Clerical education. Clericalization of education and the reaction of modern Russian society
Clerical ideologization of the state is the path to the Middle Ages. Clericalization is the dominance of clergy representatives in power. Using Authority religious organizations for management needs, this is a fairly ancient technology.
It is convenient for political elites to govern society on the basis of ideology, to use some kind of spiritual bond.
But today the use of such technologies is contrary to the Constitution and modern social values. We are witnessing an unconstitutional phenomenon. In all government bodies (the municipality, law enforcement agencies, the education system, the penal system, the information system) - clericalization is taking place in all areas.
The clericalization of Russia is fraught with enormous dangers for the country
The Russian state, according to the Law, is secular. In fact, in Russia there is a process of imposing religious doctrines.
The Orthodox tradition in conditions of clericalization becomes a form of ideology.
The essence of clericalization
Without wars, look at history, humanity could not live. Wars responded and corresponded to the deep needs of society/personal mental emotional needs. War without ideology is impossible. Religion was necessary, from this point of view.
To streamline violence, to direct aggression at “strangers”—this is the essence of religion.
When an ideological crisis occurs, the leaders pit tribal youth against each other, thereby ensuring for themselves the stability of internal structures, the vertical of power. Religion without wars is nonsense: it doesn’t happen. There have never been and never will be religions that do not call for violence.
The essence of religion is centralization, the unification of “us” against “strangers”. Religion is a mental matrix that makes a division: ours - not ours, the faithful - not the faithful. At the same time, religious and quasi-religious organizations endow leaders with sacred qualities.
Modern society is not aimed at streamlining violence, but at eliminating it in social life. Today, illegal laws have been passed that strengthen the Orthodox Church, which has essentially become an anti-people, anti-human church (it denies human rights).
Holy Rus' is an illegitimate entity, does not exist in geographical map, but very much brainwashes the population, politicizes society, zombifies it: talks about the special mission of the Russians, supports the slogans “Russia is the third Rome. Russia is the second Israel.”
- The Orthodox Renaissance can very quickly turn the country in a direction opposite to civilization.
Clericalization
CLERICALIZATION and, f. cléricalisation f. U strengthening the influence of the clergy. Clericalization of the village. RB 1914 3 403. Most of the population of Russia are non-believers. How can I explain to them on what basis and with whose connivance the clericalization of state life in Russia is taking place? VF 1994 12 15. Fedotov is far from clericalizing culture, that is, from limiting cultural creativity people only with the true, in his eyes, religion and church. Zvezda 2001 9 208. Ideologization and clericalization of the state, contrary to the pluralistic principles of the Russian constitution. Congress 2001 141. The actual departure of the Russian Federation from the principle of secularism of the state, expressed in the clericalization of institutions and authorities, inevitably towards the regulation of the spiritual and moral sphere. OZ 2002 7,396.
Historical Dictionary Gallicisms of the Russian language. - M.: Dictionary publishing house ETS http://www.ets.ru/pg/r/dict/gall_dict.htm. Nikolai Ivanovich Epishkin [email protected] . 2010 .
See what “clericalization” is in other dictionaries:
Religion in Russia- ... Wikipedia
Solodovnikov, Vladimir Vasilievich- Wikipedia has articles about other people with the same surname, see Solodovnikov. Vladimir Vasilyevich Solodovnikov (born August 7, 1959 ... Wikipedia
Sitnikov, Mikhail Nikolaevich- Wikipedia has articles about other people with the same surname, see Sitnikov. Mikhail Nikolaevich Sitnikov Occupation: journalist, publicist, public figure Date of birth: 1957(… Wikipedia
Noosphere- (Greek νόος mind and σφαῖρα ball) sphere of the mind; sphere of interaction between society and nature, within which there is reasonable human activity becomes a determining factor in development (this area is also referred to as... ... Wikipedia
Patriarch Alexy II- 15th Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' ... Wikipedia
Fundamentals of Orthodox culture- Check neutrality. There should be details on the talk page. Basics Orthodox culture(OPK) academic subject, included by the Ministry of Education and on ... Wikipedia
Letter from ten academicians- This article is in consensus seeking mode. Currently, there is a complex conflict between participants surrounding the article, due to which the administrators have transferred it to a special mode. Significant edits... Wikipedia
Alexy II- Wikipedia has articles about other people named Alexey II. Patriarch Alexy II ... Wikipedia
Mitrokhin, Nikolai Alexandrovich- Wikipedia has articles about other people with the same surname, see Mitrokhin. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Mitrokhin Date of birth: September 13, 1972 (1972 09 13) (40 years old) Place of birth: Moscow Country ... Wikipedia
Kuraev A.- Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev Birth name: Andrey Vyacheslavovich Kuraev Occupation: Protodeacon of the Russian Orthodox Church ... Wikipedia
CLERICALISM
CLERICALISM
(from Late Latin clericalis - church)
a set of aspirations aimed at strengthening the authority and influence of the Catholic Church. church and its leaders. Clerical – relating to the clergy, particularly the Catholics, and their interests. Cleric is a supporter of clericalism.
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
CLERICALISM
CLERICALISM (from the Latin clericalis - church) is a socio-political movement that uses religion to influence all spheres of society. The ideal of clericalism is a government in which the state is in the hands of the head of the church and the clergy. Examples include the 16th century. J. Calvin's strict religious regulation of personal and public life in the city-state of Geneva, the subordination of public life to the requirements of Sharia norms in a number of modern Muslim states (the so-called Islamic). Today, clericalism is no longer limited to the use of the church and its apparatus: it has its own political parties fighting for power, as well as trade unions, youth, women's and other organizations. Since the 1980s. The concept of “clericalism” is gradually expanding, and it includes any forms of political activity of believers, clergy, religious organizations and religious-political movements. The cleric has also changed
lism - from clearly negative to highlighting positive and negative aspects in it. The positive is associated with speeches under the religious slogans of democratic movements that aim to achieve progressive socio-political goals; the negative is the demand for the decisive role of the church in the political and spiritual life of society (obligatory religious education children, introduction to government educational institutions compulsory teaching of religion, positions of chaplains in the army, etc.). In general, clericalism today is understood as processes in which it acts as a tool for justifying any values or ideals in the political struggle. The inclusion of any socio-political activity of the clergy and believers in the content of clericalism often causes an unlawful identification of it with religion itself, with the worldview of believers, most of whom oppose the subordination of public life (politics, culture, education, etc.) to the church, which is essentially diverges from clericalism (see Anti-clericalism). F. G. Ovsienko
New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .
See what “CLERICALISM” is in other dictionaries:
- (Latin clericalis “church”) a political direction that seeks the primacy of the church and clergy in the social, political and cultural life of society. In a narrower, ecclesiological sense, the organization of church life,... ... Wikipedia
- [Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
clericalism- a, m. cléricalisme m., German. Klericalismus. A reactionary movement under feudalism and capitalism, striving to strengthen the influence of the church or its dominance in political and cultural life. BAS 1. Why is he so passive about the strengthening of clericalism... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- (from Late Latin clericalis ecclesiastical), a direction aimed at strengthening the influence of the church and clergy in political and cultural life... Modern encyclopedia
The desire to ensure the primacy of the church and religion in political and cultural life... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
CLERICALISM, clericalism, many. no, husband (from lat. clericalis ecclesiastical) (polit.). In bourgeois countries, a political trend that seeks to establish the dominance of church organizations in the political and cultural life of the country. Intelligent... ... Dictionary Ushakova
CLERICALISM, ah, husband. An ideological and political movement that seeks to strengthen and strengthen the influence of the church in political and public life. Catholic school | adj. clerical, oh, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
The desire to ensure the primacy of the church and religion in political and cultural life. The clerical state is a form of organization of state power in which church hierarchy through legally established institutions influences... Political science. Dictionary.
Clericalism- (from Late Latin clericalis ecclesiastical), a direction that aims to strengthen the influence of the church and clergy in political and cultural life. ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
A political movement that seeks the primacy of the church and clergy in the social, political and cultural life of society. Clerical, and under certain conditions, theocratic (see Theocracy) aspirations are characteristic of... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
CLERICALISM (Late Latin clericalis - church, from Greek κλήρος - clergy, clergy), a complex of socio-theological ideas and related political practices aimed at establishing religious values as the basis of the life of society, the creation of conditions that ensure the decisive role of religious institutions in the socio-political and cultural life of the state. Tendencies towards clericalism are characteristic of many religions, however, due to the prevailing usage of words, the term “clericalism” is most often applied to Christianity, and especially to Catholicism. Moreover, the term “clericalism” is not ecclesiastical; reflecting, in essence, the problems of church-state relations, it arose among supporters of secularization, became entrenched in the political lexicon in the 1850s in Belgium and at all stages of its evolution had a negative connotation. Religious terms, reflecting virtually the same problems as the term “clericalism”, are theocracy, a symphony of authorities.
Clericalism is opposed to secularism (anti-clericalism). In the history of Western Europe in modern times, the struggle against clericalism took on various forms - from non-recognition of the power of the Pope (Protestantism) to the adoption of constitutions or sets of laws limiting the participation of the Church in government affairs. Although anti-clerical writings appeared already in the Renaissance, the ideological program of anti-clericalism was formed on the basis of a number of deistic and atheistic teachings of the Enlightenment (T. Hobbes, Voltaire, J. J. Rousseau, D. Diderot, P. A. Holbach, etc.). Rousseau, in his essay “On the Social Contract” (1762), advocated recognition by the state only of “civil religion,” which, in his understanding, amounted to moral and civil “rules of community life” and denied the essence of the Christian religion.
In its classic party form, clericalism was formed in the 19th century as an element of the development of parliamentarism. The first clerical party was created on the territory of modern Belgium in 1790, its supporters adhered to ultramontanist positions (see Ultramontanism). The activities of the party contributed to the preservation of the status of Belgium as a Catholic state for quite a long time. The activities of clerical parties in Austria-Hungary and Bavaria developed in the same direction. In these countries, clericalism has become an element of state policy based on adherence to Christian values. As society transforms into secular principles clericalism began to be called the struggle of the Catholic Church to maintain its traditional status and influence in society. In countries where the policy of secularization was consistently pursued by state authorities, based on ideology (Republican France) or political pragmatics (German Empire, Italy), clericalism became an oppositional anti-discrimination movement defending the rights of the Church in the face of a state hostile to it. In Germany, a particularly prominent role was played by the Center Party, whose activities are a classic example of political clericalism. In the 20th century, clericalism was important element internal politics of Francoist Spain, Portugal, Greece and a number of Latin American states.
At the present stage, clericalism is understood as the activity of religious institutions and individuals and organizations in solidarity with them in the principled defense of traditional values and methods of moral and social regulation based on them. IN modern Russia the term “clericalism” is used in secular religious studies and the media to negatively assess initiatives to expand the mission of the Orthodox Church in society. The main areas of controversy around clericalism are: theological education in state universities, teaching the basics of spiritual culture in school, and the introduction of the institute of chaplains in the Armed Forces.
Lit.: Méjan F. La laïcité de l’État. R., 1960; Karrer L. Aufbruch der Christen: das Ende der klerikalen Kirche. Münch., 1989; Ponomareva L.V. Spanish Catholicism of the 20th century. M., 1989; Goertz N. J. Antiklerikalismus und Reformation. Gott., 1995; Tokareva E. S. Fascism, the church and the Catholic movement in Italy, 1922-1943. M., 1999; Ampleeva A. A. Christian Democratic movement in Western Europe and Russia. M., 2002.
Hieromonk Serapion (Mitko).
Let us turn to the original meaning of this word from " Encyclopedic Dictionary"Brockhaus - Efron: "CLERICALISM and clerical parties. The term came into general use initially in Belgium in the 50s. XIX century, although the phenomenon it denotes is of much earlier origin. Clericalism is a political worldview, the ideal of which is to strengthen the power and importance of the Church - namely the Catholic Church. (┘) In the Middle Ages, clericalism sought the unlimited dominance of the Catholic Church with the Pope at its head. IN later time it took other forms. The clerics for the most part strive to restore the temporal power of the Pope; but this goal, due to the obvious impossibility of achieving it, recedes more and more into the background. Mainly the clerics fight against the separation of Church and state or, where this issue is not on the agenda, against liberal legislation in the ecclesiastical field: namely, against civil marriage, against the transfer of the maintenance of parish registers from the hands of the clergy to the hands of secular authorities. The ideas of clericalism underlie clerical parties. These parties can only exist in states that are either Catholic (like Belgium) or where Catholicism is very widespread and plays a prominent role (Germany)."
The term "clericalism" became widespread in Europe after the French Revolution, when the process of secularization began actively. Clericalism denoted the struggle of the Church to maintain or strengthen its position in the life of society. The fight, including against secular power and its secular tendencies. This happened due to the fact that Catholic Church constantly claimed to possess both spiritual and civil power.
The most significant sign of clericalism is the presence of rivalry and the struggle for power. And then the religious organization acts as a fairly strong participant in this process. We can talk about clericalization as long as there is a balance of opposing forces. When the balance is disturbed, it becomes a matter of either theocracy or secular state. Sometimes a denomination that seeks to combine spiritual and secular power in the hands of religious leaders becomes the dominant force in the country. From our point of view, such states should be called not clerical, but theocratic (for example, Geneva under the reign of Calvin, modern Iran and some other Islamic states).
Catholicism almost never managed to fully realize the theocratic ideal, except for the Papal States and the territories that belonged to the Livonian Order. Even in the Middle Ages in Catholic countries, the Church was forced to share power with secular monarchs. That is why the term “theocratic state” seems to us preferable to the term “clerical state.” The latter is too vague and can mean anything, even royal France and even imperial Russia, although the types of state-church relations in them differed significantly.
IN Orthodox countries the nature of state-church relations was fundamentally different. Theoretically, they were built on the principle of a symphony of Church and state, which presupposed close cooperation in delimiting areas of competence. In practice, there was a deviation towards Caesar-papism, the predominance of royal power over church power. The Catholic ideal of concentrating all power in the hands of the Roman Pontiff is not characteristic of Orthodoxy. In Imperial Russia, the Synodal Church was part of the state machine and was subordinate to the state. Of course, she had her own interests and tried to defend them. But the situation in Russia was different from the situation in countries where there was a struggle between clericalization and secularization.
So, clericalization can be called not every process of strengthening the influence of the Church on society and the state, but only that which, firstly, is carried out in the implementation of its doctrinal principles, and secondly, due to its own strength, thirdly, when it is associated with overcoming resistance to secular authorities and some part of society.
An indispensable feature of clericalization is the presence of a counter-opposing process of secularization.
The use of the terms “clericalism” and “clericalization” in relation to the processes taking place in modern Russia is incorrect, since they make it difficult to correctly assess the nature and driving forces of what is happening. On the one hand, their background suggests a false analogy with Catholic clericalism. Yes, the Moscow Patriarchate undoubtedly seeks to strengthen its influence on the state, but to call this a term characteristic of another confession means to introduce even greater confusion. On the other hand, with a broader interpretation of the terms, the specifics of a particular phenomenon remain unclear.
Politics is a balance of power
There are two main sources of political power: mass popular support and financial and economic resources.
Experts do not have a consensus on how broad public support the Moscow Patriarchate enjoys. It is characteristic that those who talk about the supposedly looming “clerical threat” are at the same time trying to prove on the basis of statistics that he is supported by a small percentage of the Russian population. Guided by other criteria and assessment methods, one can come to the same conclusion, namely: the number of people ready to provide real political, material and other support to the Moscow Patriarchate is quite modest and comparable to the number of Orthodox Christians who observe church canons. (It is significant, in particular, that the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate makes no attempt to establish the payment of church tithes by parishioners. Apparently, soberly assessing the prospects, they prefer to discuss the option of collecting a “church tax” by the state, by analogy with the practice of a number of European countries.)
Thus, at least one of the theoretically possible sources of political power is missing. And today, the “Iranian option,” when religious rule in the country is introduced “from below,” by the will of the people, is unrealistic in Russia.
As a rule, assessments of the financial and economic capabilities of the Moscow Patriarchate lack a sense of reality, especially against the backdrop of the scandalous hype around certain commercial enterprises with the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church. There is no reliable official information about the budget of the Church. The collection “Economic activity of the Russian Orthodox Church and its shadow component,” edited by Lev Timofeev (M., 2000), evaluates the economic activity of the Russian Orthodox Church. Amounts of hundreds of millions of dollars are mentioned, the annual volume of financial flows (both legal and “shadow”) is said to be several tens of millions of dollars, etc.
However most The church budget is associated with the necessary costs for the maintenance and restoration of churches. There is apparently little free money that can be converted into a political resource. Despite all the opacity of the budget of the Moscow Patriarchate, I dare to assume that it includes rather modest amounts.
Russian Orthodox Church does not have any serious forces allowing it to pursue an independent policy. How then does the Moscow Patriarchate manage to influence social life And domestic policy states? It seems that the illusion of the power of the Moscow Patriarchate is created by the secular authorities. (It is necessary to clarify that I do not equate the special policy pursued in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate by a number of representatives of secular power at various levels, including the highest level, with secular power as a whole. It represents various trends, including those oriented towards integration with " post-Christian civilization of the West").
Unequal partnership
The real political potential of the Moscow Patriarchate gives grounds to assert that its “partnership” with the state is, of course, unequal. With such a huge difference in “weight categories”, he can only do what his senior partner approves of. And what at a superficial glance seems to be the “dictation of the will” of the Russian Orthodox Church has a completely different background.
The state gives in only when it costs it practically nothing or creates the desired propaganda effect. For example, in the question of whether religious buildings were transferred to the ownership, and not for free use, of religious organizations, no real progress has yet been achieved. The protests of the Church against the demonstration of an insult to orthodox film"The Last Temptation of Christ." But in some situations, government bodies allow representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate to, so to speak, come to the fore, which gives rise to the illusion of their special influence.
The reason for such a policy is the absence of an ideology that would “sanctify” and legitimize secular power in the eyes of the people. Government officials of various ranks are trying to fill this gap by emphasizing rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate. Assessing the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in this situation (not of individual ambitious clergy and hierarchs, but of the Church), it should be recognized that it sometimes finds itself in a very difficult political situation, when any reaction to the actions of secular authorities has undesirable consequences.
For example, the Patriarch’s participation in the presidential inauguration is regarded by some representatives of other faiths and atheists as a violation of equality religious associations and as evidence of ongoing clericalization. But it is the power in in this case decides who to give preference to. How should the Patriarch react when the Church in his person is singled out among other confessions? Refusal of such invitations and rapprochement with the authorities is fraught with poorly predictable consequences for the entire Church. Consent ultimately becomes the next step towards drawing the Church into the orbit of state policy. Thus, it is not the political ambitions of the Moscow Patriarchate that create the appearance of “clericalization.”
Nevertheless, the tendency towards rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state creates a certain inertial-cumulative effect. The political influence of the Church and individual clergy, arising as a result of the attention given to them by the state, seems to be accumulated and redistributed among the clergy. (Simply put, when dealing with representatives of the clergy, officials look at the attitude of higher authorities towards the Russian Orthodox Church.) As a result, a bishop or priest can put real pressure on government officials. But this possibility is generated not by the clergy’s own power resources, but by the fact that government officials in most cases are guided precisely by this trend. The clergy thus relies not on its independent political power, but on the opportunities provided by the state.
At the same time, one should not expect that an attempt to use the Moscow Patriarchate to increase the authority of secular authorities will make the Russian Orthodox Church an influential, independent force. There is no reason to assume that those with real power will voluntarily share it with the Russian Orthodox Church and thereby create a strong opponent for themselves. The state’s refusal to transfer religious buildings to the ownership of the Church looks like a desire to maintain a strong weapon of control and influence over the Russian Orthodox Church.
Despite flirting with the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian political elite is actually oriented towards other ideals and values. One of the convincing evidence of this is, to put it mildly, the non-Orthodox spirit of most public and private funds mass media. It is quite obvious that there is practically no channel on Russian television that sympathetically and regularly covers church life. A similar situation has developed with other media.
What threatens us?
The conclusion immediately suggests itself: what is real in Russia is not “clericalization” (with a strong independent Church interfering in the affairs of the state), but a new “synodalization” - a rapprochement between the Church and the state on the initiative of the latter. The state provides her with benefits in exchange for ideological support. The conventional term “synodalization” does not mean at all that the Church should formally become part of the state machine. “Synodalization,” as an alternative to clericalization, makes the Church unfree and dependent on its patron.
This type of relationship between the state and the Church threatens, first of all, its interests, especially if we recall the situation that had developed by 1917. No matter how the rapprochement between the Church and the state is carried out - within the framework of the law on the secular nature of the state or by changing it, it will inevitably bring the Church not only benefits and advantages, but also increased state control over it. This would contradict the logic of the development of state-confessional relations in the world, which is characterized by the liberation of religious organizations both from the exceptional benefits associated with the status of “state” and from the corresponding state intervention in their internal life.
The second conclusion is less obvious. A secularized pluralistic society, not protected from Western expansion popular culture, from moral relativism, can hardly be called a brilliant prospect for Russia. But this is exactly what the so-called “anti-clericalism” leads us to, which actually opposes any attempts to unite the healthy forces of society around traditional religious ideals.
Despite all the costs that are possible in the event of further strengthening of the Russian Orthodox Church, it should be recognized that criticism of anti-clericals is unconstructive and is not accompanied by the promotion of an alternative basis for the spiritual and moral unification of society. Anti-clericals talk about the need to protect freedom of conscience. It is truly necessary so that everyone can live in accordance with their beliefs and beliefs.
During the search for a national idea, one should not forget that freedom is not an end in itself, but a means of existence for society. Semyon Frank, speaking about the meaninglessness of freedom in the absence life goal, quotes in his work “The Wreck of Idols” an old joke: “Carrier, free?” - "Free." - “Well, then shout: long live freedom!”
Note: the author is well aware that the terms “clericalism” and “clericalization” in relation to the religious situation in modern Russia will be used, if only due to habit and lack of replacement. (The “synodalization” conditionally proposed in the article does not count.) I would like to hope that researchers will not ignore the expressed considerations about terminology and distinctive features domestic state-church relations.
