sake of the Lord exalt themselves over those who are married, let him be under an oath.” The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, in a resolution dated December 28, 1998, referring to these rules, indicated “the inadmissibility of a negative or arrogant attitude towards marriage” (X, 1).

Manipulations associated with the donation of germ cells violate the integrity of the individual and the exclusivity of marital relations, allowing the intrusion of a third party into them. In addition, this practice encourages irresponsible fatherhood or motherhood, knowingly freed from any obligations in relation to those who are “flesh of the flesh” of anonymous donors. The use of donor material undermines the foundations of family relationships, since it presupposes that the child, in addition to “social” ones, also has so-called biological parents. “Surrogacy”, that is, the carrying of a fertilized egg by a woman who, after giving birth, returns the child to the “customers”, is unnatural and morally unacceptable, even in cases when it is carried out on a non-commercial basis. This technique involves the destruction of the deep emotional and spiritual closeness established between mother and baby already during pregnancy (XII, 4).

While highly appreciating the social role of women and welcoming their political, cultural and social equality with men, the Church simultaneously resists the tendency to diminish the role of women as spouses and mothers. Fundamental equality of dignity of the sexes does not abolish their natural differences and does not mean the identity of their vocations, both in the family and in society. In particular, the Church cannot misinterpret the words of the Apostle Paul about the special responsibility of the husband, who is called to be the “head of the wife,” loving her as Christ loves His Church, as well as about the call of the wife to submit to her husband, as the Church submits to Christ (Eph. 5: 22–23; Col. 3:18). These words are, of course, not about the despotism of the husband or the enslavement of the wife, but about primacy in responsibility, care and love; We should also not forget that all Christians are called to mutual “submission to one another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21). That's why neither husband without wife, nor wife without husband, in the Lord. For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; still from God(1 Cor. 11: 11–12) (X, 5).

For Christians, marriage has become not just a legal contract, a means of procreation and satisfaction of temporary natural needs, but, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, “the sacrament of love,” the eternal unity of spouses with each other in Christ (X, 2).

Unfortunately, sometimes, due to sinful imperfection, spouses may be unable to preserve the gift of grace they received in the Sacrament of Marriage and to preserve the unity of the family. Desiring the salvation of sinners, the Church gives them the opportunity for correction and is ready, after repentance, to again admit them to the Sacraments (X, 3).

During the period of Christianization of the Roman Empire, the legality of marriage... was given by civil registration. While sanctifying marital unions with prayer and blessing, the Church nevertheless recognized the validity of a civil marriage in cases where church marriage was impossible, and did not subject the spouses to canonical punishments. The Russian Orthodox Church currently adheres to the same practice. At the same time, she cannot approve and bless marital unions that are concluded, although in accordance with the current civil legislation, but in violation of canonical regulations (for example, fourth and subsequent marriages, marriages in unacceptable degrees of blood or spiritual relationship) (X, 2).

Since ancient times, the Church has considered intentional termination of pregnancy (abortion) as a grave sin. Canonical rules equate abortion to murder. This assessment is based on the conviction that the birth of a human being is a gift from God, therefore, from the moment of conception, any encroachment on the life of a future human person is criminal (XII, 2).

The Church... sees the purpose of a woman not in simple imitation of a man and not in competition with him, but in the development of all the abilities given to her by the Lord, including those inherent only in her nature. Without placing emphasis only on the system of distribution of social functions, Christian anthropology assigns a much higher place to women than modern irreligious ideas. The desire to destroy or minimize natural divisions in the public sphere is not characteristic of the ecclesiastical mind. Gender differences, like social and ethnic differences, do not impede access to the salvation that Christ brought for all people: There is no longer Jew or Gentile; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus(Gal. 3:28). However, this soteriological statement does not mean an artificial impoverishment of human diversity and should not be mechanically transferred to any social relations (X, 5).

Methods of prenatal (prenatal) diagnostics are also dual in nature, making it possible to determine a hereditary disease in the early stages of intrauterine development. Some of these methods may pose a threat to the life and integrity of the embryo or fetus being tested. The discovery of an incurable or difficult-to-treat genetic disease often becomes an incentive to terminate an embryonic life; There are cases where parents were put under corresponding pressure. Prenatal diagnosis can be considered morally justified if it is aimed at treating identified illnesses at the earliest possible stages, as well as preparing parents for special care of a sick child. Every person has the right to life, love and care, regardless of whether he has certain diseases. According to the Holy Scriptures, God Himself is the “protector of the weak.” The Apostle Paul teaches support the weak(Acts 20:35; 1 Thessalonians 5:14); likening the Church to a human body, he points out that members... which seem weakest, are much more necessary, and less perfect ones need more care(1 Cor. 12:22, 24). It is completely unacceptable to use prenatal diagnostic methods for the purpose of choosing the gender of the unborn child desired by parents (XII, 5).

By the decree of the Holy Synod of June 23, 1721, it was allowed... marriages of Swedish captives in Siberia with Orthodox brides. On August 18 of the same year, this decision of the Synod received detailed biblical and theological justification in a special Synodal Message. The Holy Synod subsequently referred to this message when resolving issues of mixed marriages in the provinces annexed from Poland, as well as in Finland (decrees of the Holy Synod of 1803 and 1811). In these areas, however, a more free determination of the religious affiliation of children was allowed (temporarily, this practice sometimes extended to the Baltic provinces). Finally, the rules on mixed marriages for the entire Russian Empire were finally enshrined in the Charter of Ecclesiastical Consistories (1883). An example of mixed marriages was many dynastic marriages, during which the transition of the non-Orthodox party to Orthodoxy was not mandatory (with the exception of the marriage of the heir to the Russian throne). Thus, the Holy Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth entered into marriage with Grand Duke Sergius Alexandrovich, remaining a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and only later, of her own free will, accepted Orthodoxy (X, 2).

For the purpose of spiritual education of the newlyweds and to promote the strengthening of marital ties, priests are called upon to explain in detail to the bride and groom the idea of the indissolubility of the church marriage union, emphasizing that divorce as a last resort can only take place if the spouses commit acts that are defined by the Church as grounds for divorce. Consent to the dissolution of a church marriage cannot be given to please a whim or to “confirm” a civil divorce. However, if the breakdown of a marriage is a fait accompli - especially when the spouses live separately, and the restoration of the family is not considered possible, out of pastoral indulgence, church divorce is also allowed. The Church does not encourage second marriage. However, after a legal ecclesiastical divorce, according to canon law, a second marriage is permitted to the innocent spouse. Persons whose first marriage broke up and was dissolved through their fault are allowed to enter into a second marriage only on condition of repentance and fulfillment of penance imposed in accordance with the canonical rules. In those exceptional cases when a third marriage is allowed, the period of penance, according to the rules of St. Basil the Great, increases (X, 3).

The Orthodox Church proceeds from the constant conviction that the divinely established marriage union of a man and a woman cannot be compared with perverted manifestations of sexuality (XII, 9).

Orphanhood with living parents has become a glaring problem in modern society. The thousands of abandoned children who fill shelters and sometimes end up on the streets are evidence of the deep ill health of society. Providing such children with spiritual and material assistance, taking care of their involvement in spiritual and social life, the Church simultaneously sees its most important duty in strengthening the family and in making parents aware of their calling, which would eliminate the tragedy of an abandoned child (X, 4).

According to Roman law, which formed the basis of the civil codes of most modern states, marriage is an agreement between two parties free in their choice. The Church accepted this definition of marriage, interpreting it based on the evidence of Holy Scripture (X, 2).

The virtue of chastity, preached by the Church, is the basis of the internal unity of the human person, which must remain in a state of harmony of mental and physical forces. Fornication inevitably destroys the harmony and integrity of a person’s life, causing grave damage to his spiritual health. Debauchery dulls spiritual vision and hardens the heart, making it incapable of true love. The happiness of a full-blooded family life becomes inaccessible to a fornicator. Thus, the sin against chastity also entails negative social consequences. In conditions of the spiritual crisis of human society, the media and works of so-called mass culture often become instruments of moral corruption, glorifying and extolling sexual unbridledness, all kinds of sexual perversions, and other sinful passions. Pornography, which is the exploitation of sexual desire for commercial, political or ideological purposes, contributes to the suppression of the spiritual and moral principles, thereby reducing a person to the level of an animal guided only by instinct (X, 6).

The Roman jurist Modestine (3rd century) gave the following definition of marriage: “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the community of all life, participation in divine and human law.” In almost unchanged form, this definition was included in the canonical collections of the Orthodox Church, in particular, in the “Nomocanon” of Patriarch Photius (IX century), in the “Syntagma” of Matthew Blastar (XIV century) and in the “Prochiron” of Basil the Macedonian (IX century), included in the Slavic "Helmsman's Book". The early Christian fathers and teachers of the Church also relied on Roman ideas about marriage. Thus, Athenagoras, in his Apology to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (2nd century), writes: “Each of us considers as his wife the woman to whom he is married according to the laws.” The Apostolic Constitutions, a 4th-century monument, exhort Christians to “marry in accordance with the law” (X, 2).

The human body is a wondrous creation of God and is intended to be a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19–20). Condemning... fornication, the Church does not at all call to disdain the body or sexual intimacy as such, for the bodily relations of a man and a woman are blessed by God in marriage, where they become the source of the continuation of the human race and express chaste love, complete community, “unity of souls and bodies” of the spouses, for whom the Church prays during the rite of marriage. On the contrary, what deserves condemnation is the transformation of these pure and worthy relationships according to God’s plan, as well as the human body itself, into an object of humiliating exploitation and trade, intended to extract selfish, impersonal, loveless and perverted satisfaction. For the same reason, the Church invariably condemns... the preaching of so-called free love, which completely separates physical intimacy from personal and spiritual community, from sacrifice and complete responsibility for each other, which are only feasible in lifelong marital fidelity (X, 6).

Along with the mother, the father also bears responsibility for the sin of killing an unborn child if he consents to an abortion. If an abortion is committed by a wife without the consent of her husband, this may be grounds for divorce (XII, 2).

The introduction of compulsory marriage according to church rites (9th–11th centuries) meant that, by decision of the state authorities, all legal regulation of marriage relations was transferred exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Church. However, the widespread introduction of this practice should not be perceived as the establishment of the Sacrament of Marriage, which has existed from time immemorial in the Church (X, 2).

“Those who get married must enter into a union with the consent of the bishop, so that the marriage is about the Lord, and not out of lust,” wrote Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer. According to Tertullian, a marriage "confirmed by the Church, confirmed by the sacrifice [Eucharist], is sealed with a blessing and inscribed in heaven by the Angels." “It is necessary to call upon the priests to strengthen the spouses in their life together with prayers and blessings, so that... the spouses will spend their lives in joy, united by God’s help,” said St. John Chrysostom. Saint Ambrose of Milan pointed out that “marriage must be sanctified by priestly protection and blessing” (X, 2).

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, in its Resolution dated December 28, 1998, condemned the actions of those confessors who “prohibit their spiritual children from entering into a second marriage on the grounds that a second marriage is allegedly condemned by the Church; prohibit married couples from divorcing in cases where, due to certain circumstances family life becomes impossible for the spouses.” At the same time, the Holy Synod decided to “remind pastors that in its attitude towards second marriage the Orthodox Church is guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “ Are you united with your wife? Don't look for a divorce. Are you left without a wife? Don't look for a wife. However, even if you get married, you will not sin; and if a girl marries, she will not sin... A wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants, only in the Lord.”(1 Cor. 7: 27–28, 39) (X, 3).

The problem of contraception also requires a religious and moral assessment. Some contraceptives actually have an abortifacient effect, artificially ending the life of the embryo at the earliest stages, and therefore judgments relating to abortion are applicable to their use. Other means that are not related to the suppression of an already conceived life cannot in any way be equated to abortion. When determining the attitude towards non-abortive means of contraception, Christian spouses should remember that the continuation of the human race is one of the main goals of the divinely established marriage union... Intentional refusal to have children for selfish reasons devalues marriage and is an undoubted sin (XII, 3).

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on December 28, 1998 noted with regret that “some confessors declare civil marriage illegal or demand the dissolution of a marriage between spouses who have lived together for many years, but due to certain circumstances have not performed a wedding in the church... Some pastors-confessors persons living in “unmarried” areas are not allowed to receive communion » marriage, identifying such marriage with fornication.” The definition adopted by the Synod states: “Insisting on the need for church marriage, remind pastors that the Orthodox Church respects civil marriage” (X, 2).

“Gender change” through hormonal influence and surgical operation in many cases does not lead to the resolution of psychological problems, but to their aggravation, giving rise to a deep internal crisis. The Church cannot approve of this kind of “rebellion against the Creator” and recognize artificially changed gender as valid. The ordination of such a person to the priesthood and his entry into church marriage is unacceptable (XII, 9).

The special internal closeness of the family and the Church is already visible from the fact that in the Holy Scriptures Christ speaks of Himself as the Bridegroom (Matthew 9: 15; 25: 1–13; Luke 12: 35–36), and the Church is depicted as His wives and brides (Eph. 5:24; Rev. 21:9). Clement of Alexandria calls the family, like the Church, the house of the Lord, and St. John Chrysostom calls the family the “small church.” “I will also say this,” writes the Holy Father, “that marriage is a mysterious image of the Church.” A home church is formed by a man and woman who love each other, united in marriage and striving for Christ. The fruit of their love and community are children, the birth and upbringing of which, according to Orthodox teaching, is one of the most important goals of marriage (X, 4).

Understanding that the school, along with the family, must provide children and adolescents with knowledge about gender relations and the physical nature of man, the Church cannot support those “sex education” programs that recognize premarital relations, much less various perversions, as the norm. It is completely unacceptable to impose such programs on students. The school is called upon to resist vice that destroys the integrity of the individual, to cultivate chastity, and to prepare youth to create a strong family based on fidelity and purity (X, 6).

…Spouses are responsible before God for the full upbringing of their children. One of the ways to implement a responsible attitude towards their birth is to abstain from sexual relations for a certain time. However, it is necessary to remember the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to Christian spouses: Do not deviate from each other, except by agreement, for a while, to exercise in fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance(1 Cor. 7:5). It is obvious that spouses must make decisions in this area by mutual consent, resorting to the advice of their confessor. The latter must, with pastoral prudence, take into account the specific living conditions of the married couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances, distinguishing those who can “accommodate” the high demands of abstinence from those to whom this is not “given” ( Matthew 19:11), and caring, first of all, about preserving and strengthening the family (XII, 3).

...The definition of the Holy Synod... speaks of the Church’s respect “for a marriage in which only one of the parties belongs to the Orthodox faith, in accordance with the words of the Holy Apostle Paul: An unbelieving husband is sanctified by a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by a believing husband.(1 Cor. 7:14).” This text of Holy Scripture was also referred to by the fathers of the Trullo Council, who recognized as valid the union between persons who, “while still in unbelief and not being counted among the flock of Orthodox, were united in legal marriage,” if subsequently one of the spouses converted to faith (Rule 72 ). However, in the same rule and other canonical definitions (IV Vs. Sob. 14; Laod. 10: 31), as well as in the works of ancient Christian writers and Church Fathers (Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Blessed Theodoret and Blessed Augustine), it is forbidden marriages between Orthodox Christians and followers of other religious traditions (X, 2).

In the prayers of the wedding rite, the Orthodox Church expresses the belief that childbearing is the desired fruit of a legal marriage, but at the same time not its only goal. Along with the “fruit of the womb for the benefit,” the spouses are asked for the gifts of enduring mutual love, chastity, and “unanimity of souls and bodies.” Therefore, the Church cannot consider paths to childbearing that do not agree with the plan of the Creator of life to be morally justified. If a husband or wife is unable to conceive a child, and therapeutic and surgical methods of treating infertility do not help the spouses, they should humbly accept their childlessness as a special calling in life. Pastoral advice in such cases should take into account the possibility of adopting a child by mutual consent of the spouses. Acceptable means of medical care may include artificial insemination with the husband's reproductive cells, since it does not violate the integrity of the marital union, does not differ fundamentally from natural conception and occurs in the context of marital relations (XII, 4).

A family, like a home church, is a single organism whose members live and build their relationships based on the law of love. The experience of family communication teaches a person to overcome sinful selfishness and lays the foundations for healthy citizenship. It is in the family, as in a school of piety, that the correct attitude towards one’s neighbors, and therefore towards one’s people, towards society as a whole, is formed and strengthened. The living continuity of generations, beginning in the family, finds its continuation in love for ancestors and the fatherland, in a sense of involvement in history. That is why the destruction of traditional ties between parents and children is so dangerous, which, unfortunately, is largely facilitated by the way of life of modern society. The downplaying of the social significance of motherhood and fatherhood in comparison with the success of men and women in the professional field leads to the fact that children begin to be perceived as an unnecessary burden; it also contributes to alienation and antagonism between generations. The role of the family in the development of personality is exceptional; it cannot be replaced by other social institutions.

The destruction of family ties is inevitably associated with a disruption in the normal development of children and leaves a long, to a certain extent indelible imprint on their entire subsequent life (X, 4).