Society
07:00, 09.04.2019 15
Patriarch Kirill put an end to the case of priest Golovin
Photo: tatmitropolia.ru
The other day, Patriarch Kirill approved the “defrocking” of Archpriest Vladimir Golovin from Bolgar and his son Archpriest Anastasy. At the same time, Bishop Parmen of Chistopol and Nizhnekamsk, on whose territory the parish in Bolgar is located, was transferred to the Urals. The Chistopol diocese will be temporarily governed by Metropolitan Feofan of Kazan and Tatarstan. Details of the ending of the story, which has been dragging on since last fall, are in the material of Realnoe Vremya.
What kind of punishment
If we draw an analogy between priests and police officers, for example, then defrocking is like being dismissed from the force in disgrace and without the right to ever return to service. A priest ceases to be such, becoming a layman, he can no longer perform church sacraments as a clergyman.
And although defrocking in itself does not entail any loss of civil rights and freedoms for a person, from the point of view of the Orthodox Church this is an extreme measure that should be applied to priests if there is no other way out: the person has committed a crime or action incompatible with the title of spiritual shepherd .
Over more than a thousand years of history, many ministers have been rejected by the Orthodox Church for a variety of reasons. Someone secretly got divorced, someone coveted the parish's money, someone called for the murder of ideological opponents, someone went into political opposition to the authorities - there are plenty of reasons for defrocking. Currently, the main one is schismatic activity.
In 2008, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', while still a metropolitan, expressed the opinion that “defrocking also means the death of the soul.”
As a rule, the deprivation of a person of the title of priest is accompanied by his excommunication from the church. The decision to apply such a serious penalty is taken by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, although in the past this prerogative belonged to the Holy Synod.
Alexander Rentel, a professor at St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary (New York, USA), in his theological work “Ordinations and the canonical procedure for defrocking” noted a clear similarity between the sacrament of ordination to the priesthood and the opposite effect - deprivation of this title.
Indeed, during the ordination, a person is solemnly dressed in the proper clothes, prayers and good wishes are said to the new priest. And eruption is the mirror opposite of ordination, in which a person loses his vestments in disgrace, listens to unflattering statements about himself, and his hair and beard become shorter. It is no coincidence that in Russia former priests were often called defrocked.
Monologue of a priest who renounced his priesthood
Photo: Personal archive of Alexander Usatov I gave 30 years of my life to the Russian Orthodox Church, for many years I burned with faith and sought to bring the light of Christ to people. After 15 years of priestly service, I became completely disillusioned with religion and decided to leave the priesthood. A month ago, I sent Patriarch Kirill a statement with a request to deprive me of my holy orders. I left for reasons of principle and I want to tell you why I came to this decision. My motives are close to many thoughtful priests, but not everyone dares to break with the illusions they have carried throughout their entire lives.
In the 2000s, I headed the missionary department of the diocese. In those years, it seemed important to me to resist sectarianism; I saw sects as a threat to the Church and the entire society. Over time, I realized that reproaches towards totalitarian sects are quite appropriate in relation to the phenomena of the Orthodox environment: elders-gurus, total control, contempt for science, pulling out quotes, etc.
Russians are not inclined to read Scripture and follow biblical commandments, except for one: believe in One God. They prefer the ecstatic and radical movements of the so-called. “Orthodox monarchists”, “zealots of Orthodox piety”, lovers of exorcisms, reprimands, veneration of elders, elders, as well as the “Movement against codes” (TIN, barcodes, 666 and chips). Most parishioners are mired in superstitions. Behind this is not so much ignorance as deep and archaic processes in the psyche. I had the feeling that the Church had ceased to be a hospital for human souls, and most likely, it never was. It is similar to a hospice, where hopeless patients receive temporary comfort, but are not cured.
Later I realized that not only sectarians and occultists, but also parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church are not looking for Truth in the Church, but are engaged in primitive psychotherapy. From books on the psychology of religion, I learned that a neurotic person strives to feel the stability of life through regularly reproduced rituals and holidays, thus trying to reduce the anxiety that torments him. It has become increasingly difficult to drive away the idea that the ministry of a priest resembles the work of a pagan priest or a Siberian shaman.
Now I believe that church life not only attracts people with psychological problems, but is itself a neurotic environment, where a huge number of sufferers replace work on themselves with rituals and “mechanical” asceticism. Before the revolution, the Church tried to “separate the wheat from the chaff.” Few people allowed themselves to spread gossip about miracles and engage in hysteria; people clearly understood that the whip sectarians had nothing to do with the Church. Now any mentally ill person or on the verge of deviation is perceived in the Church as a zealot of tradition, and manifestations of critical thinking immediately cause rejection.
I have come to the conclusion that in the modern Church much is built on the formation of a guilt and inferiority complex among parishioners. If you add food and sexual prohibitions to this, you get an excellent mechanism for controlling people.
Church “counseling” does not work and does not help believers cope with internal problems. People are urged to observe a lot of prohibitions and taboos, which is impossible in principle. All that remains is to endlessly blame yourself and wait for forgiveness. People go to confession weekly, repent, but nothing changes in their lives. Would you recommend such a “clinic” to your loved ones? I do not recommend.
So I gradually lost the feeling that my pastoral ministry was necessary and useful to people. Without understanding psychology, priests often cause harm and pain to people. The Patriarch recently urged not to perceive confession as psychoanalysis, but in fact everything happens exactly like that. This is not real psychotherapy, but a disgusting parody.
For many years it seemed to me that spiritual enlightenment could somehow change the atmosphere of the church. In the Rostov-on-Don diocese in 2005, almost for the first time in the Russian Orthodox Church, we made preparatory conversations mandatory before receiving baptism. I remember how unpleasant a surprise this was for many priests. This came as a shock to me: it turned out that the clergy was alien to theology and instruction in the faith of ordinary people on the street. Pompous sermons for “their own” and a conveyor belt of rituals for the sake of getting “money” - this is how I imagine church life in an ordinary parish. Catechesis, mission, work with youth - there is nothing here except slogans, and paper will tolerate any lies and replies to the authorities. Can you guess why all these areas of the Church’s activities are in the fold? This does not bring money here and now, but you have to constantly invest your soul and knowledge without any guarantee of a positive result.
The Church is now talking to itself, it is answering questions that no one has asked. The Russian Orthodox Church was literally stuck in the Middle Ages, when society completely suppressed any manifestation of individuality, where domestic violence was perceived as an obvious good. This applies not only to parishioners and parishioners. Almost all priests are in the grip of unfreedom. Many of them can do nothing except fulfill demands, and almost everyone has gone through the so-called filter. obedience, that is, a test of loyalty to the bishop and willingness to pay taxes. There is a good comparison of the Russian Church with a franchise. You put on a black robe with jewelry in the form of a cross. All! Now people will start giving you donations. Apart from power and money, its administrators are interested in little. And individual “romantics” among priests are often even more dangerous, because they themselves do not know what they are doing, spreading ideas “from the wind of their heads.”
After being ordained, due to the nature of my work, I had to look for answers to reproaches and challenges from the non-church environment. I began to notice the falsity of Orthodox apologetics at virtually every step: in biology, history, psychology. It seemed important to me to study books by science popularizers, neuroscientists and religious scholars.
Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill performed Matins at the Elokhov Epiphany Cathedral on the eve of the Feast of the Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary, April 3, 2021 Photo: Kirill Zykov/Moscow Agency
I began to see blatant falsehood in the lives of saints, in incomprehensible canonizations, in the appearance of holidays in honor of events in the life of the Mother of God that never happened. I don’t want to broadcast this lie in the future.
I confess that it became difficult for me to tolerate other priests. Many clergy have imagined themselves to be the infallible Pope in any field of knowledge. Such a would-be shepherd easily distributes his fabrications about genetics and history, about geology and sociology, about how to be saved and what needs to be cut off, how to give birth and on what days to conceive a child. Each of them overcomes their complexes in their own way, each of them has their own unique manifestation of their sense of their own greatness, but I don’t want anything to do with it.
At an elementary level, the sacred space of the temple really lulls a person, but this “works” on its own; priests are not needed for this. Now I am convinced that this religious organization in many cases causes harm, stimulating neuroticism, outright infantilism, slave psychology and suppression of critical thinking in people. Many church people are afraid to live, and often wish to simply die in some spectacular feat (for example, by contracting the coronavirus in church or by violating the orders of an endocrinologist). It’s terrible that some clergy are now pushing people towards such a false feat.
I was amazed when I learned that the apocrypha, non-canonical writings, had been part of the flesh and blood of church life since ancient times. At that moment I realized that the Church has no immunity against this “dirty water”; it accepts any legends and inventions and subsequently cannot part with them. What if this applies not only to church traditions, but also to Scripture itself?
In the last two years I have begun to read books by Western biblical scholars such as Borg, Crossan and Ehrman. I saw the "Great Deception" in the books of Holy Scripture (as Bart Ehrman calls it). Some Christians allowed themselves to write epistles on behalf of the Apostle Paul, others composed gospels using distorted or even fictitious stories about Christ. I presented the results of my research in the collection “Development of Christian Ideas and Practices,” where I examined the dynamics of the development of church traditions and tried to substantiate the hypothesis that the most important views of Christianity were changing already in the 1st century. I believe that all the best in Christianity was given by the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Further, God did not seem to interfere in the development of events. All this is only human, too human... I came to the conclusion that the modern Russian Church actually has nothing to do with the “historical Jesus”, and God’s providence was absent in the history of the Church.
I have already moved away from the idea of reforming the Church, preaching light Orthodoxy and churchliness “with a human face.” The Church is as far from the values of humanism as heaven is from earth.
And the problem is not that church people are special now (in fact, they are). And it’s not even that the biblical stories about Adam or the Great Flood are ordinary myths (perceiving biblical stories in a mythological vein as parables could remove a lot of difficulties in communicating with modern people).
I have thought for many years about the inspiration and limitations of the Old Testament. And I came to the conclusion that these were formalized expectations and fortune-telling of the Jews, covered with the lofty words “thus saith the Lord.” My ideas about the inspiration of every iota of the Scriptures collapsed. Now I do not believe in the inspiration of the New Testament texts. Many of them are forgeries, while others record traditions that developed in Christian communities 40 or 65 years after the crucifixion of Christ. Through these layers it is very difficult for us to perceive the image of the “historical Jesus”.
In the film “PK”, all the attempts of the main character to reach heaven did not lead to a positive result. And he concluded that people are trying to reach God through “religious managers”, having the “wrong number”: “The system by which you contact the Almighty has become faulty. All your calls are going to the wrong number." Once upon a time it seemed to me that this was the problem, and I tried to look for the “right number” in the Church: how to pray correctly, how to fast so that our voice would be heard in Heaven (Is. 58:4). Many books and articles have been written on this topic.
Eventually I became convinced that the human mind is incapable of perceiving the concept of a supernatural being, even if one exists. People always invent a deity for themselves in their own image and likeness.
Gradually, all the arguments with which I operated for the apology of Orthodoxy crumbled. They do not take into account the achievements of modern scientific knowledge, sometimes they contradict it (“a monkey has a different number of chromosomes, a monkey cannot become a human”), and sometimes they are an obvious forgery (the Holy Fire, the flow of oil from crosses, and the like).
As with biblical scholar Ehrman Barth, my loss of faith was not directly related to science, but to my inability to “justify God” for the suffering of this world: “I form light and create darkness, I make peace and bring disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).
Photo: Personal archive of Alexander Usatov
As a result, I turned into an atheistic agnostic, and today I already reject the very concept of theism. Let's call it antitheism. What it is? The archaic belief in an anthropomorphic heavenly being who is angry and takes revenge on people, demands a substitutionary sacrifice (atonement), gives them instructions for all aspects of life, and then threatens to torment a person with unquenchable fire is alien and unpleasant to me. This capricious creature accepts some people and rejects others. I believe that many of the commandments of the Old Testament are immoral in this sense. It seems monstrous to me that Christians destroyed dissidents. As well as the recent call of my former boss, Metropolitan Mercury, “not to forgive the enemies of the Church.” At parting, I heard an amazing “Get out!” from him. It turns out that the Church loves only “its own”? Has nothing really changed for the better in these 2000 years?
The Bible says that Christ was going to give a denarius to every person (Matt. 20:14), but in the end he will return to earth to “righteously take vengeance in flaming fire on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel, who will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2 Thess. 1:6-10). It is possible that these promises of “carrot and stick” impressed the archaic or medieval mind. But today I can't accept it. I believe that already in the 1st century, ideas about a loving Jesus were mixed with the expectation of His wrath, because this is so characteristic of the concept of theism. People simply could not describe their experience of understanding God in Christ in any other way. As a result, the gospels reconcile such conflicting ideas about how God relates to people.
The person of Jesus Christ remains exclusive to me. In the sense that Jesus of Nazareth gave people an amazing experience of acceptance and comfort. In his community there were no hierarchies and restrictions, everyone was important and dear: the peasant, the publican, the prostitute and the child suffering from a skin disease and a mentally disabled person. This surpasses everything I know about human relationships. In this sense, Jesus is still “divine” for me.
Now I would like to conduct the study of church history and Christian traditions from a scientific position - without belonging to the Church. This is what true theology as a scientific discipline should be. I agree with the thesis that, unlike a religious scholar, a theologian comprehends the religious tradition as his own (I hope that 30 years in the Church have given me some experience). In this case, he has a slightly different angle of view than a secular religious scholar, but excludes all these “I dreamed” or “I feel.” And the theologian does not have the right to adjust the results of the study to the usual church templates. The church of the early Christians cannot be viewed according to later models: since the 4th century, the church has become completely different. For example, there is no point in asserting that the Vladimir Icon was painted personally by the Apostle Luke, as is constantly done in the church environment.
To briefly outline my attitude towards religion, I would like to quote the statements of Bishop Shelby Spong. Theism as a way of defining God is dead, we need to find a new way to talk about God. Belief in an omnipotent personal deity who created the world and continues to be active in it inevitably contradicts science and contributes to the neuroticism of people. The Church must stop using guilt as a regulator of behavior. No physical characteristic of a person, whether race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation, can be used as a basis for exclusion or discrimination. This is the only way religion can find its place in the modern world without humiliating people and without destroying their psyche.
How it all happened
1. The bishop is at the altar of the church, and the deacon brings the condemned person there to be ordained. Moreover, in all the priestly vestments, and in the hands of the former spiritual shepherd he holds vessels for performing the sacraments - a chalice and a paten.
2. The convicted person kneels before the altar, and the bishop reads out the decision of the church court to defrock this person and lists the sins of which he was found guilty.
3. Ordering the former priest to stand up, the bishop takes the chalice with the paten from his hands and says: “I will take away from you the power of offering the most pure sacrifice to God for the living and the dead, since you are not worthy to come to him to offer it.”
4. The bishop removes the chasuble (felonion) from the condemned person and pronounces the Greek word “anaxios” - not worthy. Then, one by one, they take from the person: a belt, an epitrachelion, armbands (sleeves), a surplice, a kamilavka and a hood (headdress). After each item of the priest’s wardrobe is removed, an angry “anaxios” is heard, which is repeated by everyone present in the church. Leaving the former priest in his underwear, the bishop says: “I am stripping you of all the priest’s clothes, in which you are not worthy to stand before the Lord for the sake of your evil deeds.”
5. Then the bishop cuts off a lock of the former priest’s hair with the following wish: “Be filled with dishonor in his face, for he does not understand this honor.” The rest of the man's hair and beard is cut off by the deacon. At the same time, the choir of singers starts a song about Judas, who sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver, drawing a parallel between the traitor apostle and the former priest.
6. The bishop removes (that is, pushes) the person deprived of hair and clothing from the altar with his staff. The defrocked man leaves the church amid angry cries from the laity and clergy.
This whole procedure is filled with a negative attitude towards the former priest. He hears a lot of unpleasant epithets and comparisons about himself. He must feel that he is being rejected not just by the Orthodox Church, but by God himself.
In 1813, the former Archbishop of Mogilev Varlaam (Grigory Shishatsky) went through such humiliation, who was convicted by secular authorities of treason. He swore allegiance to Napoleon I Bonaparte when French troops took Mogilev.
Many theologians noted the anti-Christian nature of the defrocking procedure: public undressing, haircuts against one's will, bad wishes, and pushing a person with a heavy staff. Thus, the author of the book “Orthodox Pastoral Ministry,” Archimandrite Cyprian, in the world - Konstantin Kern (1899-1960), compared the ancient rite of cutting the hair with the actions of Satanists, who mirror the Christian sacraments, distorting their essence. In this case, there are clear parallels with the rite of ordination to the priesthood, performed in reverse. The theologian saw this as “terrible blasphemy.”
The procedure is ancient
A handwritten bishop's Official from 1650, which is kept in the library of the Cathedral of St. Sophia (Kyiv, Ukraine), contains “The Order of Removal from the Priesthood of a Lawbreaking and Rebellious Priest.” According to this church document, the unpleasant procedure must be carried out by the head of the diocese in which the convicted person served.
How it all happened.
1. The bishop is at the altar of the church, and the deacon brings the condemned person there to be ordained. Moreover, in all the priestly vestments, and in the hands of the former spiritual shepherd he holds vessels for performing the sacraments - a chalice and a paten.
2. The convicted person kneels before the altar, and the bishop reads out the decision of the church court to defrock this person and lists the sins of which he was found guilty.
3. Ordering the former priest to stand up, the bishop takes the chalice with the paten from his hands and says: “I will take away from you the power of offering the most pure sacrifice to God for the living and the dead, since you are not worthy to come to him to offer it.”
4. The bishop removes the chasuble (felonion) from the condemned person and pronounces the Greek word “anaxios” - not worthy. Then, one by one, they take from the person: a belt, an epitrachelion, armbands (sleeves), a surplice, a kamilavka and a hood (headdress). After each item of the priest’s wardrobe is removed, an angry “anaxios” is heard, which is repeated by everyone present in the church. Leaving the former priest in his underwear, the bishop says: “I am stripping you of all the priest’s clothes, in which you are not worthy to stand before the Lord for the sake of your evil deeds.”
5. Then the bishop cuts off a lock of the former priest’s hair with the following wish: “Be filled with dishonor in his face, for he does not understand this honor.” The rest of the man's hair and beard is cut off by the deacon. At the same time, the choir of singers starts a song about Judas, who sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver, drawing a parallel between the traitor apostle and the former priest.
6. The bishop removes (that is, pushes) the person deprived of hair and clothing from the altar with his staff. The defrocked man leaves the church amid angry cries from the laity and clergy.
This whole procedure is filled with a negative attitude towards the former priest. He hears a lot of unpleasant epithets and comparisons about himself. He must feel that he is being rejected not just by the Orthodox Church, but by God himself.
In 1813, the former Archbishop of Mogilev Varlaam (Grigory Shishatsky) went through such humiliation, who was convicted by secular authorities of treason. He swore allegiance to Napoleon I Bonaparte when French troops took Mogilev.
Many theologians noted the anti-Christian nature of the defrocking procedure: public undressing, haircuts against one's will, bad wishes, and pushing a person with a heavy staff. Thus, the author of the book “Orthodox Pastoral Ministry,” Archimandrite Cyprian, in the world - Konstantin Kern (1899-1960), compared the ancient rite of cutting the hair with the actions of Satanists, who mirror the Christian sacraments, distorting their essence. In this case, there are clear parallels with the rite of ordination to the priesthood, performed in reverse. The theologian saw this as “terrible blasphemy.”
The procedure was abolished in the 20th century
Now all these passions are a thing of the past. There are no special ceremonies for defrocking in churches. Simply, at a meeting of the clergy of a particular diocese, the secretary of the consistory reads out the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on the defrocking of the person present. And he gives a subscription not to be called a priest anymore, not to wear church vestments, and also not to perform religious sacraments.
Dismissal from the priesthood can also be carried out at the personal request of a former minister of the church, if there has been disappointment in faith or the person has a desire to do something else.
"Return to the teachings of the Church"
The story of the preacher from Bolgar, Archpriest Vladimir Golovin, received wide publicity at the beginning of autumn last year, when, by decision of the Chistopol diocese, he was placed “under ban.” Golovin’s case was dealt with at the highest level—Moscow theologians. It was to the Patriarchate that over the last few years complaints from parishioners against Golovin have been coming.
What was the priest charged with? Firstly, the lack of theological knowledge. There were many, to put it mildly, “liberties” in his sermons. Secondly, the so-called “conciliar prayer by agreement with Bolgar,” when Father Vladimir’s flock begins to pray in different places at the same time. According to the Patriarchate commission that dealt with Golovin’s case, this led to isolation from other members of the church. The “conciliar prayer” had a large number of adherents, which was already beginning to resemble a sect.
In addition, in his church, Father Vladimir introduced a non-canonical rite of some kind of “spiritual treatment”: he laid hands on people dressed in special clothes with slits, and his assistants anointed them with special church oil through these slits.
Archpriest Vladimir Golovin was placed under ban at the beginning of autumn. Photo: vladimir-golovin.ru
People who filed complaints with the Patriarchate wrote that their loved ones get up at night to perform “congregational prayer” and transfer large sums of money. The well-known fighter against sects, Alexander Dvorkin, even suggested that huge sums of money pass through the parish in Bolgar, such that “the notorious god Kuzya is resting.”
Unaccounted cash flows went to Bolgar through Golovin and his family members, that is, a large network structure was created with websites on the Internet, the purpose of which was one - to attract people to the ranks of Father Vladimir's flock.
As a result, Archpriest Vladimir Golovin was placed under ban in early autumn. This is a church punishment, and quite severe, because a priest who is “under ban” cannot perform divine services. Temporary suspension from worship is necessary so that the punished person understands the seriousness of the situation, his mistakes and repents. In the church, the ban is called a kind of “hospital” for the lost.
Golovin, unfortunately, did not heed the voice of his brothers in faith. Literally a few days after the ban, he recorded a long, more than hour-long video message, where he justified his actions and expressed absurd claims that did not contain the truth against Metropolitan Feofan of Kazan and Tatarstan. For example, it was stated that Bishop Theophan was going to “destroy Orthodoxy in Bolgar” and create a “reserve of Islam” there.
During an online conference, Bishop Feofan explained to Realnoe Vremya readers how he would react to this: “I’m not going to answer at all. All this is on Golovin’s conscience; my job is to testify to the truth of God. And when Golovin, an archpriest, a priest, stoops so low, to yellow PR, it’s just a shame for him... What would I wish for Golovin? Disciplines... No one is going to execute you, a person punishes himself. Return not to someone else's will, but to the teachings of the Church. And everything will be fine. And it would be nice to repent.”
Vladyka Feofan: “All this is on Golovin’s conscience, my job is to testify to the truth of God.” Photo by Dmitry Reznov
