Therefore, I could not ignore one note in "Arguments and Facts". In 1998, Archimandrite Sergius (Sturov) explained in the pages of this publication why several catastrophes coincided in December 1997: "Both clergy and believers warned television that it was impossible to show the film "The Last Temptation of Christ", that God is not mocked. Alas, no one listened to our voice, and we see how, after the film was shown, terrible disasters befell Russia at the mine near Novokuznetsk, in Irkutsk, in Naryan-Mar."257

Sounds pious. Archimandrite Sergius tried to appear in the eyes of readers as a deeply religious man. But – in whom? In what god does he believe? In the Gospel God of love and philanthropy, or in the extravagant Olympian god? Doesn't the Lord look like a mad sadist in his depiction? NTV really committed blasphemy by showing this film. But on what basis can we believe that God punishes the Novokuznetsk miners for the sin of Moscow TV politicians? How is the pregnant woman who burned in a helicopter near Naryan-Mar connected with this film? Is it possible that Providence does not know how to act exactly, repaying specific perpetrators of evil, but blindly destroys everything right and left, without distinguishing faces? If God in His love tolerates the immediate initiators of sin, without visiting them with illness or even sorrow, then why suppose that He punishes strangers so decisively and terribly for their sin?

From the theological-theoretical point of view, it is a dangerous matter to evaluate the ways of Providence so hastily (and, moreover, from such a short historical distance). From a theological-practical point of view, first of all, it is really necessary to recognize that the moral dignity of a person is determined by the extent to which he is ready to find meaning in his own suffering. As St. John Chrysostom, the one who learned to thank God for his illnesses, is not far from holiness. A person can think of himself with the words of a sick man from Pasternak's poem "In the Hospital": "Oh, Lord, how perfect are Thy works," thought the sick man... Ending up in a hospital bed, I feel the heat of Your hands..." But it would not be piety, but simply moral idiocy, to go to a neighbor and authoritatively announce to her the meaning of her troubles: "You, Marya, broke your leg yesterday because you didn't go to church with me the day before yesterday!" ...

And from a purely moral point of view, it is not good to use the pain of other people as an excuse to declare: "Well, I warned you! Do you understand now how right I was?!" 258

Providence has its own secrets. But these are secrets, not secrets, and there can be no quick-acting lockpicks to them...

- There is some intimate relationship between the disease and human capabilities. I mean wisdom and sickness, creativity and sickness. Does the disclosure of the patient's creative abilities occur THANKS to or DESPITE the disease?

- Both can happen. Let me remind you of the words of Bulat Okudzhava: "And the soul - this is for sure - if it is burned, it is fairer, more merciful and more righteous." In the Christian tradition, the traditional image is linen. In order to get a soft, wonderful fabric from hard linen, from which you can sew a vest for a baby, this linen needs to be crumpled for a long time. And the Lord, it happens, for a long time to crush the human soul with failures, so that it becomes softer.

- "It is better for us to die than to go to the enemies of God, what is the use of healing the body, and destroying the soul..." Can this statement of John Chrysostom be applied to folk healers?

- Yes, but not for everyone. If this healer treats with herbs, manual therapy, then there is nothing wrong with it. But if all this is superimposed with some kind of religious understanding like "this herb is good because it was harvested when the moon was in the third quarter, and it happened exactly at midnight, because the spirits flew to this daisy" - then this is magic. Then you can't resort to it.

- How unacceptable are non-traditional methods of treatment – homeopathy, acupuncture, hypnosis – from the point of view of the Church?

- I think that in all three cases there is no unconditional rejection.