Answer 22

– But don't you speak too harshly about parish grandmothers? After all, it was these "white handkerchiefs" that saved the Church during the times of persecution.– A lot has been said about the fact that the "white handkerchiefs" that filled churches in the Soviet years protected these churches from destruction, including by me. But today there are no white handkerchiefs in churches. Compare photos of church services from forty years ago and a modern painting. There are very few white handkerchiefs. Dark colors became predominant. A sure sign of a change in religious psychology.But this is not the main thing. Those grandmothers who stand in our churches today – did they defend them? Where were they twenty years ago? Today, the number of open churches is ten times higher than the number of parishes operating under the Soviet regime. The number of parishioners increased proportionally. This means that only one in ten elderly parishioners today was in the Church fifteen years ago. Let us remember that not all people who met the time of reforms in old age were able to survive to this day, and it will become clear that the number of confessors among today's senior parishioners is not so large – less than even ten percent. How many of our elderly parishioners can say the same about their lives? Where were they when they were nineteen years old (and I was baptized at nineteen)? Where were they in that 1982? What ideology did they profess then? How long have they been in the Church, and what have they risked by crossing the threshold of the church? So it is not worth telling the Komsomol members of the day before yesterday that they are the heroes who saved the Church. Those who saved her are people of older generations, these are those who were church grandmothers in the 30s and 60s. But this generation of churchwomen is already with God.Finally, the type with whom I am conducting a polemic has not saved the Church in all these years, but destroyed it from within. These are parishioners who have appointed themselves as censors and controllers. In the Soviet years, they helped the Komsomol members: the vigilantes did not allow young people to enter the churches from the outside, and these zealots drove the young people out of the churches from the inside. There are those whose smile shines with Communion [1]. And there are real "hedgehog grandmothers": in their pre-church life they were deprived of respect and power (both at work and in the family), so in the end in the church they strive to privatize at least something and feel entitled to command. You see the manifestation of the fervor of their faith, but this manifestation is fulfilled in such a way that it is impossible to look without laughing. But it is also a sin to laugh in this case. And how can one read without smiling, for example, an announcement in a consciously "popular", pop and "Orthodox" magazine: "My husband and I are sick and need money to travel to holy places – for the sake of healing from ailments. And we also want to buy the icon "Addition of Mind" [2]... Alexander Galich: "It would be good to know in advance who to avoid, and who had a smile as a communion...". ^Save our souls. Dnepropetrovsk. 2003. № 9 (53). P. 43. ^

Answer 23

– And how would you designate your audience?– Wherever I speak, the audience of the first day is always "not mine". Mostly parishioners come, many of whom expect me to talk about miracles and blissfully foolish elders. The grandmothers soon realize that they have made a mistake, and quietly doze off until the time when they can ask their questions. As a rule, they do not come to the next lecture. But a few dozen people from the university world, who nevertheless turned up at the lecture, after it set the load on the local telephone networks. The next evening, the number of listeners is the same, but their composition is already qualitatively changing. And usually by the third evening, my audience finally gathers. Secular people come, for whom this is the first opportunity for a serious dialogue with the Church in their language.My audience is people who are interested in thought and complexity. People who are afraid of simple answers and propaganda. People who rejoice when they learn that some problems are more difficult than they thought before. This means – for educated people too, and not only for "simpletons" (who, in addition, begin to be completely inappropriately proud of their "simplicity").

Answer 24

– Father Andrei, during your citywide lectures in our city there was no open polemic with sectarians, in particular, with the "Roerichs". What does such silence mean to you? Is it a victory or a defeat?– For me, this is also surprising. Not only in oral speech, but even from the notes, the presence of sectarians in the hall was not noticeable. At the same time, I know from many sources that they were there, listened to my speeches. But at the same time, they were silent. Maybe it's just a sectarian who is scared? However, the "Roerichs" have such a tactic – usually they wait for me to leave the city, and then, when I can no longer answer, they begin to react. For some reason, a certain sad feature of my image is the rumor that I am a "sect-eater". In fact, it is much more interesting and important for me to talk about my faith.

Answer 25

– There are many criticisms of your position in relation to the book "Harry Potter". Is there any sound grain among these criticisms, or is absolutely everything unacceptable to you?– To be honest, when I read some anti-Potter books for the first time, some pages seemed very, very convincing to me. I am a scribe, I live in the world of books, and I know how convincing certain arguments and facts can seem, which, however, lose their force if you look at them from the other side. My long-standing rule in literary polemics is not to answer right away. When a critical article about me appears, I let it lie for a few months until my emotions settle down (emotions are bad helpers in polemics). It takes me some time to get used to the text, keep in mind the arguments given, compare them again and again with the books that I read... And when, after some time, I again, this time more calmly, begin to read a critical article, then, as a rule, it turns out that I was still mistaken in assessing its persuasiveness. Details are in the second edition of the book "Harry Potter in the Church: Between Anathema and a Smile", dedicated to the analysis of all anti-Potter publications and arguments. Their position is very logical, but all this logic is built on some initial assumptions, with which I do not see the need to agree. At first, there were rumors that Rowling was a Satanist. But these rumors were spread by the Satanists themselves for the purpose of their self-promotion, and Rowling denied them. As always, everyone heard the slander, and only a few heard the refutation. Half-knowledge is a terrible force. Well, the authors of anti-Potter articles have heard about the existence of Aleister Crowley, the world leader of Satanists. That's why they believed the rumor that Crowley blessed the release of Harry Potter [1]... But Crowley died in 1947 - half a century before the writing of the fairy tale we are interested in... That is why, reading "Harry Potter" with such a preconceived eye, they easily found in the text confirmation of their fears about the "Satanist Rowling".I reiterate my position: if you see that reading "Harry Potter" by your children is inevitable, then you need to read it with them, while explaining "what's what". Otherwise, children will read Harry Potter alone.Do you know what always surprised me in this discussion? When educators and psychologists write that reading Harry Potter is dangerous, they never cite any specific cases. Here, for example, are the psychiatrists Medvedeva and Shishova. In general, it is natural to expect psychiatrists to describe any specific cases of illness: here is the initial state of the child before acquaintance with Harry Potter, and here is his state after reading this book. His spiritual and mental state deteriorated in such and such parameters, but we did such and such work, and the child was rehabilitated. But since there are no such protocol observations, we have to state the fact that the arguments of Medvedeva and Shishova are far from psychology as a science. In all anti-Potter publications, the case in Novosibirsk is cited as an example of the dangerous influence of this book on children. There, several first-graders were poisoned by copper sulfate, because the "hefty beanpoles" (later it turned out that they were only seventh-graders) gave the kids a taste of "Harry Potter magic powder", as these "beanpoles" themselves allegedly called copper sulfate. The children, of course, were poisoned, and this case began to wander from one anti-Potter publication to another.I turned to the indispensable tool of the inquisitor – the Internet – and began to find out ("inquisition" in Latin means research) what was going on. And when I got to the original sources, that is, the Novosibirsk newspapers, it turned out that "Harry Potter" was not mentioned in them at all. The seventh-graders who offered the kids the "magic powder" did not mention the name of Harry Potter at all. And then, regardless of Harry Potter, can you imagine six-year-olds who would refuse to try "magic powder"? Alex Crowley, the world leader of the Satanists, highly appreciated this cycle of stories" ([Unsigned] "Harry Potter" through the eyes of the Orthodox // Sovereign Russia. 2002. № 8 [98]). "The founder of the sects of modern Satanism, the Englishman Aleister Crowley, highly appreciated the cycle of stories by Joan Rawlings" (Believers of the Crimean Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2002. № 10). ^

Answer 26

– Let's approach the question of Harry Potter from the other end. Your position is clear: you do not advise reading Potter, but if there is a hopeless situation, then read the book with your children. But why did you completely exclude criticism of this book in your publications? Won't this lead to the fact that your position will be perceived as a Potter apology and the book will be read as a useful work?– It is not the book that should be criticized, but its unscrupulous occult exploitation.I am not defending Rowling, but children and their right to childhood and fairy tales. Even the atheistic Soviet power did not take away this right from children. When I went to kindergarten, and it was terribly Soviet times - the 60s, the conquest of space and so on - we were told about the magic wand. And there was even a control question: "Children, if you have a magic wand and you can fulfill only one wish, what will your wish be?" The correct answer was: "To resurrect Grandpa Lenin."In addition, I defend the honor of my Church, in whose name cruel nonsense is being said. If someone has said some hasty foolishness on its behalf, then people should not be left with the impression that all Orthodox journalism is like this. Yes, non-church people have completely caricature ideas about the life and faith of the Church. But still, a number of conflict situations are generated by us ourselves, with our either too emotional or too unsubstantiated reactions. Finally, I try to protect children from Satanists who try to break into children's souls and use a book about Harry Potter as a crowbar. It is better to knock this crowbar out of their hands and show that there is no logically necessary connection here, and therefore a child who has fallen in love with this book, by no logic, should consider himself obliged to go further into the world of magic, sorcery, into the world of Satanists. Critics of "Potter" have always contrasted this imported book with traditional Russian folk tales. In the end, I agreed with them. But with the opposite conclusion: "Potter" is much more moral than the original Russian fairy tales. It's just that my opponents were guided by vague memories of fairy tales of Soviet, censored publications, and I took a scientific edition of Russian folklore - Afanasyev's three-volume "Russian Folk Tales". That is where the magic is rampant, that is the mockery of the clergy, that is where the purest examples of unscrupulous preaching of cunning, cunning, and daring abound! Obtaining money in a cunning way (in the style of Ostap Bender) is the plot of an unexpectedly large number of Russian fairy tales. There are clearly fewer miracles than deceptions.Here, for example, is the fairy tale about Ivanushka the Fool (number 396 in the Afanasiev collection)." Once upon a time there was an old mare with his old woman; he had three sons: two clever ones, the youngest Ivan the Fool. Once the clever brothers sowed peas in the garden, and Ivan the Fool was put on guard from thieves. The old woman, their mother, had to go to the garden; as soon as she got into it, Ivan the Fool noticed and said to himself: "Wait, I'll catch the thief; He crept up slowly, picked up his truncheon, and as soon as the old woman cracked on the head, she did not stir, she fell asleep forever! The father and brothers began to scold, reproach, exhort the fool, and he sat down on the stove, raking the soot and saying: "The devil was carrying it to be stolen! After all, you yourself put me on guard." – "Well, fool," said the brothers, "you have made a mess, and you have to deal with it yourself; Get off the stove, remove the meat!" And the fool mutters: "I guess I can do as well as anyone else!" He took the old woman, dressed up her festive clothes, put her on the cart in the very back, gave her a hoop in her hands and drove through the village. An official goes to meet him: "Turn around, man!" The fool answers: "Turn yourself, I am carrying the royal gold embroidery." "'Take him off, you rascal!'" said the master to the coachman, and as soon as their horses turned, the carts caught on their wheels, and the fool and the old woman overturned: they flew far away! "Sovereign boyars! – the fool shouted at all the people. – They killed my mother, the royal gold embroiderer!" The clerk saw that the old woman was lying dead and was frightened, and began to beg: "Take what you need, peasant, but don't call the people." Well, the fool did not fly in to bother much, he said to him: "Give me three hundred rubles, and give the priest a sweetness to clean up the dead woman." That was the end of the matter; The fool took the money, turned the shafts home, came to his father, to his brothers, and they all began to live together."A variant of this fairy tale (number 395): "The fool put the old woman on the firewood and went to the nearest village; He made his way to the priest's yard, climbed into the cellar, and saw that there were crinkles with milk on the ice. He now removed the lids from them, dragged his old woman and sat down beside her on the straw; he gave her a jug in her left hand, a spoon in her right, and hid himself behind the tub. A little later she went to the cellar of the priest; look, I don't know whose old woman is taking sour cream from the bowls and collecting it in a jug; The priest grabbed the stick, as soon as she cracked her on the head - the old woman fell, and the fool jumped out and began to shout: "Fathers, lights, guard! The priest killed the mother!" The priest ran up: "Be silent," he said, "I will pay you a hundred rubles and bury your mother for nothing." – "Bring the money!" The priest paid the fool a hundred rubles and buried the old woman. The fool returned home with the money; the brothers asked: "Where did your mother go?" "I sold it, that's the money." The brothers became jealous, they began to conspire: "Let's kill our wives and sell them. If they gave so much for an old woman, they will give twice as much for young women." They slapped their wives and took them to the market; there they were taken, put in chains and exiled to Siberia. And the fool remained the master and lived happily ever after, remembering his mother."To sell the corpse ("meat") of your own mother – in what other fairy tales can you find such a thing!And in terms of cruelty and anatomical details, Russian fairy tales also leave "Harry Potter" far behind. Once Ivanushka the Fool "began to graze sheep: he saw that the sheep had scattered across the field, let's catch them and pluck out their eyes; he caught everyone, gouged out everyone's eyes, gathered the herd in one heap and sits for himself" (number 400). It is impossible to imagine Harry Potter doing such an activity, and even with such a reaction.Harry studies magic not for the sake of power and not for the sake of wealth. What Harry does not have is the "will to power". He rejoices more in victories in sports than in magic (here he is a C student). Magic is not the main thing for him. He is even ready to leave Hogwarts and return to the hated Dursleys - because he feels lonely and ceases to feel the warmth of friendly human relations in a magical school. He learns magic in order to protect his life and the lives of his friends and thousands of people unknown to him.The heroes of Russian fairy tales conjure for much more selfish purposes (marrying a princess, for example). Ivan Tsarevich was on the kindest terms with the werewolves married to his sisters (see number 562), and he did not use the services of the genie (which in the Russian version is called the Spirit) in cases of mortal threat (number 559). Magic is not considered evil, but in Russian fairy tales, the author, the readers, and the characters themselves know very well what "evil spirits" are, they know that for a connection with it you have to pay with your soul and eternal death (see the fairy tale "Neumoika", number 278). And if Harry has no choice - to turn to magic or the Church, then the heroes of Russian fairy tales have such a choice, but they prefer to turn to magic. Prayer is not rejected, but is considered insufficient protection. For example, in churches, sorcerers are protected from the resurrected dead by drawing a circle, nails and a hammer, a frying pan, and not just by praying to the Lord (see fairy tales Nos. 366 and 367). And this "resourcefulness" is very unscrupulous in means: it can use deception, witchcraft, and theft.And in "Harry Potter" there is just an extremely clear distinction between good and evil. The criteria for good and evil in Harry Potter are clear and quite traditional. Goodness is loyalty to friends, care for people, love, sacrifice, family as a value (Harry lacks it so much). A fairy tale can be evaluated only by two criteria: whether children like it or not, and by its morality ("a fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it!"). What Harry Potter "hints" at, the morality of this fairy tale, is quite clear: love protects better than magic. And children like the fairy tale. In addition, this book is addressed to those already grown up children who will no longer read folk tales. The people are a "motley assembly of heads". Some heads are gifted with moral reasoning, others not so much. That is why fairy tales are so variegated: there are wonderful, Christian, moral, heartfelt ones. And there are "at least carry out the saints". Therefore, it is also necessary to treat them differently. But what cannot be done is to give indulgence to Russian fairy tales simply because they are Russian. The opposition of "Harry Potter" is bad, but Russian fairy tales are good" betrays a poor acquaintance with the material of Russian fairy tales. There is no common ethics or morality in Russian fairy tales. Some Russian fairy tales admire what is evil from the point of view of Christianity, others are good. Yes, I will also note that I did not give examples from the "Treasured Tales" of the Afanasiev collection – that is, I took far from the most shameless examples of folklore... So it is impossible to say that Russian folk tales as such, for the most part, are somehow better than "Harry Potter". But they did exist. And somehow they coexisted with the churchliness of the same Russian people. And since a tolerant attitude towards fairy tales was a detail of the Russian ecclesiastical folk tradition, I, as a conservative, see no reason to break this tradition today.

Answer 27

– What is the vision of Leo Tolstoy's excommunication in the Church today?– Nothing has changed over these hundred years. To understand what really happened then, you need to forget Kuprin's story "Anathema" and the film based on it. There was no special rank with a solemn anathema to Tolstoy. Church and secular newspapers published an appeal of the Synod to Tolstoy, in which it was said that, unfortunately, the views of Leo Tolstoy placed him outside the Orthodox Church and made it impossible for him to participate in the Sacraments. And there was an appeal to Orthodox Christians to pray for the enlightenment of Count Tolstoy. What is immoral in this? After all, Tolstoy himself did not consider his views to be ecclesiastically Orthodox. So the Church, for its part, simply confirmed what Tolstoy had repeatedly stated publicly before.A completely similar gesture to the same Leo Tolstoy on the part of a man of science is known. The famous Russian doctor Belogolovy treated many Russian writers. But once, having given Tolstoy the necessary medicines, he did not shake his hand. In his memoirs, he explained that by doing so he expressed his attitude to Tolstoy's attacks on science [1]. And in fact, the grumbling Tolstoy attacked everything: his family, art, the state, science, and technology. And the Church as well. All this seemed to him unnecessary, repressive. When this grumbling became unbearable, blasphemous and at the same time contagious, then the Synod "refused the house" to the count. It's just that the official church position on this issue is in the hands of archivists. It is they who should bring clarity to the last days of Tolstoy's life. It is known that he left home for the Optina Hermitage, wanted to meet with Elder Barsanuphius, but did not dare. It is also known that the elder followed Tolstoy in order to talk to him. Why didn't the meeting take place? If it is possible to prove on the basis of documents and memoirs that in the last hours of his life Tolstoy was isolated against his will, that he had a desire to talk to the elder and repent, but his secretaries did not allow this to happen, then the Church will have every reason to gladly reverse its previous decision. Materials of the "Round Table" // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. № 1. P. 15. ^

Answer 28

– Did Mikhail Bulgakov in "The Master and Margarita" also follow the path of censoring the Gospel?– I would not say that. With Bulgakov, everything is much more complicated, for the reason that Leo Tolstoy wrote on his own behalf, and the undoubtedly anti-Christian Gospel of Woland is the Gospel of Woland, and not of Mikhail Afanasievich Bulgakov. Therefore, in this case, it is not logical to identify the author and his characters.Moreover, I think that in a certain sense the Orthodox Christ was exactly like Bulgakov's Yeshua ha Nozri from The Master and Margarita. More precisely, as they would say now, this was the "image" of Christ, this is how He seemed to the crowd. And from this point of view, Bulgakov's novel is brilliant, it shows the visible, external side of the great event – the coming of Christ the Savior to earth, exposes the scandalousness of the Gospel, because it is really necessary to have an amazing gift of grace, to perform a true feat of faith in order to recognize the Creator of the universe in this dusty Wanderer without a diploma of higher rabbinical education. from childhood we hear prayers: "Lord, have mercy", "Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner". And such works as the paintings of Ge, or, to a lesser extent, Polenov, or the same "The Master and Margarita" help us understand all the improbability and paradox of the apostolic faith, feel its painful burn, allow us to return to the point of choice...