How will God, who is Love, judge people? To be a lawyer means to make every minute choice A lawyer, a judge, is a sin for the Orthodox.

Hieromonk Macarius (Markish), rector of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk Saints Church in Ivanovo, answers questions from viewers. Transfer from Moscow.

- The theme of our program is unusual for Easter days: "Criticism of the Orthodox Church."

Reasonable topic. Christ comes into this world and meets not only His supporters, but also ill-wishers. Reading the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, we see there people who participated in the execution of the Savior. Acts 2 and 3 show the first steps of Christian preaching.

There are many points on which the Orthodox Church is criticized, and I would like to bring some clarity to these points. For example, it is often said that the Church is too earthly an organization. She too diligently delves into the affairs of the state, devotes a lot of time and effort to earthly concerns, although she should be more heavenly. There is such a symbol: the cross has a vertical and a horizontal. The vertical is longer, so the desire for the Sky must prevail.

Who would think that the vertical does not prevail? You say "too much". And who measured? Who decided that too much? When people say this, you need to answer them: if you think that the balance has been disturbed, justify, prove this fact. What do we see from the inside? The Church is the Body of Christ. This is a mysterious Body, not a mechanism, but an Organism. What is the difference between mechanism and organism? In the body, all components are interdependent. It's not in the mechanism. I ride a bike, I can remove the trunk, and continue to ride, the bike will not go worse from this, or I can replace one wheel with another. Not so in the body. If you cut off your finger, it will hurt your whole body. So the Church is an Organism that includes God Himself, the God-Man Jesus Christ. The Church also includes the Angelic Forces, those people who lived on this earth, died, but, nevertheless, remain in the Church. These are the holy people to whom we turn in prayer, we maintain contact with them, and non-saints, believers in Christ after death also remain in the Church. In other words, the depth of the diversity of the entire Church Organism is immense, incomprehensible.

When people criticize our Church (maybe there is justified criticism, no one argues), but, as a rule, this is criticism of the ignorant. This does not mean that we should look down on them, say how stupid they are. We ourselves need to understand whether this criticism is justified or not, reasonable or ignorant. Even if she is malevolent, she can be intelligent. I have experience in these matters, as I head the information department of the diocese, I host television and radio broadcasts in Ivanovo; I have a huge volume of correspondence on the Internet through the question and answer service. Now we have opened a new service in the Yelitsy.ru network - a service for questions to the priest. A lot of interesting questions ask. As a rule, criticisms of the Church, if they are serious, are aimed at the past. They say: “Why do such things happen in your Church?” It turns out that now they are no longer happening: they happened sometime in the past.

- There were such cases when people consecrated the car, and the consecration of the car cost them half the price of this car.

Whatever it costs, it can't cost anything. If it is worth something, then the priest who performs this rite must be very painful, almost physically. But, on the other hand, people begin to resent this, and then it turns out that no one set any prices. A person who owns a good car wants to make a donation to the Church, gives a sum of money to the treasurer or the priest personally, and then someone finds out about it, or he said it himself (do not talk about the amount of his donations), and there is a conversation about that such a huge price was set. This situation often happens.

- Are there cases when the priest sets a high price himself?

Should not prescribe either high or low. There is a fundamental difference between price and donation. The price is the result of an agreement between the seller and the buyer. The seller and the buyer agree on a certain amount, and it changes hands. The donation does not involve any consent, no request, no response. Usually the donor insists: “Well, tell me, how much should I donate to you for the consecration of the car?” "You shouldn't at all." “Still, tell me so I can navigate.” Personally, I always evade the answer and never assign any, even an approximate amount. But church workers, clergymen can say: "Usually people donate such and such an amount." In my opinion, this is not the best answer, but, nevertheless, they give such an answer to satisfy the curiosity of a person. They may say at the same time: “Here are the approximate prices for donations on the board, but there is a mug, a box. How much you lower there is up to you. That's the way it should be. Deviations from this standard, if they are serious and lead to the setting of some prices, as in a store for a loaf of bread, is an ecclesiastical crime, simony. In our diocese, the bishop oversees this.

One parishioner wrote a letter to the diocese that a list of prices hangs in such and such a church, and there are no deviations from these prices. The bishop read this letter at a diocesan meeting and commented very sternly on it, after which a parishioner called me and said that the prices had been removed. I encourage everyone to do just that.

You can often hear that people are repelled by the wealth of the clergy. I have a friend who says: “I don’t go to the temple, because one day I asked the priests on the street how to get there, they looked at me arrogantly, (they had some kind of expensive watch), got into their cars and left." This incident repulsed him, and he does not go to the temple.

Before the court, not a single judge, neither a lawyer, nor a prosecutor would accept such evidence, due to its vagueness and uncertainty. Moreover, wealth and arrogance are completely different things. There are people who are very wealthy and at the same time modest and humble. There are people, as they say, “a louse on a lasso in your pocket,” but he has pride to the sky and he wants to compensate for material wealth through his rudeness. We also meet such people.

Rudeness, impoliteness, tactlessness, stupidity - these are the vices of the whole world. Are priests exempt from them? Probably not, otherwise we would all be angels, and instead of a cassock we would have wings. But we don’t have wings, everyone has their own shortcomings and their own sins. I am not ready to agree that rudeness, tactlessness and ignorance are widespread in the priestly environment. The clergy that I meet in our provincial or in the Moscow diocese are all polite, benevolent, cultured, and intelligent people. In reports Church Court, which is published on the Internet, there are cases when a priest is subjected to strict prohibitions, up to defrocking, but these are few in tens of thousands of the clergy of the Russian Church.

Wealth is a double-edged sword. We have nowhere in church life, in the Orthodox spiritual heritage, a condemnation of wealth as such. Read the gospel. Starting with Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus and other wealthy early Christians, they are not condemned for their wealth. Even Zacchaeus the tax collector, who was essentially considered a robber of his people, is a farmer in favor of Rome, and he promises that he will compensate the damage four times, share his wealth with the poor, but nowhere does he say that he will quit his job. While making such promises to the Savior, he does not declare that he will retire from this tax-collecting activity. The Savior says to him: "Today is salvation for this house."

Wealth itself is never, under any circumstances, condemned, because the condemnation of wealth is a manifestation of envy. Another question is how a person will manage his wealth. If he manages badly, like the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, who was ruthless and neglected the needs of his loved ones, this is his a big problem. Of our fellow priests, I do not know of those who would behave like the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

Ideal for Orthodox Christian is holiness. There is not a single saint who would be wealthy, rich.

And what about Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, canonized as a saint? He was the richest man in Russia.

- That is, holiness and wealth are two compatible things?

They are independent of each other. A person can be very wealthy and at the same time pious and modest. Such a view, inspired by the Bolshevik, revolutionary forces in our country at the beginning of the twentieth century, that the rich must be dealt with, because they are scoundrels, is categorically rejected. It was a form of destruction of national unity. In the 20th century, we observe two such forms: one is the destruction of national unity along social seams, and the other along ethnic lines. One of them is Bolshevism, the other is Nazism. When pseudo-oppositionists talk about a state of swindlers and thieves, two threads come from here. One is the state of the rich and priests (this is greetings from comrades Stalin and Lenin), the other is the state of chocks and Jews (this is greetings from comrade Hitler). Such a destruction mechanism.

Question from a TV viewer: “I really love the Soyuz TV channel, I only watch it, although I myself am a Catholic. Among the wonderful programs that are on the air, there are lectures by Professor Osipov, watching which I encounter strong aggression and insults to other denominations of Christianity. This even makes it worse. I asked a question on social networks, they said: the channel is for the Orthodox, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Is this Christian? How to treat this?

No need to ask questions on social media. There is a social network "Yelitsy", which I just spoke about, let him apply there, there will be a completely different conversation. Speaking in essence, there is a Council document in the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted by the jubilee Bishops' Council 2000, which is called "Fundamentals of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards heterodoxy."

Heterodoxy refers to non-Orthodox Christian denominations and other denominations. Our Muslim neighbors, Buddhists, and representatives of other faiths also get there. I insist that every person who is worried about interfaith disputes, conflicts, carefully study this document. All deviations on the part of the Orthodox from the principles and norms set forth in it will be considered a sin. The manifestation of hostility, impoliteness, hostility towards representatives of other faiths, if they deviate from the document I mentioned, these are the sins of the Orthodox, their ignorance, tactlessness. Every person who is interested in this should discover a certain principle of our differences from non-Orthodox confessions. These differences exist: differences in religion, historical, sometimes social.

- The viewer writes that he is faced with aggression and insults to other confessions on the Soyuz TV channel.

Aggression and insults are actions that are not inherent in Orthodox believers, based on their religion. They are inherent in Orthodox believers based on their sinfulness, mistakes, delusions, imperfections, etc.

We will be asked: “Do you Orthodox confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?” We will say, "No, we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." "Ah, so, that means you are aggressive towards Roman Catholics." We will say: "No, we are not aggressive towards the Roman Catholics, but we are trying to correct their errors." “Ah, you are talking about our delusion. So that's what you are." This is already demagogy. A dispute, a confrontation even between two ideas, is a matter necessary and inherent in any intellectual process, but insult should not take place in such a dispute.

Such aggression arises from the fact that people do not see living representatives of this or that confession in front of them, but they theorize this dispute a little. For example, I heard from Orthodox people that Buddhists have a wrong view of the world, such an Eastern philosophy that presents people not alive, but as if they are some kind of shadows, a game of reality, seeing this as our fundamental difference. But I have Buddhist friends. From them I heard the opposite idea that people should not be treated as if they were things, inattentively, indifferently. Two opinions of people who don't know each other.

The remark is very valuable. It is worth starting with the fact that Buddhism itself in its historical reality, which is about the same age as Christianity, has a huge distribution throughout the South Asian continent, in our time even wider. He is very versatile. Maybe somewhere in some form the features of believing Buddhists were manifested, which caused such a critical look. For my part, I am rather ready to agree with your second statement.

I have little experience in missionary or social contact with Buddhists, but I can refer to such an authoritative source as the books of Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, in which he analyzes Buddhism and writes an amazing thing: some forms of Buddhism are the pinnacle of virtues and approximation to the truth, which is only capable of reach a man without Christ. There will be no offense to Buddhists if we say that they live without Christ. These are people of a different culture, and for them the gospel experience, that part spiritual heritage, which is contained in the Gospels or in the books of the Old Testament, is completely alien. But notice how it is said: the pinnacle of what a man can reach. On the one hand, this is a compliment, very respectfully said. On the other hand, pay attention, if this is a peak and a person is on it, then he has nowhere to go: he is already at the top.

We can say that a Christian also has a certain peak, which he is able to reach. But no, for Christians, the peak is Christ, and we will never actually reach this Peak in this life, therefore for a Christian there is always a direction of ascent. And if there are some vertices, some stationary point, speaking in the language of mathematics, then this matter is even a little dangerous, because where to go next? This question demonstrates the difficulty of preaching Christianity to people who have reached the top.

It seems to me that we judge a little narrowly, because there are different forms of Buddhism and there are such points that coincide, they are simply called by different words.

Of course, in earthly social life, moral practice, even moral theology, we will see a very large coincidence. His Holiness Patriarch Cyril said many times, not only in relation to Buddhists, but also to all hostels and civilizations, that the main moral principles remain almost uniform even regardless of confessional frameworks. And this is right, and it should be so, because the Lord reveals Himself to people of all nations in one form or another. This we see the manifestation of that partial truth, which is inherent in all peoples.

And then there is the complete truth, which leads us upward and does not give us a peak, does not allow us to stop at any height. This is the principle of relationships with other faiths. We recognize a partial truth behind every denomination, behind every individual. We respect the individual, we respect the good that is in them. We accept them as an example of following the good that they possess, but we do not renounce the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ opens in His Holy Church certain paths to the Truth that are not inherent in any other religion.

- Maybe we just don't know other religions well, that's why we think so?

I cannot agree with you, because the science of religious studies or even modern ethnography provides a very good view, an overview of other religious practices. Professor Andrey Borisovich Zubov has wonderful lectures and books on religious studies. He is very sympathetic towards other confessions, but it would never occur to anyone to say that Christianity and non-Christianity are, in in a certain sense, same. The Christian faith contains certain principles, beginnings. There is only one beginning - this is the God-man, who becomes God, accepts death for a man. We will not find this anywhere else.

- In Buddhism there is such a thing as "bodhichitta" - this is life for the sake of other beings.

We can live for other beings, and sometimes people sacrifice themselves for other beings. But the one God, the Creator of this world, Who becomes one of us, takes on human nature. He not only sacrificed Himself, gave some gift, but became incarnate. The word "incarnation" has now become a common word: the embodiment of power, the embodiment of art, etc., but it is worth thinking about the meaning of this word.

At the Paschal Liturgy we read the first conception - the beginning of the Gospel of John: "And the Word became flesh." The Logos - the Word - became flesh. This act, mysterious and fundamental, is the foundation of Christianity. One priest was asked: “What is the peculiarity of Christianity in comparison with other confessions?” He replied, "In Christ, naturally." If it is Christianity, then the peculiarity is Christ. And who is Christ? Church thought worked on this for six centuries (II-VII centuries). It took the Church six hundred years for it to be possible to say at least something about who Christ is in the right words, theological expressions.

The Orthodox Church is often criticized for being closed in on itself. Orthodox pray for Orthodox. IN morning rule there are such words: "Giving victory to Orthodox Christians against the opposition." A vicious circle is obtained.

Here you need to show attention and thoroughness. Unlike the questions we discussed before, this one is more of a technical one. When making Divine Liturgy after the transposition of the Holy Gifts, the priest lifts up a prayer: “We still pray to Thee, Lord, for the Universe, for the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, for the country, people, authorities,” etc. First, the Church prays for the entire universe - pay attention to this. Prayer for the Universe is at the heart of the Eucharistic Prayer. Of course, we pray for everyone, but at each moment in our own way. There are liturgical moments when we commemorate people Orthodox faith, there are moments when we commemorate the whole country, our world, etc. Therefore, these accusations, judgments that Orthodox Christians do not care about the whole world, are simply not justified. Such a judgment came from a lack of knowledge.

As for the prayer “giving victory to Orthodox Christians against the opposition” - I accept this with a little humor, because this expression is new, unstable, moreover, maybe it will be replaced. This is a troparion to the Cross: "Save, O Lord, Thy people and bless Thy inheritance." And then, if you look at the Greek version, it says: “Giving victory to the faithful kings on the resisters.” Who is at war with the “opponents”? We are not at war with the "resistance". The noble king - emperor - he is the supreme commander in chief, therefore victories are given to the emperor - the head of the Eastern Roman Empire.

In the practice of the pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox Church, the name of the reigning emperor was inserted in this place in prayer: "Victory to our most pious emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, bestowing on the resistance." In 1917, as you well know, a tragedy occurred in Russian life. This tragedy was very multifaceted and the Church, which at that time was not separated from the state, suddenly found itself subordinate to the Provisional Government. This is a sad fact, but inevitable. Not because the clergy were so stupid, or greedy, or they did not like the tsar - it was a natural and necessary canonical result of the overthrow of the monarchy, in which the Church was subordinate to the Provisional Government. In this regard, all references to the reigning House, the monarchs, were very hastily liturgical books eliminated.

We see this elimination today in the troparion of the Cross, and there are different variations and forms. Take the kontakion "Ascended to the Cross by the will of Your namesake new residence, grant Your bounty to Christ our God." In the original: "The faithful kings rejoice in Your power." Today we see different versions, literally in different prayer books: “rejoice us with Thy power”, “rejoice Orthodox Christians with Thy power”, “rejoice Thy faithful people with Thy power”. It turns out a complete discord.

St. John of Shanghai wrote in this regard that the argument: “If there is no king, then it is not worth mentioning him in prayers,” does not stand up to criticism. We pray for the peace of the whole world - there is no peace in the whole world either, and it is not particularly foreseen. However, we pray for this and for the welfare of the saints Churches of God. According to the holy and authoritative hierarch, appeals to the Lord about the faithful kings should be returned. In Soviet times, this was impossible, you could immediately thunder to the Kolyma. In our time, this is a matter for the decision of the hierarchy, so that Orthodox Christians are not invited to fight with everyone else and defeat them. If we remember how this happened traditionally, then everything becomes clear.

The question of freedom and independence of decision-making. I have heard such a statement: I have an acquaintance who was a normal person, a peasant, but began to go to church - now he runs to consult the priest on every issue, he has lost his core and independence in making decisions. How would you comment on this?

Here again, there can be a double-edged wand. We are discussing different situations, which we look from the outside and try to draw conclusions. Eat different people. Why not turn to the father for advice? We just talked about monarchs. Any reasonable monarch does not take any more or less important decisions without consulting with his surroundings, whether it be the parliament or the boyar duma. An autocrat, an autocratic person who has in his hands the responsibility for events and actions of very great importance, will always consult with someone, and it will never occur to anyone to say that this is bad.

A person in his personal life can also consult with someone - why not - this is not bad at all. If an observer from the outside does not like this, if he is an unbeliever, maybe anti-Christian, he will pour out his bile about this. And objectively speaking, in this picture we do not see anything malicious. At the same time, unfortunately, there are a large number of people for whom Orthodoxy is slavery, when a person becomes a slave, loses his freedom, responsibility, turns into an appendage of someone's will - God forbid, if it is a good will. The late Patriarch Alexei II and the current Patriarch Kirill spoke about this.
Any authoritative priest should remind the flock of the words of the Apostle Paul: "Stand in freedom." Freedom of choice, action, discrimination, reasoning, what action to take, is inherent in the Orthodox way of thinking from the very beginning. One Greek preacher, Ephraim of Vatopedi, told the following story: a certain man approached him with a complaint about his wife that she did not undertake any business, not only without advice, but without the blessing of her confessor. Father Ephraim said to that man: tell your wife to marry her confessor. Here's a sarcastic response. Such twists and turns do happen.

Question from the forum: “I began to notice that since I got closer to God, more difficulties arose on my way. Friends, colleagues, a young man moved away from me, as if in spite they were trying to take me out of peace of mind and repentance, long-suffering and piety, slandering, lying, towering over me proudly, but I am no longer the person to respond with a cry to their cry, swearing at their lies, reciprocal pride on their pride. I endure everything, but it's getting harder to endure. I have already been pecked at work, I endure it humbly, as long as I have the strength. How to proceed?"

We have read some peculiar lines, and now the author of this letter will expect us to tell her what to do? Isn't this funny? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. When such letters come, you have to try to find something behind the lines of the letter. By the style of writing, I would venture to suggest that the author is at least half to blame for the troubles that fell on her, and maybe more, because she calls herself a new beginning. I will not explain the details of my conclusions, I can simply intuitively say that this person is dysfunctional. She turned her conversion to Christianity in such a way that she got everything across her throat. Unfortunately, this happens. For example, one of the family members, spouses, comes to the Church and turns the life of the other spouse into hell, instead of turning it into Heaven. And then he complains about the trouble.

However, since I am only making an assumption, one can make another conclusion, which is also not unfounded: when a person comes to the Church, he objectively begins to experience difficulties; regardless of his will, desire and his own mistakes, a certain burden of problems, sorrows, trials, illnesses, enmity can fall on him. This also happens. We know that our battle, the war is not against flesh and blood, but against the power of demons, the devil. It is quite natural to expect such a result for a person who has entered into a confrontation with impure forces, has intensified his struggle, because he had not fought with them before, did not feel that there was any kind of conflict between good and evil. Now he has renounced Satan, united himself with Christ, and become a soldier of Christ. You can expect that it will be difficult in this fight. We see both phenomena: on the one hand, human folly, mistakes, sins in the normal attitude of others, on the other hand, satanic malice, which, with the normal behavior of a person converted to Christianity, leads him to a very difficult state. And both are happening.

Sometimes the question arises: why does the Church purposefully attract new people, especially young people? I sometimes hear such expressions that alarm me, for example, “an injection of Orthodoxy”, or “to escort a person to a temple.” As if the person does not know that he needs it, but he was given the necessary injection. There is some pretentiousness in this.

Today we talked about the fact that there is no need to humiliate and insult other confessions. From your remark it is impossible not to recall the practice of Roman Catholicism of different eras, in particular the Crusade against the Albigensians of the early XIV century. Albigensians are heretics who lived in the south of France, anti-Catholic, who had their own religious views. The Pope once again called for a crusade against them. During the siege of one of the cities, when this city was to be taken, the military commander turned to the papal legate with the question: “There are many heretics in the city, but there are also many Catholics. How to distinguish one from the other? To this, the legate, after thinking, replied: “Beat everyone in a row. The Lord will understand." Here is the practice of another denomination. For Orthodoxy, this is completely wild and impossible. In the history of Orthodoxy, isolated episodes of forced conversion could occur, but this is not typical of our faith. Orthodox authorities have always opposed this and have sternly warned against non-violence.

Baptism of Rus' in X-XII centuries passed mostly without blood, without violence. How to find out about this, how to make sure that the Baptism of Rus' was non-violent? By the number of martyrs. When someone is forcibly converted to Christianity, willy-nilly there are those Christians who were killed by the opposite force in military clashes. The Russian Church of those times, if it knows any, then in the north-eastern part of the then Rus', during conflicts with the Finno-Ugric tribes, and in the main territory of modern central and southern Russia, there was no martyrdom. And if there was no martyrdom, then there was no resistance.

The original question is: Why should the Church involve people? Because the Lord commanded exactly this: "Go, baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." “Go and spread Christianity everywhere” is His personal call. And we are obliged to do it. If we are Orthodox believers, then we, based on the universality Christian faith(The Lord comes into this world for everyone, for every person), we must make efforts in this direction. But which efforts are violent or non-violent? Preaching with the word, bringing enlightenment, or many other options? There can be no other options, except preaching, mission and own example.

There is a document that I recommend to everyone to study: "Fundamentals of the missionary concept of the Russian Orthodox Church", it was adopted in 2008 by the Holy Synod. There is a clearly drawn line that there should be no violence (meaning not only violent actions, but also any deception, commercialization of this matter).

In the 1990s, representatives of other confessions came to us, mostly Protestant of one kind or another. They handed out some items to lure followers to them, but they were not very good at it. In the 18th century, which was also very difficult for the Russian Church, some Russian missionaries, addressing the inhabitants of Altai, the Southern Urals, Siberia, attracted them to the Church by giving a silver ruble to everyone who came and was baptized. It would seem, why not give a person a silver ruble? But, in those days it was a considerable amount, especially for uncultured tribes, so someone came and was baptized twice to get an extra ruble. Thus it was proved that this work was fruitless: no special material incentive connected with missionary work should be introduced.

Host: Denis Beresnev

Transcript: Lyudmila Kedys

Alla asks
Answered by Alexander Dulger, 01/27/2011

Allah asks: How does the church feel about the profession of a judge? because I want to elect her in the future. For it is written: do not judge, lest you be judged. Of course, I understand that many meanings can be put into these lines, but also a direct one, right?

Peace be upon you, Allah!

IN ancient world, and we see it in the Bible, the profession of a judge was very honorable. Rather, it was not a profession, but an honorary elective service, such as our election as a deputy.
God is not against judging. On the contrary, He Himself established the institution of judges (see , ).

Another thing is that such a profession imposes a huge responsibility before people and before God. Your mistake or prejudice can cost someone a few years of life or a lot of trouble. First of all, you should think about it. Are you ready to bear such a burden?

Unfortunately, we are all sinful people and we all tend to make mistakes, since our concepts of good and evil, justice and retribution have been distorted by a sinful worldview and spiritual degradation over many millennia. The Word of God says clearly:

"There is no righteous man on earth who would do good and would not sin ..." ()

"Who is born pure from the impure? None." ()

"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For I do not understand what I am doing: because I do not do what I want, but what I hate, I do.
If I do what I do not want, then I agree with the law that it is good,
wherefore, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
For I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; because the desire for good is in me, but to do it, I do not find it.
The good that I want, I do not do, but the evil that I do not want, I do."
(TO )

Therefore, an atheist (a person who lives without hope in God) definitely cannot be a good and fair judge. How to be? Here again the Word of God will help us:

"When the Lord raised up judges for them, The Lord Himself was with the judge and saved them from their enemies all the days of the judge: for the Lord had pity on [them], hearing them groan from those who oppressed and oppressed them." (Judges 2:18)

The judge in ancient Israel was an effective and just leader, and authority only when he "God Himself was with the judge." Speaking modern language, the judge must be a dedicated Christian. This is the key to his success. He must keep the Commandments of God, seek in everything God's will, and in his life and in solving the affairs of other people, he must pray for the affairs of other people, so that God would grant him wisdom and justice, and also always strive to observe the golden rule of Christ: "So in everything, as you want people to do with you, so do ye also to them, for this is the law and the prophets (i.e. the main point of the Scriptures)." (From )

As for the expression "do not judge, and you will not be judged" from, then there we are not talking about an arbitration court, but about personal condemnation. When I say: "here he is such and such", often behind the eyes and almost always without knowing the motives of a person's actions. Maybe the motives were good, maybe he did not think to do so and it happened by accident, maybe he was wrong. Only God knows the motives and can 100% adequately assess the severity of misconduct, and we almost always make mistakes and, moreover, in a worse, harsh way. This is the meaning of Jesus' words.

Sincerely,
Alexander

Read more on the topic "The morality of choice, ethics":

In the world we live in, we are surrounded by many temptations. And often for a Christian, relationships with secular authorities become a temptation: it is not always clear how to respond correctly to controversial issues. The court is just such a case. Should a Christian fear judgment for any reason? Did ancient Christians sue?

About this we asked the candidate of legal sciences, teacher, associate professor Sretensky Seminary and lawyer Fyodor Alekseevich Kupriyanov.

"Crucify him." Hood. Ivan Glazunov

– Fedor Alekseevich, how do you look at the participation of a Christian in the trial?

– As a lawyer, I see no problem for a Christian to participate in a lawsuit. Moreover, often their rights can be protected only in this way. For example, it is possible to enter into inheritance rights after a six-month period by submitting an appropriate application to a notary public only through a court. IN this case a Christian can sue. Or if an unlawful fine has been imposed on him. A Christian can challenge the imposition of a fine with the competent authorities. The same applies to debt collection, because in this case the rights of not only the Christian himself, but also his family are protected. This also applies to copyrights, patent rights, and so on.

If a Christian does not defend his rights, then the state can “go off the rails” of a legal solution. Against Christians in this case, a campaign to seize property and so on can unfold. He will lose any trial a priori: he will be found guilty because he does not defend himself.

The main misconception about the court is the opinion that the court establishes the objective truth. This is wrong. In court, subjective truth is always established on the basis of evidence. I'll give you an example. If one person files a claim for the return of a live pink elephant with a lilac stripe to him, and the second recognizes this claim, then the court does not have the opportunity to refuse them this claim. He will satisfy the suit, admitting the existence of a living pink elephant with lilac stripes. This is the establishment of subjective truth. The court has no right to go beyond and say that such an elephant does not exist if there are documents for it. Therefore, often success in court depends on the qualifications of lawyers. One who provides little evidence worsens his client's position because he does not allow the court to establish this subjective truth on the basis of the evidence.

I often have to talk about protecting the rights and insulting the feelings of believers. In particular, that forgiveness does not always lead to the termination of the criminal process, because the reconciliation of the parties must be mutual. If the other party does not want to admit his guilt and does not ask for forgiveness, accordingly, he has no intention of reconciling. In this case, the legal proceedings will not stop, even if there is the will of a Christian to stop it.

At one time, as you remember, Prince Vladimir, having become a Christian, stopped carrying out sentences, which led to an increase in the number of criminals. Here is an example of a supposedly Christian attitude to the court.

– What is the difference between the understanding of judgment in the Old and New Testaments?

- If we talk about the criminal process, then even in Old Testament there was a strict indication that one should defend oneself, as well as scrutinize the evidence. The prosecution had to provide evidence of guilt, and the accused and his lawyer, in turn, had to provide evidence of innocence. But I do not see any difference in the understanding of judgment in the Old and New Testaments, because the commandment "do not bear false witness" is preserved, the prohibition of perverse judiciary is also, and so on. I believe that the judges themselves must still follow the norms of Christian morality.

– What was the basis of the court in ancient Israel?

- Among the ancient Jews, secular courts were also religious. Sentences were passed on the basis of religious norms. There were Sanhedrins, consisting of many judges - from priests and Levites.

– Were the first Christians sued?

– We know the Great Martyr Catherine, who spoke in her defense before the emperor, like many other martyrs. They defended their faith and their right to worship - in the court of the emperor. Yes, in the end they accepted the martyr's crown, but they participated in the court, they did not remain silent.

And I can give another example. During the trial of Christ, the high priest asked why He did not answer the accusations. Christ told him that he had never spoken secretly, but openly, and that let those who heard Him be called as witnesses. At the same time, the servant of the high priest beats Christ on the cheek with his palm. Why does he do it? Because in fact, Christ, in legal terms, exercised His right to intercede to call witnesses. And the call of witnesses is always associated with the adjournment of the court session. The Sanhedrin did not have time for this, they needed to condemn Christ as soon as possible. Therefore, they did not let the Savior speak. From this incident we see that the Lord exercised His rights in judgment. But this trial was illegal!

Born in Abkhazia, in Sukhumi, in 1973.

Graduated from Batumi State University, Faculty of Law

Tell me about your years of study, please.

- First, I entered the theological seminary of the city of Sukhumi and studied there for two years (it was a branch of the Tbilisi Seminary); I did not manage to finish it: the war began - and I moved to live in Batumi, where I entered to study at the Faculty of Law. Four years after graduation, he moved to Moscow, where he began to practice. In Georgia, I had a purely ecclesiastical activity - I worked as an administrator of the diocese under the Georgian Patriarchate, then I was the press secretary of the diocese.

- And how did a seminarian student get into the field of jurisprudence?

—At first, I generally wanted to go to a monastery, lived with Vladyka, was his novice, lived for about two years in a monastery, the residence of a bishop. Young people gathered there who wanted to take monastic vows. When I told Vladyka that I wanted to be a monk, he blessed me... to clean the toilets. Before that, I led diocesan press office. So for a year and a half this was what I was doing - toilets. Apparently, I was not ready for the monastic feat. I returned to Batumi and started a family.

As for the legal profession, this area has worried me since childhood. I remember when I was six or seven years old, all my peers, as befits boys, fought and bullied each other. And then I, in the sandbox, arranged trials, appointed a judge, a prosecutor, and I myself acted as a lawyer, defending one of these boys. Everything that I saw in films where the plot was a trial, I transferred to my childhood life.

- And what attracts you to this profession today?

- Attracts a crazy feeling of joy from victory when you win a case in court. I would even say that the issue of fees and profits is in second place. When you manage to win the most difficult process, it is joy, a state of euphoria that cannot be compared with anything. I would even say: a lawyer is a state of mind, a way of life and a way of thinking.

How hard is it for a lawyer to be honest these days?

- Very hard. Very. Much depends, of course, on the moral foundations of a person (a lawyer in our case). No one can force a lawyer to make a deal with his conscience. He decides himself. And he answers, of course, he, too.

Our legislation is still at the stage of formation. And this makes it possible (including a lawyer) to maneuver between different articles of the law. And when the fate of a person is at stake (no matter how pathetic it may sound) and the question is this: either lose the process, or win, but a little dishonestly (in relation to one’s conscience), without directly violating the law, but finding some kind of loophole in it, a hole - then I think most lawyers use this opportunity. And another very important point in the practice of law and the concept of honor is professional vanity. You can’t get away from it, it is a disease of the legal profession, the costs of the profession. And I suffer from it too. This "vanity of not losing cases" is beautifully illustrated in the movie The Devil's Advocate. Remember the answer of the main character, the lawyer? "I don't lose processes." Our professional activity can be compared to a room with two doors and two exits. And only you can choose which door to exit through.

- And in what country, in your opinion, the judicial system is represented most perfectly?

- None. When a person is given the right to judge another person, there will always be mistakes. These mistakes cannot be avoided. The most developed judicial system was in Ancient Rome. All of today's jurisprudence is based on law. ancient rome. However, this apparent perfection of the judicial system did not save Pontius Pilate from an unlawful sentence.

– There is a concept of corporate honor (“I must protect well”) and honor as such. What to do if during the process the lawyer finds out that his client is really guilty?

“A lawyer has no right to refuse to perform his duties. There is a code of lawyer ethics, which says that if a lawyer has taken on the protection of his principal, he cannot refuse it. If the defendant is guilty, the lawyer is obliged to look for extenuating circumstances. If, for some reason, he suddenly begins to speak out against his client, this is severely punished, up to and including deprivation of the status of a lawyer.

- And you, probably, had to be in such slippery situations?

- Yes. And very often.

Is it difficult to live with it?

- It's not the same for everybody. If you do not often resort to repentance, then gradually you begin to harden your soul and the feeling of guilt is dulled. In addition to the desire to win, except for the excitement, you already feel nothing. I try very hard not to let this happen to me. Often, when I am being interviewed, I smile, thereby showing how wonderful everything is, and at night I suffer from insomnia.

- A lawyer friend of mine once shared that, while defending a person, he can lose all intermediate courts, but in the last resort he has “his own person” and therefore the process ends “as it should”. Have you ever experienced issues being resolved this way?

- Yes, sure. I will say one thing: this can all last for the time being. These things don't go unpunished.

- What should I do if, for example, against me, a mere mortal, some kind of VIP -a person. Where can I apply, is there a chance for me to win the case?

– It will be very difficult to do. But probably. I'll give you an example.

Not so long ago, I conducted a very complex and high-profile case in Omsk. A rhythmic gymnastics coach at a sports camp stripped naked an eight-year-old girl, her student, for finding candy on her. This was a kind of punishment - she put the child on the table in a vertical split and called the audience: boys and senior gymnasts. The girl was crying, tried to jump off the table, she was not allowed to do it, she was beaten. Guess what scene it was? The girl's mother sued. Their family was more than poor (mother is a hairdresser, grandmother is a teacher of the Russian language), and, of course, it was not possible to hire a lawyer. They wrote an application to the prosecutor's office and were refused for a very simple reason: this Omsk Olympic training center was opened by the governor of the Omsk region. Any scandal in this area hit the prestige of the governor. And there was a directive from above: not to open any case. I learned about this story and decided to offer my help. Free of charge, of course (I myself paid for my own way to Omsk and back, a hotel, and so on). I turned to Vladimir Solovyov on NTV and told this wild story. She angered him as much as I did, and he voiced her on the air. After that, I officially declared that I was defending the interests of the injured child, and the media joined the cause: several TV channels and the press. And the car local authorities, which so actively defended the governor, broke down, we won this process. Although, when it was just started, there was not a single witness: all the children from the sports school said that this story with the girl was not true, there was nothing like that. Naturally, their teachers worked with them and asked them to be silent. Only one fifteen-year-old girl, Zhenya Kosorezova, an international master of sports, was not afraid to tell the truth - openly, on Channel One, in Andrey Malakhov's program "Let them talk." Thus, she interrupted her career, she was kicked out of the Omsk rhythmic gymnastics team. It was the act of an adult an honest man, that says a lot. When Zhenya honestly told everything, another witness appeared, then another and another ... By the end of the trial, I had 47 witnesses inspired by her example. And it was already impossible to expel such a number of children from sports. So, we won the case, the coach was punished with a large fine and banned from working with children. The injured girl was invited to Moscow by Irina Alexandrovna Viner, the head coach of the Russian rhythmic gymnastics team.

- And what is the further fate of Zhenya? Was she returned to the team?

- No. She went “against the current”, against “corporate ethics”. But Zhenya and I became very good friends, and on my advice, she entered the Faculty of Law last year. I promised to help her in everything.

- Franz Kafka has such an allegorical work - "The Trial". In it, someone starts an absurd process against the protagonist, no one explains the guilt of the defendant to him, ridiculous court hearings are held in attics and other strange places. At the end of the novel, the protagonist is sentenced to death, without explaining his guilt to him. This is the personification of a terrible bureaucratic machine that has started up, and it is already impossible to stop it. Have you experienced this in your practice?

I am currently working on a similar situation. In Tver, six people, including two young children, were killed under mysterious circumstances on New Year's Eve. There is strong evidence that they wanted to remove one person - a law enforcement officer, and all the other victims turned out to be accidental witnesses. And the investigation found a scapegoat - a 20-year-old young watchman, to whom this murder was written off. But if you look at the materials of the case, you can clearly see how absurd this accusation is. If only because all the dead had signs of a struggle, and in order to cope with the law enforcement officer himself, five strong men were needed. But the first instance confirmed that this guy was to blame. We filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and won the case, it was returned for a new trial. I will soon go to the hearing of this trial in Tver.

- We already mentioned the film "Devil's Advocate" today. It perfectly illustrates our conversation about bargaining with conscience. Your opinion, attitude to the main character.

“Good, deep film. A main character somewhat similar to me. And, probably, the film will be fully understood by those who are familiar with the moral and ethical problems of the legal profession. I just told you a beautiful, sentimental story about an Omsk girl. Yes, I helped her for free, yes, I had a sincere desire to help her, but on top of all this, I felt a sense of delight from the fact that I was in the spotlight. Remember the last line from this movie? "Vanity is one of my favorite sins." So this sin, alas, is well known to me. There is a paradoxical combination in the profession of a lawyer - virtue and sin go together. The desire to do good and the desire for everyone to know and talk about this good.

Do you remember your first case that you won?

- Yes. I was just starting to work then. The process was led by my teacher and now a partner who had quite a lot of experience. He agreed to take me with him so that I could learn how to work in court by his example. And so we arranged a meeting with him; at four o'clock in the afternoon the hearing of the process began, I had to attend it. My teacher was supposed to speak, I just listen, gain experience. And so I came to court, but he was not there. It's already four o'clock, the secretary invites us to the courtroom, I call my partner in a panic and hear in response: “Shota, I won't come today. Lead the process without me. He did it on purpose, pushed me into a pool of crocodiles so that I could learn to swim. And I won this case, because I felt my responsibility and concentrated. Yes, it was scary, my tongue was slurred, but it was my first and, most importantly, my positive experience.

- What was the process?

- I represented the interests of a person who became disabled after an accident. For him, we won almost a million rubles.

- And the first trial that you lost?

“It was a paternity process. A rather banal case, my client assured me that he was not the father of the child, in general, he misled me. The plaintiff filed a petition for a genetic examination, we fought off this examination as best we could, but, of course, it was carried out and it was established that the defendant is the father of the child.

Do you ever regret choosing your profession?

- I'm sorry when they start threatening. And they threaten quite often, because I love provocative cases. And I regret not even because I chose such a profession, but because I undertook this particular process. But over time, all regrets pass, and again I am thrown into the waves ...

– What advice would you give to young people who dream of becoming a lawyer??

“I wouldn't advise them to practice law if they want to sleep soundly at night. Of course, this is a joke ... Probably, I will answer with the words of one priest: “It is very difficult church man be a lawyer." There are many, many difficulties. In any case, it's a choice. Hourly, every minute choice and huge responsibility.

– Is there time to rest, at least for a while to throw this burden off your shoulders?

“Honestly, I really love my job. So I take a break at work, no kidding. I feel sad when I don't have things to worry about. Of course, I love seaside vacations, I love Sochi, I just turn off on weekends - I watch TV, but I always return to work with pleasure. I like to relax alone, sometimes I get very tired of people (also the costs of the profession). I can sit for hours and admire some grass, landscape. This is quite enough to relax, and then with renewed vigor to do what you love.

– According to surveys, the Georgian population enjoys the highest confidence in the Georgian Orthodox Church not the president.

– Politicians are one today, tomorrow they will be different. Shevardnadze pursued one political line, Saakashvili pursues another, the next president will pursue a third, new one. And only the Church of Christ remains forever, everything in it is unchanged. In Georgia, due to mentality, even an unbeliever behaves in accordance with Christian commandments. It's in his blood. Everyone knows Georgian hospitality, the ability and love to give gifts, a certain disinterestedness. There are two striking characteristic qualities in the Georgian people - great love and great pride. Here is such a combination of incompatible - the highest Christian virtue and the main sin, because of which the day-keeper fell.

For those who are trying to make sense of life

(Melnichenko R. G.)

("Lawyer", 2007, N 3)

THE GREATEST SIN OF A LAWYER

R. G. MELNICHENKO

Melnichenko R. G., a lawyer from Volgograd, candidate of legal sciences, associate professor.

Advocacy, like any other professional activity, gives the persons who carry it out certain psychological qualities. They can be both positive and negative. Negative changes in the lawyer's personality are a psychological deformation. Unfortunately, the issues of professional deformation of lawyers are mostly dealt with by scientists from the prosecutor's environment. An example is tutorial on the fight against lawyers "Illegal activities of a lawyer in criminal proceedings." The one-sided coverage of this problem does not bring to the legal community the benefit that constructive criticism should bring, but only harm. Let's try to investigate some lawyer's sins from the perspective of a representative of the legal profession.

It is possible to speak about the concept of deformation of a lawyer only if there is general concept"normal" state. Under the norm in this sense, one can understand the legal consciousness of a certain “ideal” lawyer, that is, a lawyer expected by society. The very deformation of the lawyer looks like a deviation from the norm. Naturally, there are no absolutely reliable criteria for determining the "normality" of a lawyer's sense of justice. We can only presume the existence of such an ideal sense of justice.

One of the ways to comprehend the concept of "ideal sense of justice of a lawyer" can be a well-known principle, laid down by medieval scholastics: good is the absence of evil. Let's define this evil as a lawyer's deformation. In science, it is customary to distinguish the following features of professional deformation: negativity, mass character, ability to develop and dynamism, as well as social harmfulness.

Lawyer deformations can be conditionally divided into general and special. General should be understood as negative psychological changes inherent in any person, regardless of their occupation, in contact with the law. Traditionally, legal science refers to such deformations: legal infantilism, negativism and legal idealism. Special deformations include those that are characteristic mainly of persons engaged in advocacy. These include betrayal of the client, betrayal of the corporation, envy of colleagues, self-interest, incompetence, passivity, disregard for the interests of the client, the effect of the “provincial lawyer”, etc.

Nihilism is the denial of generally accepted values: ideals, moral standards, culture, forms of social life. Its essence lies in a negative-negative, disrespectful attitude towards law, laws, normative order, and from the point of view of roots, reasons - in legal ignorance, inertness, backwardness, legal bad manners of a number of lawyers.

So, we can conclude that the legal nihilism of a lawyer is his anti-legal mood, manifested in a complete disregard for law, a disrespectful attitude towards him and his role, coupled with ethical nihilism, which is expressed in the moral and spiritual decline of society. Legal nihilism pushes the lawyer to solve the client's problems outside the legal field.

Legal infantilism. Infantilism in the literal sense from the Latin "infantilis" (childish) means the preservation in adults of the physical and mental traits characteristic of childhood. Legal infantilism is not only the legal awareness of a lawyer who was a former “C” in the university, because they say that “C”s rule the world, but also a possible professional extinction. Indicators of such legal consciousness of a lawyer are the lack of integrity and consistency of legal knowledge, a narrow horizon of professional opportunities, a kind of handicraft in practical work, uncreative nature and slovenliness in solving professional problems.

legal idealism. Legal idealism can be defined as a kind of deformation of legal consciousness, in which there is a reassessment of the role of law. Legal idealism, as a rule, is characteristic of novice lawyers who sincerely believe that everything in social life should occur in accordance with the rules of law. However, social norms do not always coincide with legal norms, and thoughtless adherence to legal norms can lead to negative consequences not only for a lawyer, but for his client.

Particular attention should be paid to special deformations of the lawyer.

The very nature of advocacy contains temptations to commit many sins: lack of punctuality, greed, lies, arrogance, etc., but the most serious of them is the betrayal of one's client.

As early as 1582, by an additional sentence of Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible), it was established that if an attorney “in court sells the person he stood for”, he should be subjected to death. After all, there is nothing worse than the betrayal of a person who entrusted a lawyer with something that he would not entrust to anyone else. This is a common truth, but, unfortunately, the main professional imperative, which should be the basis of the activity of every lawyer, is violated every now and then.

In the practice of law, at least in the Volgograd region, there is a growing trend of individual lawyers betraying their clients. At the same time, the latter sometimes do not understand the full gravity of the lawyer's sin committed by them. Here is a classic example of customer betrayal.

The client is interrogated as an accused in the presence of a lawyer. There is a change of lawyer, and in the court session the client renounces his testimony given by him at the stage of preliminary investigation. At the request of the prosecutor, the court summons the first lawyer to the court session as a witness. Having appeared at the court session, the latter testifies that, yes, indeed, in his presence, the client gave incriminating testimony. In this situation, only two explanations for the lawyer's behavior are possible: either he is a "lawyer on call" and deliberately betrays his client in order to stay in good relations with a “customer provider”, or he is so illiterate that he does not know about the prohibition to interrogate a lawyer about the circumstances that became known to him in connection with the provision of legal assistance. In both cases, such a lawyer has no place in the legal community.

The law and lawyer ethics knows only one case of a possible interrogation of a lawyer in the case of his client. This situation is given in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the complaint of citizen Tsitskishvili. At the preliminary investigation stage, lawyer I. acted as Tsitskishvili's defense counsel. At the trial stage, the lawyer was replaced. The new lawyer filed a motion to call and interrogate the former lawyer I. as a witness in order to confirm the fact that the investigator had falsified the materials of the criminal case. The court denied this request. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the release of a lawyer from the obligation to testify does not exclude his right to give appropriate testimony in cases where the lawyer himself and his client are interested in divulging certain information. That is, for the interrogation of a lawyer, two conditions are necessary: ​​the consent of the client and the lawyer himself. In the absence of at least one of the above conditions, the lawyer cannot be interrogated as a witness.

What should a lawyer do if he is called as a witness in the case of his client? He is obliged to hand over to the investigator or the court a statement with the following content: “In the process of providing legal assistance to citizen K., I became aware of some circumstances. In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (part 3 of article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation in an administrative or civil case), part 6 of Art. 6 of the Lawyer's Code of Professional Ethics, I am not subject to interrogation as a witness in these circumstances. I cannot be warned in this regard about the liability for refusing to testify.” This is the only possible way of behavior of a lawyer who finds himself in a similar situation. Other options should be regarded as cowardly and unprofessional.

And this is at best. The Bar Association of the Volgograd Region keeps a blatant statement by a lawyer with the following content: “To the Deputy Prosecutor of the Volgograd Region Muzraev M.K. from lawyer N. I, lawyer N, working in the NO VMK, do not mind being interrogated as a witness in a criminal case.”

The whole threat of the current situation is clearly understood by both the lawyers themselves and the heads of the lawyers' self-government bodies. To resolve it, some measures must be taken. Firstly, it is the duty of every lawyer to report to the Council of the Chamber of Lawyers about known facts betrayal by a lawyer of his client. Secondly, to introduce into the practice of councils of lawyers' chambers the application of only one measure of professional punishment in relation to a lawyer in case of betrayal of his client - deprivation of the status of a lawyer.

——————————————————————