Don't you think that Church needs repentance for what she did in her time? I mean the Inquisition, etc., the repentance of the earthly Church?

I think that up to now there has never been a kind of all-encompassing repentance about what the Christians have been like in history; but the consciousness of our responsibility for all the horror of history is growing more and more. If you think that in less than two thousand years of Christianity in Western Europe there were more than two thousand wars between Christians, this clearly says what kind of Christians we are... And besides, we bear a great responsibility for those who do not believe, because when we talk about the Gospel, it may sound good, but when they look at how we live and what we represent as ourselves, we prove what is true. In the Gospel, Christ speaks of the Pharisees that they bind heavy burdens for people, but do not burden them themselves (cf. Matthew 23:4). So we have a huge responsibility. Certain priestly groups have long since begun to introduce penitential prayers at various services, for the fact that they have turned out to be, individually or as communities, unfaithful to the Gospel and a temptation to those around them. In the Orthodox Church there is this consciousness, but there is no service or any action in this regard. But I think we need to be aware of this. The Apostle Paul also said: "The name of God is blasphemed because of you" (see Romans 2:24). People look at us and think: no, it's not worth being a Christian...

It seems to me that rather than expecting that the Church, or the community, or the group, will do this, each of us should realize this: "What a Christian am I?.." and a little bit of our zeal when we feel and affirm: "Yes, I am a Christian, I am righteous..."

I meant faster – how shall I say? – an official, political side, so that the Church would somehow say that it understands its mistakes purely as an organization...

Such things are said, but I don't think they reach enough even to those who speak. This is a very urgent problem in relation to the godless world. We are responsible to a large extent for the fact that people cannot believe. If they saw in us the kind of people they wanted to be like, they would do something. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about myself. Looking at me, who would want to be a Christian? My spiritual father told me that no one can renounce the world and choose God if he does not see on the face or in the eyes of at least one person the radiance of eternal life. I have met such people, but, of course, not every parishioner, not every person in our midst is like that. And this is the responsibility of each of us, because collective responsibility is made up of individual responsibilities. A group of people cannot repent if every person does not repent. You can create such a service, but it will only be a service, words.

Should the Church and the State be completely independent of each other, or can the Church as an organization interfere in political affairs, and the State in the affairs of the Church?

I think, first of all, that the Church and the state cannot ignore any other people, because the Church not only lives within the boundaries of the state, within its citizens, but it consists of citizens, and the state has some rights to these citizens. People living in a certain state must obey the laws of the state, make some contribution to public life, so in this sense it is impossible to dissociate oneself: "We do not know that you exist, and you forget that we exist." A believer can still do this, and then with a curse, but the state, of course, will not agree to this, he needs a working force.

One of my old friends, I remember, tried to follow this line: he became a monk, now he does not protect anything from the world... He settled in a very cold room. He needed a light, he lit the electricity; He needed water, so he let the water flow, and so on. Then I realized: if I say that I do not take anything from the state and from high society, then I must live without electricity, without water, without heat, without furniture, without masks for writing, without paper and carandas, etc. Of course, the example is very simple, but in fact it is so.

On the other hand, I am convinced that the Church should not interfere in politics and should not be, as it were, a political party of a certain species, because this at once reduces it to the same level as the state, as if the whole point is that it has one ideology and another state. But the Church, on the basis of its faith in God and in the Gospel, has certain moral foundations. And it is these universal moral foundations that the Church has the right to proclaim, saying not: "God will punish you if...", but: "If you want to be a real person, then you cannot act as you do...".

In a society, in a country where there are several political parties, again, the Church should not be part of one of them. But the Church must, on the basis of the Gospel, have an equal judgment about any actions of the state, the parliament or any power structure, and declare that this cannot be done (no matter who acts: right, left, middle). The church must have the courage and courage to say to any party, to any group of people: "This is unacceptable!" And not because the Church belongs to another group, but because the Church is like a sign.

[1988-89], 1993