Decree on the separation of church and state. Abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne Policy of separation of church and state proclaimed by decree

The revolution of 1917 broke the established stereotypes that had been formed in Russia for a very long time. There was a split between the two strongest structures of the country - the state and the church. At the beginning of the 20th century, when the founders of the Soviet state came to power, the main slogan was that the church, faith in God, religion, and the Bible were destroying society, the thoughts of the people, and did not allow Soviet society to develop freely. The same address to the people spoke about the attitude of the Social Democrats to the church, and what “reforms” would be carried out if they came to power. The main principle of the reform was the separation of church and state, so that the authorities could fight the religious “fog” in the heads of the workers.
So, from the very beginning of the formation of the RSDLP, the church became the main ideological rival in the state. Having come to power, decrees were proclaimed, their goal was to change the ideology in the thoughts of people, to configure people in such a way that the church is evil, and it should not interfere with free development. In schism, church and state existed for a very long time.

The first decree that laid the foundation for the separation of the state from church shrines was the “Decree on Land”. After its adoption, the entire economic base of the church was undermined, the church was deprived of its lands. All the wealth of the church was confiscated, making the church “poor.” By decree, lands belonging to the church were transferred to landowners at the disposal of land committees.
In 1917, after the revolution, a large amount of land was confiscated from the church, more than 8 million acres. The Orthodox Church, in turn, asked everyone to pray for the sins committed by the authorities; the seizure of land was perceived as the destruction of people's shrines. With its sermons, the church asked the authorities to return to the path of Christ.
The Russian Orthodox Church could not help but react to the situation in the country. On December 2, 1917, the church declared itself primacy, and the head of state, the minister of education and all their followers must be Orthodox. According to the council, property belonging to the church should not be confiscated.
Everything that was proclaimed by the church during this period ran counter to the policies of the new Soviet government. Considering the policies pursued by the state, relations between the authorities and the Russian Orthodox Church were very tense.
On December 11, 1917, the government of the newly formed country adopted another decree depriving the church of privileges. It said that the church should be deprived of all parochial schools and colleges. Everything was transferred, right down to the ground and buildings where these schools were located. The result of this decree was the deprivation of the church's educational and educational base. After this decree appeared in the press, Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd addressed the government with a letter. It said that all the measures taken threatened great grief for the Orthodox people. The Metropolitan wanted to convey to the government that this reform cannot be carried out, that it cannot be taken away from the church what has belonged to it for centuries. It was also said here that the Bolsheviks were excommunicated from the church, and the people were called upon to fight for church property.
By adopting its decrees, the Soviet government tried to provoke the church into serious confrontation. This was followed by the decree “On freedom of conscience, church and religious societies”, and then “On the separation of church from state and school from church”. As part of these decrees, it was said that it was necessary to give every person the right to independently choose the religion to worship.
The church was deprived of legal rights: all property previously belonging to the church was declared public property and transferred for the use of the people, it was forbidden to have any property, buildings where services were held, by special orders, were transferred for the free use of newly created religious societies. These articles nationalized all churches so that at any time property belonging to the church could be confiscated for the benefit of those in need. This is exactly what the authorities did in 1922, confiscating property in favor of the starving Volga region.
Until the 1917th century, marriages were the responsibility of the church, but this opportunity was also taken away from them. Now marriages began to be concluded by the state, religious marriage was declared invalid.
On January 23, 1918, the Decree was adopted, and already on July 10, 1918, all provisions were enshrined in the Constitution of the Soviet State.
It is impossible to say that by one decree they were able to separate the church from the state. The new government followed this path for a year and clearly set itself the task of depriving the church of everything that it had before.
Before Soviet power came to rule the country, the church was the richest unit of the state; subsequently it was deprived of everything that was in its use.

100 years ago, on January 23 (February 5), 1918, the decree “On the separation of the Church from the state and the school from the Church” was officially published, which then for 70 years served as a legal cover for discrimination against the Orthodox Church, and at the same time other religious communities, in our country.

Preparing a maternity leave

The background to the publication of this act is as follows: in November 1917, the rector of the Petrograd Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Koltov, priest Mikhail Galkin, after a visit to Smolny and a 10-minute conversation with V.I. Lenin addressed this institution with a written complaint that he lived “with the heavy stone of complete disbelief in the policies of the official Church.” In this appeal, Galkin accused the clergy of unwillingness to establish good relations with the Soviet government and proposed radically changing the legal status of the “dominant” Church, for which he recommended introducing civil marriage, the Gregorian calendar, nationalizing church property and depriving the clergy of privileges. To implement these ideas, he offered his services to the government. This project of his came to the attention of the Soviet leaders, and on December 3, 1917, it was published in the Pravda newspaper.

One should not think that Galkin was the actual initiator of the decree, that similar ideas had not previously entered the minds of Bolshevik leaders, and he told them how to act in relation to the Church. On his part, it was just timely or even proactively expressed helpfulness: “What do you want? I’m ready for anything,” but for propaganda purposes it turned out to be convenient to publicize the radical anti-church project put forward by the priest. Subsequently, and very soon, already in 1918, Galkin publicly announced his renunciation and took up a profitable business at that time - propaganda of atheism, however, already under the pseudonym Gorev, and on January 1, 1919 he was admitted to the RCP (b). The later fate of this lover of 30 pieces of silver is not of particular interest in the present context.

After reading the letter from Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd, Lenin demanded that the preparation of the decree be speeded up

Be that as it may, on December 11, the Council of People's Commissars formed a commission to prepare a decree on the separation of the Church, which included People's Commissar of Justice P. Stuchka; People's Commissar of Education A. Lunacharsky; member of the board of the People's Commissariat of Justice P. Krasikov, who left a mark on history mainly as a prosecutor in the trial against and with him the martyrs and confessors who suffered; Professor of Law at Petrograd University M.A. Reisner - the father of the famous revolutionary Larisa Reisner - and Mikhail Galkin. On December 31, the Socialist Revolutionary newspaper Delo Naroda published the product of the hasty activities of this commission - a draft decree that declared freedom of conscience and provided for the introduction of state registration of civil status acts, a ban on the teaching of religious disciplines in secular educational institutions, and the nationalization of all property of the Orthodox Church and other faiths. - with the provision in future of religious communities of their confiscated churches for use to perform divine services in them - and, finally, the deprivation of all religious societies of the rights of a legal entity.

The reform of church-state relations, including the separation of the Church from the state, judging by various private acts of the Provisional Government and public statements of the provisional ministers, was expected before the Bolsheviks came to power: on June 20, 1917, the Provisional Government issued a decree on the transfer of parochial schools and teachers' seminaries under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education; the law on freedom of conscience, published on July 14, proclaimed freedom of religious self-determination for every citizen upon reaching the age of 14, when children are still in school; On August 5, the Provisional Government abolished the Chief Prosecutor's Office and established the Ministry of Confessions. These acts were clearly aimed towards the creation of a non-confessional state, but the Soviet government completed the breaking of the centuries-old union of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state, begun by the Provisional Government.

The published project of separation with the confiscation of churches and all church property, with the deprivation of religious societies of the very right to own property, made a stunning impression on the church environment with its radicalism, although previously the prospects for organizing the relationship between the Church and the state were seen in a pessimistic way. This project was a kind of response from the Bolshevik elite to the “Definition on the Legal Status of the Church in the State” adopted the day before by the Local Council - a response that meant a categorical refusal to compromise with the Church.

The church's reaction to this project was expressed in a letter, which Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd then addressed to the Council of People's Commissars.

“The implementation of this project,” he wrote, “threatens great grief and suffering for the Orthodox Russian people... I consider it my moral duty to tell the people currently in power to warn them not to carry out the proposed draft decree on the confiscation of church property.” .

On the part of the Hieromartyr Benjamin, criticism was directed not against the act of secession itself, but mainly against the confiscation of churches and all church property, in other words, against the planned robbery of the Church. After reading this letter, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin imposed a resolution demanding that the preparation of the final version of the decree be speeded up. There was no official response to the archpastor to his appeal from the Council of People's Commissars.

The government is in effect, although there is no decree yet

Without waiting for the official publication of the legal act on secession, the authorities began to implement the provisions of the published draft. They began by closing the churches of the court department - the Great Cathedral of the Winter Palace, the church of the Anichkov Palace, the palace temple in Gatchina, the Cathedral of Peter and Paul in Peterhof. On January 14, 1918, Deputy People's Commissar of State Property Yu.N. Flaxerman signed a decree abolishing the institution of the court clergy and confiscating the premises and property of the court churches. On January 16, an order was issued by the People's Commissariat for Military Affairs, by which military clergy of all confessions were dismissed from service, the department of military clergy was abolished, and the property and funds of military churches were subject to confiscation. By order of the Commissariat of Education, on January 3, 1918, the Synodal printing house was confiscated.

On January 13, 1918, the authorities demanded that the brethren of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra leave the monastery and vacate its premises for use as an infirmary. The Lavra authorities agreed to place the wounded in the monastery, but refused to comply with the order that the monks leave the monastery. Six days later, on January 19, a detachment of sailors and Red Guards arrived at the Lavra with an order for the confiscation of property, signed by Commissioner A. Kollontai. But the sound of the alarm and calls to save the churches attracted many people, and the Red Guards were forced to flee from the Lavra. However, they soon returned and, threatening to open fire, tried to drive the monks out of the monastery. The people did not disperse, and the elderly Archpriest Peter Skipetrov, rector of the Church of the Holy Passion-Bearers Boris and Gleb, appealed to the rapists with a plea to stop and not desecrate the shrine. In response, shots were fired and the priest was mortally wounded. On January 21, a nationwide religious procession took place from all St. Petersburg churches to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and then along Nevsky Prospect to the Kazan Cathedral. Metropolitan Benjamin addressed the people with a call for peace and served a memorial service for the deceased defender of the shrine, Archpriest Peter. The next day, in front of a large crowd of people, a host of priests led by Saint Benjamin and Bishops Procopius and Artemy performed the funeral service for the Hieromartyr Peter Skipetrov in the church where he was rector.

“Come to your senses, madmen!”

“[Enemies of the Church] do not have the right to call themselves champions of the people’s good... for they act contrary to the people’s conscience.”

On January 19 (February 1), 1918, he issued an “Appeal” in which he anathematized the “madmen” - participants in bloody massacres of innocent people who raised their hands against church shrines and the servants of God:

“The most severe persecution has been brought against the holy Church of Christ... Holy churches are subjected to either destruction through shooting from deadly weapons (the holy cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin), or to robbery and blasphemous insult (the Chapel of the Savior in Petrograd); the holy monasteries revered by the believing people (like the Alexander Nevsky and Pochaev Lavras) are seized by the godless rulers of the darkness of this age and declared some kind of supposedly national property; schools that were supported by the funds of the Orthodox Church and trained pastors of the Church and teachers of the faith are recognized as unnecessary and turn either into schools of unbelief, or even directly into breeding grounds of immorality. The property of Orthodox monasteries and churches is taken away under the pretext that it is the people's property, but without any right and even without the desire to take into account the legitimate will of the people themselves... And, finally, the government, which promised to establish law and truth in Russia, to ensure freedom and order, shows everywhere there is only the most unbridled self-will and continuous violence against everyone and, in particular, against the holy Orthodox Church.”

Despite the harsh expressions used by the Patriarch, the message contains no judgments of a political nature, no assessments of the new state system from the point of view of its political expediency; it expresses only concern for the position of the Church and condemnation of bloody riots. The appeal called for non-violent defense of the Church:

“The enemies of the Church are seizing power over her and her property by the force of deadly weapons, and you oppose them with the power of faith of your nationwide cry, which will stop the madmen and show them that they have no right to call themselves champions of the people's good, builders of a new life at the behest of the people's mind, for they even act directly contrary to the people’s conscience.”

The appeal ended with a stern warning:

“Come to your senses, madmen, stop your bloody reprisals. After all, what you are doing is not only a cruel deed: it is truly a satanic deed, for which you are subject to the fire of Gehenna in the future life - the afterlife and the terrible curse of posterity in the present life - earthly. By the authority given to us by God, we forbid you to approach the mysteries of Christ, we anathematize you, if only you still bear Christian names and although by birth you belong to the Orthodox Church.”

The Patriarch anathematizes not the Soviet system, as many contemporaries understood this document, as well as later church and non-church historians, but the participants in the massacres of innocent people, without in any way defining their political affiliation.

On January 22, the Local Council, which resumed its activities the day before after the Christmas holidays, first discussed the Patriarch’s “Appeal” and adopted a resolution approving its content and calling on the Orthodox people to “unite now around the Patriarch, so as not to allow our faith to be desecrated.”

Issuance of the decree and its contents

Lenin replaced the words: “Religion is a private matter for every citizen” with: “The Church is separated from the state”

Meanwhile, on January 20, the Council of People's Commissars reviewed the already published draft decree, to which Lenin made a number of amendments, so that later in Soviet journalism this act was called the Lenin decree, which was probably intended to endow it with an aura of a kind of “sacredness.” Lenin's amendments tended to tighten his provisions. Thus, he replaced the wording of the 1st article of the project: “Religion is a private matter of every citizen of the Russian Republic” with: “The Church is separated from the state,” which gave rise to a later change in the very name of this document. In the first edition it was different and rather neutral: “Decree on freedom of conscience, church and religious societies.” To the 3rd article, which stated: “Every citizen can profess any religion or not profess any. All legal deprivations associated with the confession of any faith or non-profession of any faith are abolished,” Lenin added as a note the following provision: “From all official acts, any indication of the religious affiliation or non-belonging of citizens is eliminated.” He also owns part of the text of Article 13, in which all the property of church and religious societies is declared national property, namely: “Buildings and objects intended specifically for liturgical purposes are given, according to special decrees of local or central state authorities, for free use of the respective religious societies.”

The Council of People's Commissars approved the final text of the document. This act was signed by members of the government led by their chairman: Lenin, Podvoisky, Algasov, Trutovsky, Schlikhter, Proshyan, Menzhinsky, Shlyapnikov, Petrovsky and the manager of the Council of People's Commissars, Bonch-Bruevich. On January 21, the decree was published in the newspapers Pravda and Izvestia, and two days later, on January 23, it was published by the official body of the Council of People's Commissars, the Newspaper of the Workers' and Peasants' Government. This date is generally considered to be the date of publication of the decree, but it received the final version of its name a little later - on January 26, when it was published in the 18th issue of the “Collection of Legislations of the RSFSR” with the title “On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church,” reproducing the text of the first and last articles of the document.

The decree declared, in particular, the following provisions:

"2. Within the Republic, it is prohibited to issue any local laws or regulations that would restrict or restrict freedom of conscience, or establish any advantages or privileges on the basis of the religious affiliation of citizens... 4. The actions of state and other public legal social institutions are not accompanied no religious rites or ceremonies. 5. The free performance of religious rites is ensured insofar as they do not violate public order and are not accompanied by encroachments on the rights of citizens of the Soviet Republic. Local authorities have the right to take all necessary measures to ensure public order and security in these cases. 6. No one can, citing their religious views, avoid fulfilling their civil duties. Exceptions from this provision, subject to the condition of replacing one civil duty with another, are allowed in each individual case by decision of the people's court. 7. The religious oath or oath is canceled. In necessary cases, only a solemn promise is given. 8. Civil status records are maintained exclusively by civil authorities: departments for registering marriages and births.”

Basically, these norms corresponded to those that were in force at that time in some Western countries: the USA, France, Switzerland, and have now entered the legal system of a number of other countries in different parts of the world. The fundamental novelty of the Soviet, or, as it was usually called, Lenin’s decree lay in its last articles:

"12. No church or religious societies have the right to own property. They do not have the rights of a legal entity. 13. All property of church and religious societies existing in Russia is declared national property.”

The Orthodox Church was separated from the state, but did not receive the rights of a private religious society and, like all religious societies, was deprived of the right to own property, as well as the rights of a legal entity. To a certain extent, a similar rule is contained in French legislation: the act of 1905, which proclaimed the final separation of the church from the state and the school from the church, legitimized the previously administratively carried out nationalization of church property, including the churches themselves, which were transferred for use to associations of religious citizens , but these associations, in other words, communities or parishes, were not, unlike the Soviet decree on separation, deprived of the rights of a legal entity and, accordingly, the right to continue to build and own churches. Thus, the 12th and 13th articles of the Soviet decree on separation were of an unprecedentedly draconian nature in relation to the Church.

Article 9 of the decree, according to which “the school is separated from the church,” is also discriminatory, due to the fact that it was accompanied by the following provision:

“Teaching religious doctrines in all state and public, as well as private educational institutions where general education subjects are taught, is not permitted. Citizens may teach and study religion privately.”

If, again, we compare this provision with the corresponding norm of French legislation, which pursues the principle of “separation” with particular radicalism, then it, while prohibiting the teaching of religion in public educational institutions, allows it in public and private secondary and higher schools, including in schools established and administered by the Catholic Church and other religious societies.

Article 10 of the Soviet decree of 1918 is not directly discriminatory, but frankly unfriendly:

“All ecclesiastical and religious societies are subject to the general provisions on private societies and unions and do not enjoy any benefits or subsidies either from the state or from its local autonomous and self-governing institutions.”

Article 11 of the decree, namely its final part, is not without some ambiguity:

“Forcible collection of fees and taxes in favor of church and religious societies, as well as measures of coercion or punishment on the part of these societies over their fellow members, are not permitted.”

The fact is that subsequently, at a time of confrontation between the canonical Church and the renovationists and self-saints, the punishments applied by the church authorities in relation to schismatics were often interpreted by the civil authorities as sanctions that contradicted the prohibition of applying punishments by religious societies in relation to their fellow members, and served as the basis for judicial persecution or extrajudicial, administratively imposed, punitive measures.

By a decree of 1918, the Orthodox Church was excluded from the list of subjects of civil law on the territory of the Soviet state. This decree not only marked the rupture of the centuries-old union of Church and state, but also served as a legal preparation for the confiscation of church values, the closure of monasteries and theological schools, unlawful trials and reprisals against clergy and pious laity.

The Orthodox clergy and conscientious laity, to put it mildly, greeted the very act of separation of Church and state without enthusiasm, since it broke with the tradition of their close union, but the discriminatory articles of the decree on separation caused particular concern and anxiety in church circles. Well-founded fears arose that its implementation would make even the relatively normal life of parishes, monasteries and theological schools impossible.

The publication of this decree stemmed from the Bolshevik elite’s awareness of the irreconcilable ideological antagonism of the atheistic worldview, which many of the Bolsheviks then professed with fanatical, quasi-religious zeal, and religion, especially the Christian faith, and in view of the Orthodox confession of the majority of the population of the country they captured, in the Orthodox Church they they saw their main enemy, and they were ready to fight him not only in the ideological field, but by any means. In an ideocratic state, discrimination against those who hold a worldview opposite to that to which those in power were committed is an understandable phenomenon, but it was an extremely unsuccessful policy, because it created a deep split in society, which in the long term doomed the regime to inevitable defeat. War was declared by issuing a decree on the Orthodox Church, and the Church then accepted this challenge.

The fruits of maternity leave

On January 25, 1918, a day after the official publication of the decree, the Local Council issued its brief but quite categorical “Resolution regarding the decree of the Council of People’s Commissars on the separation of Church and state”:

"1. The decree on the separation of Church and state issued by the Council of People's Commissars represents, under the guise of a law on freedom of conscience, a malicious attack on the entire system of life of the Orthodox Church and an act of open persecution against it. 2. Any participation both in the publication of this legislation hostile to the Church and in attempts to put it into practice is incompatible with belonging to the Orthodox Church and brings upon the guilty persons punishment up to and including excommunication from the Church (in accordance with the 73rd canon of saints and the 13th canon VII Ecumenical Council)".

The council resolution was announced in the churches. Until 1923, the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church in its acts did not comply with the provisions of the decree on separation, as well as with other acts of the Soviet government that were unlawful from an ecclesiastical point of view.

Processions of the cross, at which prayers were offered for the salvation of the Church, were dispersed by force by the authorities

A wave of religious processions swept through the cities and villages of Russia at that time, at which prayers were offered for the salvation of the Church. Religious processions took place in Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Odessa, Voronezh and other cities. They did not go peacefully everywhere. In Nizhny Novgorod, Kharkov, Saratov, Vladimir, Voronezh, Tula, Shatsk, Vyatka, religious processions organized without the permission of local authorities caused clashes that led to bloodshed and death. In Soligalich, mass executions of participants in the religious procession took place several days after it took place. In total, according to official Soviet sources, from January to May 1918, attempts by believers to protect church property led to the death of 687 people.

Meanwhile, the provisions of the ominous decree were specified and supplemented by instructions and orders arising from them or tightening them. On February 1 (February 14), 1918, for the first time in Petrograd, population registration began to be kept by the civil registration authority (ZAGS). Then registry offices began to open everywhere. Their formation was accompanied by the seizure of parish and diocesan documentation and its transfer to these institutions. On August 24, 1918, the People's Commissariat of Justice sent out “Instructions for the implementation of the decree of January 23, 1918,” which ordered local councils to, within two months, confiscate all church property and funds stored “in the cash registers of local churches and houses of worship, from church elders, treasurers, parish councils and collectives, from rectors of churches, from deans, from diocesan and district observers of parochial schools... in former spiritual consistories, in the capitals of diocesan bishops, in the Synod, in the Supreme Church Council, in the so-called “patriarchal treasury” . Temples and liturgical objects were allowed to be issued for use to “communities of believers” according to the inventory. Loans previously allocated for the teaching of religion in schools were ordered to be immediately closed, since “not a single state or other public law institution has the right to issue any sums of money to religion teachers, both for the present and for the period that has elapsed since January 1918.” time of the year."

A ban followed on teaching the Law of God in private, although this was allowed by decree

In February 1918, the People's Commissariat of Education abolished the positions of teachers of all religions. In August 1918, the People's Commissariat for Education demanded the closure of house churches at educational institutions. In the same month, all religious educational institutions were closed, their buildings were transferred to the jurisdiction of local councils. It was only allowed to open theological courses with church funds for the education of adults, but it was extremely difficult to use this permission due to an acute lack of funds. The expulsion of teachers of the law from secondary schools was followed by a ban on teaching the Law of God outside of school - in churches, as well as in private apartments and at home, although according to the text of the decree, teaching religion in private was allowed.

The decree on the separation of Church and state made it difficult for all religions and denominations to exist in the Soviet state, but it dealt a particularly heavy blow to the Orthodox Church, which in the past had been in close alliance with the state. However, the situation of some religious communities in the first years of Soviet power was regarded by these communities themselves as more favorable than it was before. Thus, in January 1919, the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR issued a decree “On exemption from military service for religious reasons,” according to which Mennonites, Doukhobors and Tolstoyans were exempted from military service. For some time, this benefit also extended to Baptists and Pentecostals.

Baptists greeted the publication of the decree on the separation of Church and state with approval. They were completely satisfied with the freedom of conscience declared by the decree, the removal of instructions on the religion of citizens from official documents, and the introduction of civil registration of acts of civil status. They critically perceived only one provision of the decree - the deprivation of religious organizations of property rights and rights of a legal entity. And yet, the first 12 years that passed after the decree was issued, the Baptists subsequently called their “golden age.” Over the years, the number of Baptist communities has grown many times. Mass repressions did not escape them until the 1930s.

The decree was in effect in the Soviet state almost until the very end of its existence and was only declared invalid by a resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on October 25, 1990. Similar acts were then passed in other union republics on the eve of the collapse of the USSR.

On the separation of church and state and school from church
[Decree of the Council of People's Commissars]*(1)

1. The church is separated from the state.
2. Within the Republic, it is prohibited to enact any local laws or regulations that would restrict or restrict freedom of conscience, or establish any advantages or privileges on the basis of the religious affiliation of citizens.
3. Every citizen can profess any religion or not profess any. All legal deprivations associated with the profession of any faith or non-profession of any faith are abolished,

Note. From all official acts, any indication of religious affiliation or non-religious affiliation of citizens is eliminated.

4. The actions of state and other public legal social institutions are not accompanied by any religious rites or ceremonies.
5. The free performance of religious rites is ensured insofar as they do not violate public order and are not accompanied by encroachments on the rights of citizens of the Soviet Republic.
Local authorities have the right to take all necessary measures to ensure public order and security in these cases.
6. No one can, citing their religious views, avoid fulfilling their civil duties. Exceptions from this provision, subject to the condition of replacing one civil duty with another, are allowed in each individual case by decision of the people's court,
7. The religious oath or oath is canceled.
In necessary cases, only a solemn promise is given,
8. Civil status records are maintained exclusively by civil authorities: departments for registering marriages and births,
9. The school is separated from the church.
Teaching religious doctrines in all state and public, as well as private educational institutions where general education subjects are taught, is not permitted.
Citizens may teach and study religion privately.
10. All ecclesiastical and religious societies are subject to the general provisions on private societies and unions and do not enjoy any benefits or subsidies either from the state or from its local autonomous and self-governing institutions.
11. Forced collection of fees and taxes in favor of church and religious societies, as well as measures of coercion or punishment on the part of these societies over their members, are not allowed,
12. No church or religious societies have the right to own property.
They do not have the rights of a legal entity.
13. All property of church and religious societies existing in Russia is declared national property.
The building and objects intended specifically for liturgical purposes are given, according to special regulations of local or central government authorities, for the free use of the respective religious societies.

Proclamation of the secular nature of the Soviet state - the church is separated from the state.
Prohibition of any restriction on freedom of conscience, or the establishment of any advantages or privileges based on the religious affiliation of citizens.
Everyone has the right to profess any religion or not to profess any.
Prohibition of indicating the religious affiliation of citizens in official documents.
Prohibition of religious rites and ceremonies when performing state or other public legal social actions.
Civil status records should be maintained exclusively by civil authorities, marriage and birth registration departments.
The school, as a state educational institution, is separated from the church - the teaching of religion is prohibited. Citizens should teach and be taught religion only privately.
Prohibition of forced penalties, fees and taxes in favor of church and religious societies, as well as prohibition of coercive or punitive measures by these societies over their members.
Prohibition of property rights in church and religious societies. Preventing them from having the rights of a legal entity.
All property existing in Russia, church and religious societies are declared national property.

The meaning and effect of the decree

The decree was signed by the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin), as well as by the People's Commissars: Podvoisky, Algasov, Trutovsky, Schlikhter, Proshyan, Menzhinsky, Shlyapnikov, Petrovsky and the manager of the Council of People's Commissars Vl. Bonch-Bruevich.

This decree clearly defined the attitude of the new government towards the church and religious societies. The principle of secularism was established in the exercise of state power. No religion could be given preference, and indication of religion or lack thereof could not give privileges or advantages when occupying government positions. Atheism was equal in rights to the practice of religion. In the educational process, teaching religious subjects (the Law of God) in state general education institutions was not allowed. These formulations for a long time became the basis of the secular policy of the USSR and the countries of the socialist camp.

The abolition of property rights from the church and religious societies led to the nationalization and secularization of lands and properties previously owned by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Civil registration (information about birth, death, marriage) began to be maintained exclusively by state bodies (registry offices).

Since January 1919, the VIII Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice has been planning the release of a new monthly magazine, “Revolution and the Church.” It was planned to contain an overview of orders and explanations regarding the separation of church and state and schools from the church. Bukharin’s work “Church and School in the Soviet Republic” was distributed.

The Code of Laws of the RSFSR (published in the 1980s in 8 volumes) began with the decree. The decree was declared invalid by the resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR dated October 25, 1990 “On the procedure for enacting the RSFSR Law “On Freedom of Religion”.”

Notes

Literature

Dobronovskaya A. P. Separation of church and state in the Yenisei province (1920-1922) // Siberia in the 17th-20th centuries: Problems of political and social history: Bakhrushin readings 1999-2000. : interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / ed. V. I. Shishkina. - Novosibirsk: Novosib. state University, 2002.
Rassilnikov I. A. The principle of “separation of school from church” as a necessary feature of a secular state and its significance in the context of legal reform // Legal reforms in Russia. - Rostov-on-Don: SKAGS Publishing House, 2004. - P. 124-129.

“ON THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE AND SCHOOL FROM THE CHURCH”- Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR. issued on January 23 (February 5), 1918. The decree summed up the original legislation. acts of the Sov. republics that consolidated the gains of the socialist. democracy, broad rights and freedoms of all citizens of our country. Sov. state in this... ... Atheist Dictionary

- (Latin decretum decree from decernere to decide) a legal act, a resolution of an authority or official. In everyday life, maternity leave is called maternity leave (ellipsis from maternity leave). This meaning of the word is not... ... Wikipedia

Decree (Latin decretum decree from decernere to decide) a legal act, a resolution of an authority or official. In everyday life, maternity leave is called maternity leave (ellipsis from maternity leave). This meaning of the word is not... ... Wikipedia Wikipedia

The separation of church and state is one of the forms of political structure of the state; it does not assign to religious associations the functions of government bodies, other government bodies, government institutions and... ... Wikipedia

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (Greek Σύνοδος “meeting”, “cathedral”), according to the current charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, the highest “governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church in the period between Councils of Bishops.” During the synodal period... Wikipedia

M. V. Fabinsky ’

DECREE ON SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE AND SCHOOL FROM THE CHURCH, ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN PETROGRAD (Based on materials from the State Archive of the Russian Federation)

The article, based on materials from the State Archive of the Russian Federation, examines the main problems of implementing the decree on the separation of church from state and school from church in the first years of Soviet power. Using the example of events in Petrograd, the article analyzes a set of measures to try to implement the provisions of the decree in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures taken. The article touches on the problem of organizing the process of implementing the decree and the contradictions between the provisions of the decree and the real socio-political situation in Petrograd, such as the lack of a unanimous position on the implementation of the decree among responsible persons and the lack of a clear system for its implementation. The article also examines the problem of perception of this decree by society and representatives of the church, and also reveals the main forms of protests of Orthodox believers in Petrograd.

Key words: Decree on the separation of church from state and school from church, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, society, state, religion, anti-religious campaign.

Decree on the Separation of Church from State and its Implementation in Petrograd (according to the materials of the State Archives of the Russian Federation)

The article based on the materials of the State Archive of the Russian Federation considers the main problems of implementation of the Decree on the Separation of Church and State in the first years of the Soviet State. On the example of events in Petrograd the article examines a set of measures taken to attempt to realize the provisions of the decree for their efficiency and effectiveness. The article deals with the problems of organizing the process of putting the decree into force and the contradictions between the provisions of the decree and the real socio-political situation in Petrograd, such as the absence of a unanimous agreement concerning enacting the decree among those responsible for it, and the lack of a clear

* Mikhail Vladimirovich Fabinsky - graduate student of the Russian State Social University, [email protected]

Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy. 2014. Volume 15. Issue 2

system for its implementation. The article considers the problem of the reaction to the decree in the society and by representatives of the church, and reveals the main forms of protest of Orthodox believers in Petrograd.

Keywords: Decree on the Separation of Church and State, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, society, government, religion, anti-religious campaign.

On January 23, 1918, a document was published that marked a complete change in the spiritual life of the state. The decree on the separation of church from state and school from church became the fundamental document on religious issues for Soviet power for the entire period of its existence. Officially, this law declared the absolute freedom of a person to choose a religion, but in reality, many articles of this document marked the beginning of a systematic attack by the state on the Church.

In the process of implementing the document in Petrograd, it is necessary to distinguish three main stages. At the first stage, when the highest Soviet leadership was in Petrograd, it was concerned with the exact implementation of its decisions. It was in Petrograd that V.I. Lenin, together with other members of the Council of People's Commissars, signed this act. The second stage begins in mid-March 1918, after the government left Petrograd for Moscow. The northern city has ceased to be the capital of Russia. The departure of a significant number of leading employees made life easier for the believers to a certain extent and gave them the opportunity to strengthen their positions. The third stage begins from the end of 1920 - beginning of 1921. and continues until the end of the confiscation of church valuables. During this period, the atheists managed to fruitfully engage in religious affairs. In many ways, this happened simultaneously with the confiscation of church valuables and the Petrograd trial. It was then that the authorities managed to almost completely implement the main provisions of the decree.

Already from the very beginning, the reaction of the Church and believers to the decree was very sharp. In January 1918, Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazan) of Petrograd warned in a letter to the Council of People's Commissars that the implementation of the decree would cause various unrest among parishioners. Meetings were held in almost all parishes at which the issue of the Decree was discussed. The general opinion of believers about the decree was categorical: religion should be of interest to any government, since this issue is for the most part not a private matter, but a most important state matter. A Russian person is originally Orthodox, and he has always had and will remain religious views.

The Church took a number of steps in response. The following forms of opposition to the religious policy of Soviet power can be distinguished: appeals, religious processions, organization of brotherhoods and unions of believers, trips with sermons of the Patriarch and other bishops, complaints and appeals to the Council of People's Commissars and other institutions. These documents contributed to the development of all kinds of activities among parishioners against the suppression of the Church by the state. The most widespread of them were religious processions. Immediately after the decree was adopted, grandiose religious processions took place throughout Russia, which shocked both the two capitals and the provinces. In these processions, believers expressed their particular disagreement with the godless policies of the Soviet government. January 21

In 1918, a religious procession took place in Petrograd. About two hundred separate processions merged and moved from the Lavra to the Kazan Cathedral. Processions of the cross have become a pronounced form of support for the Church from the people in difficult times for it. However, these events were carried out irregularly, usually in cases where the Church needed to react to some undesirable act on the part of the state. In this regard, the activities of various brotherhoods and unions of believers were more systematic. Already in 1918, a brotherhood of parish councils was created, which was later transformed into the society of Orthodox parishes in Petrograd. By 1920, there were more than 20 Orthodox brotherhoods in Petrograd. The most famous were: Alexander Nevsky, Spassky and Zakharyevsky brotherhoods. In the “Regulations on the Petrograd Council of Religious Associations” dated September 1

1919, the main goal was “to serve as a representative body for popular religious associations ... in their relations with the government and its institutions” and to inform it “about cases of violations of freedom of conscience that sometimes occur locally.” Approximately the same functions were outlined in the charter of the “Society of Orthodox Parishioners of Petrograd” registered on November 12, 1920 in the Petrograd Soviet. All these societies played a significant role in the religious life of Petrograd and held back the implementation of the decree for a long time.

The people's opinion about the activities carried out by the Soviet government in the field of church policy can also be imagined from numerous statements that are contained in letters that came to Smolny addressed to V. I. Lenin. Documents dating from the beginning of 1918 can be systematically divided into several groups, depending on how their authors assess the religious policy of the Soviets.

Most of her contemporaries clearly did not approve of her. Some people in their letters try to politely reprimand the rulers: “Comrades, come to your senses, why are you ruining the Russian people. After all, you will be answerable to God for this.” Others tried to shame the leadership of the new republic: “If the government allows the robbery of churches, blasphemy of Orthodox shrines, then what kind of rulers of Russia are you after that?” Still others have already openly threatened to declare a “secret, deadly war” using terror and directly promised not to carry out the “crazy” orders of the Soviet government. Moreover, the threats came not only from their side, the name of God was also invoked, against whom the Bolsheviks fought: “You... declared war on Christ and his Church. You have overthrown the King of the earth, but the army of the King of Heaven will overthrow you.” But meanwhile, a number of people offered their recommendations and gave certain advice. In particular, they again wanted the government to pay more attention to the Gospel commandments. But such letters of recommendation were clearly in the minority; the majority of those writing no longer offered anything, apparently seeing the futility of any proposals, but simply expressed their understanding of what was happening in literary form. Thus, by analogy with theological texts, the anonymous author created the “Creed of the Bolsheviks.” Another folk writer, who also wished to remain anonymous, created

even an akathist - “Song of Praise” in honor of the Bolsheviks. In this work, he describes the new church transformations of Soviet power on a religious basis:

We don't need hell to see hell,

It is enough to come to free Petrograd.

There is a righteous Lenin...

Yes, this hero is warlike, and he has not forgotten the church,

Religious rituals were replaced by decree...

He gives no mercy to priests and holy bearers...

The great silent ones will accept everything with reverence,

They turn their right cheek when they hit their left.

They pray earnestly for everyone, for everything and everyone.

Righteous peace to their souls and God is their judge.”

The people also created poems dedicated to religious themes:

To create a new system, let the old one perish.

There should not even be a mention of the former...

So that the name of the “Saint” of the country is overgrown with reality,

We consider it good to call our homeland not Russia,

And we will call it Leninland.

Opinions on religious policy were expressed not only by private individuals: for example, the newspaper Tserkovnye Vedomosti compiled a press review, from which it followed that all publications, except communist ones, condemned the actions of the Soviet government.

The move of the government and main departments to Moscow created severe disorganization in the power structures of Petrograd. In fact, the authorities did nothing in the field of religious policy in 1918. Only after long delays was the implementation of the Decree in the northern capital entrusted to the People's Commissariat of Justice. In reality, these issues had to be dealt with by the 4th Security Department, headed by Richard Andreevich Tettenborn. Valuable information about the implementation of the decree is available in the correspondence between the People's Commissariat of Justice of Petrograd and the 8th (liquidation) department of the People's Commissariat of Justice, responsible for the implementation of the decree on an All-Russian scale, headed by P. Krasikov. From time to time, special instructors were sent to Petrograd to compile a report on the state of affairs with religion. So, on September 29, 1918, a report was received from legal consultant N. Lipkin-Kopeishchikov, who went on an inspection trip to Petrograd. He was faced with the task of finding out “to what extent the Petrograd Soviet of Deputies is... implementing the decree on the separation of church and state.” The result was very sad for anti-religious people: “... not only have no steps been taken, but also no measures have been planned in the near future aimed at the actual implementation of both the norms of the decree itself and

and the instructions for it developed by the NKJ." Moreover, it was especially emphasized that “many Council of Deputies are even... familiar with the decree itself only by its name and are completely unaware of the publication of instructions supplementing this document.” “Parochial schools in most areas continue to exist, the teaching of the Law of God is practiced almost everywhere...”. An accurate account of the monasteries and numerous farmsteads existing in Petrograd has not been made. Some steps in this direction were taken in relation to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, “but, having encountered obvious opposition from the spiritual authorities, these measures stopped halfway.”

The same situation is depicted in the report of another inspector, the former Petrograd priest M. Galkin (Gorev), who in June 1918 became one of the employees of the 8th liquidation department of the People's Commissariat of Justice. By the way, it was his draft decree on the separation of church and state that was taken as the basis for this document. He did not find in the majority of the Petrograd Soviets any bodies to implement the decree on the separation of church and state. Basically, such matters were handled by cultural, educational, statistical or legal departments. Although “civil metrics bodies exist everywhere,” “their system is extremely unsatisfactory.” For example, the selection of parish registers has not yet been carried out. But the state of the churches aroused the sincere envy of the former priest. When performing divine services, they were lit “in order to add... splendor to countless illumination of electric lights.” Even on the roofs of some churches, electric crosses were burning. In churches, all existing chandeliers with 200-500 lamps were lit. M. Galkin saw in this phenomenon a complete abnormality and the need to issue an appropriate decree “prohibiting the consumption of electricity for illumination purposes.”

Only after repeated reminders from Moscow, on December 2, 1918, was the “Bandatory Resolution of the Council of Commissioners of the Union of Communes of the Northern Region” issued, where the main ideas of the decree on the separation of church from state and school from church were developed. This document was signed by the Chairman of the Council of Commissioners of the Union of Communes of the Northern District G. Zinoviev and Commissioner of Justice S. Pilyavsky. Representatives of churches were required to submit to the Security Department of the Commissariat of Justice an inventory of property intended for liturgical and ritual purposes. It was also necessary for departments and persons in whose jurisdiction the capital of religious societies were to report this to the same body within two weeks. Houses, lands, and lands, which should have been immediately transferred to local councils, were subject to special control. All churches had to submit their “white versions” of metric books to the Commissariat of Justice, and the “draft versions” had to go to the notary departments. If parents evaded registration of newborn children, ration cards were not issued to them. When performing the sacraments, clergy were forbidden to make any notes about belonging to any confession or about the commission of this or that act.

in government documents. All the main sacraments (baptisms, weddings, funerals) could be performed by clergy after registration of these acts by secular authorities. The 8th department of the People's Commissariat of Justice, having familiarized itself with such a “mandatory resolution”, found it “generally correct”, with the exception of the last section. Here, the central body disagreed with the fact that when performing the sacrament, permission from the Soviet government is necessary, and this clearly “does not contribute to the elimination of the connection between the state and the church.

And only then in Petrograd they slowly began to solve this problem. On February 26, 1919, an inter-district meeting of deputies of the Soviets decided to begin removing metric books from the jurisdiction of the clergy and transferring liturgical property to the “twenties.” However, even despite such resolutions, this was not done in Vyborg, 1st, 2nd city districts. Moreover, representatives of these areas and at the next meeting, on March 27, 1919, not only openly stated that “in their areas nothing has been done in this direction at all,” but on the contrary, they began to move towards the believers. For example, in the 2nd city district, the house church of the former Senate, which was closed about a year ago, was reopened for services. In other areas, if they did anything to implement the decree, they did it “extremely ineptly”; for example, for some reason, along with metric books, church seals with images of crosses and temples were confiscated. The report of the Petrograd Council of Workers' and Red Army Deputies on March 31, 1919 to the 8th Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice contained rather pessimistic conclusions. The measures taken by the Petrograd Department of Justice to successfully implement the Decree on the separation of church and state “... do not lead to the desired results, due to the inert attitude of the district Soviets to the tasks assigned to them by the Decree.” As an excuse, the district leadership attributed all difficulties in implementing the Decree to the lack of a sufficient staff of employees to implement the main resolutions of this Decree. According to the head of justice of the Petrograd Council of Workers and Red Army Deputies S. Pilyavsky, specifically for these purposes it was necessary to create several positions of “executive instructors in church affairs.” In total, it was necessary to recruit 8 people with pay at the 18th grade, i.e. for 1716 rub. per month . In view of this, the Petrograd authorities petitioned the NKJ to collect additional funds for these employees. This issue was discussed for a long time in Moscow and a positive solution was found there. At a budget meeting at the Narkomfin, it was allowed to form a temporary staff of instructors at the Petrograd Department of Justice in the amount of 4 people with a salary of 19 tariffs of 3,300 rubles. . Such “instructor-executors” were A.K. Masalsky, S.N. Dranitsyn, S. A. Baburina and V. D. Krasnitsky.

At a meeting on August 9, 1919 on issues of separation of church and state, chaired by R. A. Tettenborn, the issue of organizing “twenties” at churches, their class composition and the choice of an executive body was discussed. Parishioners were required to hold a general meeting at least once a month. Moreover, citizens could be admitted to it

Orthodox faith with an advisory voice. A notice about this meeting should be posted on the wall of the temple and the Soviet of Deputies should be notified. Copies of the minutes of the meeting had to be provided to the Soviet of Deputies and the Commissariat of Justice. It was also extremely desirable “to attract into this organization the largest possible circle of believers, of course, mainly representatives of the poor.” But if ordinary parish churches were to be transferred to the “twenties”, then with the closure of house churches, which, according to Soviet legislation, should have been immediately liquidated, serious difficulties arose. There were extraordinary cases that clearly did not fit into Soviet legislation and contradicted common sense. The Justice Department of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Red Army Deputies received a request from a group of believers to preserve churches at hospitals. Parishioners emphasized that when house churches are closed, the sick suffer, because because of their illness they can only attend the house church. Under the influence of believers, the Petrograd authorities proposed turning house churches in some government institutions into parish churches if they are located in separate buildings or outbuildings. Moreover, even churches at almshouses, “not located in separate buildings, can be left exclusively for their patients, if these institutions find funds for their maintenance.” However, the center did not approve this resolution. According to the 8th Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice, “it would be advisable to concentrate all persons detained in health care and social welfare institutions and who, due to physical decrepitude or illness, cannot satisfy their religious needs outside, in a special room.” Moreover, these facts should not cause the suspension of the order to liquidate house churches.

Such active activity of believers and non-resistance from the authorities seriously alarmed the Moscow atheists. M. Galkin was sent here again for inspection. Arriving in the northern capital, he found the state of affairs in an extremely unsatisfactory state. On June 23, 1920, an urgent telegram was sent to Moscow to the head of the 8th department, P. Krasikov, where he found the case of the separation of church and state “in ruins.” In fact, the circumstances were described as close to a catastrophe: “House churches are functioning in the former chambers”; “The clergy are strengthening”; “There is a united council of communities... huge processions of the cross are organized....” The result sounded warning: delay in implementing the Decree “threatens the collapse of the entire Petrograd justice system.” The investigation of the case began. The person responsible for implementing the Decree, M.F. Paozersky, was appointed as the last. Special authorities spent a long time figuring out how this “non-party person got into the justice department, and on whose recommendation he was entrusted with such a responsible matter, which “... is in an unsatisfactory state.” Moreover, the implementation of this document in some districts of the Petrograd province on June 1, 1920 had not even begun.” Soon M.F. Paozersky was removed from office and Petrogubchek was arrested. Serafima Andreevna Baburina was appointed in his place. Soon it was reported to the center that the church branch now consisted of communists.

However, the problems of the Petrograd atheists did not end there. Soon they asked Moscow to give them an explanation of what to do when “the clergy manage to enlist the support of members of the Petrograd Executive Committee...”. Thus, support for the Church also came from the authorities, where, apparently, the believers also remained. According to the 8th department of the NKJ, the justice department needed to appeal such decisions to the NKJ and the NKVD.

But the believers did not reduce their activity. Moreover, in their persistence they even reached the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. Thus, on January 21, 1921, V.I. Lenin received a petition from parishioners of the Petrograd Military Medical Academy, where they opposed the closure of the church at this educational institution and the transformation of the church premises into a club. The petition contains an order from V.I. Lenin asking him to look into this issue. Moreover, believers also involved A. M. Gorky in solving the problem. The 8th department of the People's Commissariat of Justice was forced on April 5, 1921 to report to the leader of the world proletariat. It turned out that the Church was a house church, had no artistic value, and no agreement between the executive committee and the believers had been concluded. The parishioners were mainly employees and teachers of the academy. Taking into account the above, the 8th department “did not see any particular grounds for restoring the actually already liquidated temple.” Therefore, “the church was liquidated, its premises are intended for the scientific and educational museum of the academy.”

The opposition of believers and anti-religious people actually continued until 1922, when church valuables were confiscated. A trial took place, which significantly weakened the strength of believers and contributed to the strengthening of anti-religious groups. Then the authorities received and were able to complete the process of implementing the Decree on the separation of church and state.

LITERATURE

1. State Archive of the Russian Federation. F.A. 353. Op. 2. D. 691

2. State Archive of the Russian Federation. F.A. 353. Op. 2. D. 714.

3. State Archive of the Russian Federation. F. 1235. Op. 140. D. 8.

4. Additions to the Church Gazette. - 1918. No. 2.

Decree on the separation of church and state. Abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne Policy of separation of church and state proclaimed by decree

The meaning and effect of the decree

Notes

Literature

see also

See what the “Decree on the separation of church from state and school from church” is in other dictionaries: