Decree on the confiscation of church valuables 1922. Mournful anniversary

In the summer of 1921, after the horrors of the Civil War, our country suffered another terrible disaster - famine. “If we study hunger in Russia,” said M.I. Kalinin, referring to the twenty years of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “we will encounter a more or less average famine almost every three years, a major famine every five years, and a famine every 10 years that is exceptional in its destructiveness.”1 This is exactly what the famine of 1921-1922 was like.

A severe drought burned crops in the Volga and Urals regions, in southern Ukraine and the Caucasus. By the end of 1921, the number of starving people reached 20 million. A correspondent for the newspaper Bednota, who visited Chuvashia, reported: “There are no grain products. Sometimes you come across two or three measures of potatoes,” “the usual food is flour from ground straw. But the rich have it all. What about the poor? You can find a piece of acorn bread with her, or even 14 pounds of ground straw with quinoa.”2
In a number of provinces, it reached the point of cannibalism. Specific examples are given in the survey and statistical work of S. Ingulov “Hunger in Figures”3; similar facts found their way onto the pages of the novel “The Cynics” by the imagist writer A. Mariengof4. Cases of cannibalism have also been recorded in Chuvashia. The press of those years wrote about attempts and cases of cannibalism in the districts of Chuvash Av.
tonom region: in the Ubeevskaya volost of the Yadrinsky district, “a father wanted to kill and eat his child”5, “in the village of Shikhirdanakh, citizen Sofia Yalaldikova’s daughter died, whose corpse the mother tried to hide in order to later eat it, but the neighbors, having learned about this, forced bury the corpse"6, "in the village of Katergino, Cheboksary district, the peasant Ivanov Ignatius, in a state of hunger, stabbed his ten-year-old daughter to death and ate her. In the village of Churatchiki, Tsivilsky district, a husband and wife killed their three-year-old daughter with the same intention.”7
Patriarch Tikhon addressed the Russian flock, the Eastern Patriarchs, the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury with messages in which, in the name of Christian love, he called for collecting food and money for the dying Volga region. “Help the country that has always helped others! Help the country that fed many and is now dying of hunger. “Not only to your ears, but to the depths of your heart, let the voice of My groan of millions of people doomed to death by starvation carry it and place it on your conscience, on the conscience of all mankind,” the Patriarch called on8. Under the chairmanship of the Patriarch himself, the “All-Russian Committee for Relief to the Starving” (Pomgol) was formed, which included well-known public figures, mostly former cadets - Prokopovich, Kuskova, Kishkin.
However, already on August 27, 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee dissolved Pomgol, forming the “Central Commission for Famine Relief.” Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin gives a harsh assessment of this fact, believing that “the Bolshevik government was not really interested in funds to help the starving, but in using the famine to destroy the Church”9. According to A.I. Solzhenitsyn, “the genius of a politician is to extract success from the people’s misfortune. This comes as an inspiration - after all, three balls go into the pockets with one blow: let the priests now feed the Volga region! After all, they are Christians, they are kind! If they refuse, we’ll shift all the hunger onto them and destroy the church; If they agree, we will sweep away the temples; and in all cases we will replenish the foreign exchange reserves”10.
The worsening situation, the party and Soviet leadership
government used to solve political problems: the Central Committee expressed confidence that each local party organization “will show maximum initiative, maximum organization, that it will be able to create not only a strong and deep impulse, awaken the will to help the starving population, but that in the process of this work it will be able to create a powerful organization, draw closer to the broad masses of workers and peasants through this work, and further strengthen the consciousness of the working people that only Soviet power can lead the working people out of their difficult situation under the most difficult conditions.”11 That is, instead of the traditional “Lord, help” for the Russian peasantry, they offered “Soviet power, help!”
At the same time, the authorities began preparing for active measures to forcibly confiscate valuable religious objects from the Church. On December 27, 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a decree “On the values ​​located in churches and monasteries.” The decree concerned the fate of “colossal valuables located in churches and monasteries, both historical and artistic, and purely material significance.” All specified property was distributed into three categories: “property of historical and artistic significance” (subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department for Museums and the Protection of Monuments of Art and Antiquities of the People’s Commissariat of Education), “property of material value” (should have been allocated to the State Repository of Valuables RSFSR) and “property of an everyday nature” (“where it was still preserved”, it remained in churches and monasteries)12. Thus, a preliminary legislative basis for the seizure of valuables was created. It should be noted that these actions were tested back in 1919 (according to M.V. Shkarovsky, “in Petrograd alone in the second half of 1919, church valuables worth 1,915 thousand rubles were taken to state storage facilities.”13).
January 14, 1922 L.D. Trotsky, Deputy People's Commissar of Internal Affairs A.G. Beloborodov and deputy chairman of the Cheka I.S. Unshlikht sent a telegram to the provinces about the creation of “troikas” in each of them to confiscate valuables. Special work was carried out through the Cheka, whose local bodies began to carry out activities to identify
leniation and recruitment of “loyal clergy”. To cover up these events during this period, Pomgol negotiated with Patriarch Tikhon on providing church assistance to the hungry14. This commission addressed the Patriarch with an urgent call for donations, and on February 19, Patriarch Tikhon issued an appeal in which he called on parish councils to donate precious church decorations if they do not have liturgical use (“considering the hardship of life for each individual Christian family due to the depletion of their funds, We allow the clergy and parish councils, with the consent of the communities of believers in whose care the temple property is located, the opportunity to use the precious things found in many churches, which have no liturgical use, to help the hungry")15. In the Decree of the Patriarch that followed a little later, it was specified that “we allow only scrap and pendants from images to be given away”16.
Meanwhile, in the document sent to the field under the heading “Secret. An urgent circular from the GPU noted that “the lower clergy, under the influence of the staggering scale of the famine and the pressure of the more conscious mass of believers, is showing readiness to help the starving by issuing church gold and silver to the state. The highest clergy follows Patriarch Tikhon”17. In the memoirs of a number of responsible Soviet and party leaders, some clergy are shown as a kind of deserters - “we meet a priest in one hut,” “the priest is Russian, but speaks Chuvash well - he must have lived in these parts for a long time. He goes to the “prosperous” province. Somewhere he found a “hand” - they promised to give him a “good income.” He wants to escape from these “disastrous” places, as he says, where there is little “profit” even in prosperous years. And in this year of famine, the priest expects various “heavenly punishments”: in addition to “famine”, there are also “pestilences” - plague, cholera. That’s why he’s in a hurry to escape, like a rat from a ship in distress.”18
The local press publishes propaganda publications one after another. Thus, the newspaper “Chuvash Region” in February-March 1922 reports that “the religious communities of the Chuvash region have so far done little to help the hungry. This error should
to be corrected. Ministers of worship and religious communities should immediately raise the issue of donating church jewelry to buy bread for the hungry”19; “Orthodox Christians, just as before, pray to gilded and silver icons at a time when the population is dying of hunger. It is necessary, with the consent of the communities themselves, to sell church jewelry for bread, leaving images and objects of worship in churches without jewelry: gold and silver. In this regard, almost nothing has been done in the Chuvash region yet”20, “we hope that believers will treat this means—the removal of valuables from churches—with due attention and seriousness”21, “cases of cannibalism are already observed in the districts. But the holy fathers are silent!”22
On February 23, 1922, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a decree on the confiscation of church valuables for the needs of the hungry. According to researchers, this decree had a “clearly anti-church orientation”23. The Patriarch responded to the decree with a new message, in which he stated the inadmissibility of the confiscation of sacred objects, “the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by it as sacrilege”24. Soviet historiography's assessments of the Church's attitude to measures to confiscate valuables are rather one-sided. E. Yaroslavsky derived the formula “the terrible disaster of the Volga region and some places in Siberia did not cause the slightest attempts on the part of the Siberian clergy to help the hungry”25. According to I.A. Chemerissky, “the majority of workers, including believers, approved this decree,” but “the reactionary part of the clergy refused to submit to the Soviet government and tried to rouse believers against Soviet power”26. According to the logic of Yu.A. Polyakov, “since the purchase of food abroad was associated with the expenditure of a large amount of gold, the idea arose among the masses to use church values ​​for these purposes,” but “the anti-Soviet-minded elite of the Church reacted negatively to this proposal”27. From the point of view of G.E. Kudryashov, “religious organizations were not worried that people were dying of hunger. The clergy greeted the decree with hostility

The Soviet government on the confiscation of church valuables and exchanging them for bread for the hungry"28. AND I. Trifonov says that “the confiscation of church valuables for the needs of the hungry according to the decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of February 16, 1922 caused another explosion of hatred towards Soviet power among the “princes of the Church”29. More fair in V.D.’s assessments. Dimitriev, noting that the famine relief fund received “some church valuables confiscated on the initiative of the population and the permission of the Soviet government, as well as with the consent of the church authorities”30.
Meanwhile, the clergy opposed not the fact of transferring part of the church property to the famine relief fund (let us recall that under the chairmanship of Patriarch Tikhon the “All-Russian Committee for Famine Relief” was formed and fundraising began to provide all possible assistance), but the methods by which the confiscation of church valuables was carried out: in fact, all the most valuable things were confiscated from temples and churches. The campaign to confiscate church valuables in Chuvashia can serve as clear evidence of the policy of the Soviet authorities.
By decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of February 23, 1922, local councils were asked to “within a month remove from church property transferred for the use of groups of believers of all religions,” “precious objects made of gold, silver and stones, the withdrawal of which cannot significantly affect the interests of the cult itself.” 31. At the same time, the instructions on the procedure for confiscating church valuables stipulated that “the commissions will begin work in the richest churches” and “it is recommended that gold and diamond religious objects be replaced, if possible, with similar ones made of silver”32. To implement this decree in the Chuvash Autonomous Region, a special commission was formed under the chairmanship of S.A. Korichev, similar commissions appeared under the district and volost executive committees. They were faced with the task of confiscating church valuables in a short time and transferring them to the famine relief fund. At the preliminary stage, information about church property was collected (for example, the Commission for the confiscation of church valuables under the Cheboksary33 and Yadrinsky34 district executive committees began their activities with

studying inventories of the property of churches in the county).
By the decision of the Commission for the Confiscation of Church Valuables at the Regional Executive Committee of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug on April 13, 1922, almost all objects of worship were subject to confiscation from churches - only one object was left, and some of the confiscated items went to the Gokhran special fund, and some of them were replaced by valuable items from other churches35. Newspaper publications stated that “there will apparently be a fair amount of church values ​​in the Chuvash region. So, in the Church of the Ascension alone (Cheboksary - F.K.) there was 1 pood of silver 32 pounds 79 gold, in the Church of the Nativity - 8 pounds 66 gold. There are churches where the number of valuables reaches up to 5 points.”36 The Komsomol played a special role in the campaign to confiscate church valuables: with the direct participation of Komsomol members, “more than 38 pounds of gold and silver items were confiscated from churches”37.
It is difficult to establish how much church utensils were confiscated from all the churches of Chuvashia, since the archival material is scattered, some churches were so poor that there was nothing to confiscate there (for example, confiscation was not carried out in the Trinity-Invalid Church of the city of Alatyr, where “there are silver items too few, and they are necessary for worship”38). However, the collected material (primarily, inventories of seized items indicating their weight39, acts of seizure40, receipts for the regional treasury accepting church valuables into the Famine Relief Fund41) allows us to give a rough estimate: in total by the summer of 1922, out of 223 churches and 5 monasteries, items made of gold and silver and jewelry with a total weight of 82 pounds 3 pounds 48 spools 32 shares were confiscated, for which Chuvashia received 16,159 pounds of bread, 2,002 pounds of flour, 4,432 pounds of vegetables42. However, as documents declassified in recent years show, the main goal of the entire campaign to confiscate valuables was not so much to help the starving population, but rather the deeply pragmatic goal of destroying the Church.
In general, in Chuvashia, the confiscation of church valuables in parishes went smoothly, with the exception of the refusal of a number of communities of believers (for example, the religious community of Mikhail-Arkhangelsk

church in the city of Yadrina) to hand over church valuables (motivated by the need for all “the valuables available in the church according to the inventory” for “worship and the cult of faith”43) and small incidents that took place in a number of parishes of the Mariinsko-Posad volost, where elderly women made a fuss about meeting, for which they were arrested (and, however, immediately released). However, throughout the country as a whole, “there were serious clashes with the reactionary part of the clergy, supported by other counter-revolutionary forces,” in Petrograd, Moscow, Smolensk, Shuya, Kaluga, Kiev, Nezhin, Vologda, Simbirsk and some other cities, it came to “attacks from fanatics and anti-Soviet elements against representatives of local authorities who implemented the decree”44. The most significant events were in Shuya. When, in carrying out the decree, they began to remove church relics from the cathedral, local residents gathered at the porch, and the police tried unsuccessfully to disperse them. Then the Red Army soldiers appeared and opened fire: dozens of people were wounded, five died.
On March 19, 1922, a secret letter from V.I. appeared. Lenin, which assessed the events in Shuya and proposed a plan for further action. According to the leader, “one intelligent writer on state issues rightly said that if it is necessary to carry out a series of cruelties to achieve a certain political goal, then they must be carried out in the most energetic way and in the shortest possible time, because the masses will not tolerate prolonged use of cruelty.” Lenin characterized the situation as “the only moment when we have a 99th chance out of 100 of complete success to completely defeat the enemy and secure the positions we need for many decades. It is now and only now, when people are being eaten in starved areas and hundreds, if not thousands of corpses are lying on the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy, and without stopping to suppress any resistance. It is now and only now that the vast majority of the peasant masses will either be for us or in any way

In any case, it will not be able to support with any decisiveness that handful of Black Hundred clergy and reactionary urban philistinism who can and want to try a policy of violent resistance to the Soviet decree”45.
This letter, published only in 1990, is a clear example and best demonstration of the main goal of the campaign to confiscate church property. In our opinion, Lenin was concerned not so much with the problem of helping the hungry, but with the possibility of “providing himself with a fund of several hundred million gold rubles (we must remember the gigantic wealth of some monasteries and laurel houses). Without this fund, no government work in general, no economic construction in particular, and no defense of one’s position in Genoa in particular are completely unthinkable.”46 In other words, the confiscation of church valuables can be interpreted as nothing other than the policy of initial accumulation of capital by the Soviet government and the basis for the beginning of repressions against clergy and active parishioners. On March 30, the Politburo met, at which, on Lenin’s recommendation, a plan was adopted to destroy the church organization, starting with the “arrest of the Synod and the Patriarch.” Trials began on charges of resisting the execution of the decree on the confiscation of valuables47. There were similar processes in Chuvashia. However, due to the relatively calm nature of the confiscation of church valuables in Chuvashia, there were neither “high-profile” processes, nor their large numbers. Thus, “a peasant from the village of Koshkina, Cheboksary district and volost,” Timofey Ivanovich Starostin, was convicted for campaigning against the confiscation of church valuables48. But such cases were isolated.
Thus, behind the official reason for the confiscation of valuables in favor of the starving Volga region, a deeply pragmatic goal was hidden - practical measures were used for a certain consolidation of local party organizations, the funds were used to saturate the state treasury with gold and foreign exchange reserves, and in general the campaign was aimed at weakening and disorganizing the Russian Orthodox Church .

Notes

1 Kalinin M.I. Selected works. T. 1. 1917-1925. M., 1960. P. 306. 2 “The poor”. 1921. November 15. 3 Ingulov S. Hunger in numbers. M., 1922. P. 4. 4 Mariengof A.B. Cynics. M., 1990. P. 76, 79, 82, 86, 92. 5 Horrors of hunger // “Chuvash region”. 1922. March 5. No. 33 (134). P. 2. 6 Horrors of famine in Ibresinsky district // “Chuvash region”. 1922. March 14.
No. 37 (138). P. 1. 7 Hunger and the fight against it // “Chuvash region”. 1922. March 22. No. 40 (141). P. 2. 8 Message of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon “To the peoples of the world and to the orthodox man” regarding the famine in Russia // Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917-1943 / Comp. M.E. Gubonin. M., 1994. P. 177.
9 Tsypin V., prot. Russian Orthodox Church in the modern period. 19171999 // Orthodox Encyclopedia. Russian Orthodox Church / under general. ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II. M., 2000. P. 138.
10 Solzhenitsyn A.I. GULAG Archipelago. 1918-1956. Artistic experience
research. T.1. M., 1990. P. 248. 11 Directory of party workers. Vol. 2. M., 1922. P. 159. 12 Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of December 27, 1921 “On the valuables located in churches
and monasteries" // Collection of laws and orders of the workers' and peasants' government for 1922. M., 1922. No. 19. Art. 215.
13 Shkarovsky M.V. Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin and Khrushchev (State-Church relations in the USSR in 1939-1964). 3rd ed., add. M., 2005. P. 77.
14 Govorova I.V. Confiscation of church values ​​in 1922 in the context of state-church relations. Author's abstract. diss. Ph.D. ist. Sci. M., 2006. pp. 19-20.
15 Quoted. by: Hegumen Damascene (Orlovsky). Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet period // Internet version http://www.fond.ru/ calendar/about/gonenija.htm
16 Decree (“Secret Instructions”) of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon on the issue of attitude to the confiscation of church valuables // Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917-1943 / Comp. M.E. Gubonin. M., 1994. P. 191.
17 State Historical Archive of the Chuvash Republic (SIA CR). F.R. 123. Op. 1. D. 476. L. 40. 18 Alexandrov V.N. In the fight against the consequences of the 1921 crop failure in Chuvashia. (Memories). Cheboksary, 1960. P. 13. 19 Church gold - for the hungry! // "Chuvash region". 1922. February 19. No. 27 (128). P. 1. 20 Religious communities, hurry to the rescue! // "Chuvash region". 1922. February 28. No. 31 (132). S. 1.

21 On the issue of using church values ​​to help the starving // “Chuvash Region”. 1922. March 14. No. 37 (138). P. 1. 22 Hunger and believers // “Chuvash region”. 1922. March 18. No. 39 (140). P. 1. 23 Shkarovsky M.V. Decree. op. P. 82. 24 Message of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon about helping the hungry and
confiscation of church valuables dated February 15 (28), 1922 // Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917-1943 / Comp. M.E. Gubonin. M., 1994. S. 188-190.
25 Yaroslavsky Em. Across Siberia // Yaroslavsky Em. Against religion and church. T. 1. October Revolution, religion and church. M., 1932. P. 45. 26 Chemerissky I.A. The Soviet country in the fight against difficulties caused by
crop failure in 1921. Author's abstract. diss. ...cand. ist. Sci. M., 1966. P. 11-12. 27 Polyakov Yu.A. 1921: victory over famine. M., 1975. P. 74. 28 Kudryashov G.E. Remnants of Chuvash religious beliefs and their overcoming. Cheboksary, 1961. P. 118. 29 Trifonov I.Ya. Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church (1922-1925) // “Questions of History”. 1972. No. 5. P. 67.
30 Dimitriev V.D. Help of the Soviet state and the Russian people to the working people of Chuvashia in the fight against the famine of 1921-1922. // Notes of the Scientific Research Institute of Literature and Literature under the Council of Ministers of the Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Vol. IV. Cheboksary, 1950. S. 24, 28, 31.
31 GIA CR. F.R. 7. Op. 1. D. 155. L. 2. 32 Ibid. L. 3, 32. 33 Ibid. D. 128, 129, 130, 131. 34 Ibid. F.R. 238. Op. 1. D. 450. L. 1-2. 35 Ibid. F.R. 7. Op. 1. D. 155. L. 18; F.R. 300. Op. 1. D. 19. L. 3-6. 36 Church values ​​and believers // “Chuvash region”. 1922. April 15.
No. 47 (148). P. 1. 37 Essays on the history of the Chuvash regional organization of the Komsomol. Cheboksary,
1978. P. 79. 38 GIA CR. F.R. 300. Op. 1. D. 39. L. 32. 39 For example: State Academy of the Chechen Republic. F.R. 145. Op. 1. D. 30. L. 4, 6, 8, 11, 19, 20-26, 34, 36, 38,
41, 45, 48-51, 58; F.R. 300. Op. 1. D. 18. L. 10; D. 19. L. 8. 40 Ibid. F.R. 145. Op. 1. D. 30. L. 5, 7, 9, 11-11 vol., 19 vol., 20-21 vol., 23 vol.,
24, 26, 35, 37, 39, 41-41 vol., 42 vol. 41 Ibid. L. 12-18, 27-33, 40, 43-44, 52-57. 42 History of Chuvashia in modern times. Book 1. 1917-1945. Cheboksary,
2001. P. 117. 43 GIA CR. F.R. 145. Op. 1. D. 49. L. 25. 44 Chemerissky I.A. Decree. op. pp. 11-12. 45 Letter to V.I. Lenina L.D. Trotsky for members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b)
dated March 19, 1922 / Publ. prepared by Yu. Akhapkin, I. Kitaev, V. Stepanov // News of the CPSU Central Committee. 1990. No. 4. P. 190-195. 46 Ibid. 47 Tsypin V., prot. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal
period. Recent period. M., 2004. pp. 385-387. 48 GIA CR. F.R. 22. Op. 1. D. 235. L. 45.

Confiscation of church valuables in Russia - actions of the Soviet government to requisition church valuables in 1922 under the pretext of fighting mass famine in the Volga region and other regions. As part of the campaign in favor of the state, objects made of precious metals and stones used by the Orthodox Church in worship were confiscated, which caused resistance from representatives of the clergy and some parishioners. The campaign was accompanied by repressions against clergy.

The shooting of parishioners in Shuya on March 15, 1922, during which four people were killed, caused great resonance. The Chairman of the Soviet government, V.I. Lenin, decided to take advantage of the famine and the events in Shuya to “completely defeat” the Orthodox Church. From the very beginning of the operation, the funds seized from the Church were not intended to be used to combat hunger. The development and direct implementation of the seizure campaign were entrusted to L. D. Trotsky.

The highest legislative body of Soviet Russia - the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (chairman M. I. Kalinin) - on January 2, 1922, adopted a resolution “On the liquidation of church property.” On February 23, 1922, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee published a decree in which it ordered local Soviets “... to withdraw from church property transferred for the use of groups of believers of all religions, according to inventories and contracts, all precious objects made of gold, silver and stones, the withdrawal of which cannot significantly affect the interests of the cult itself, and transfer it to the People’s Commissariat of Finance to help the starving.” The decree prescribed “the revision of contracts and the actual seizure of precious things according to inventories with the obligatory participation of representatives of groups of believers for whose use the specified property was transferred.”

Soon after the decree was issued, Patriarch Tikhon wrote a request to the chairman of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Kalinin (since, formally, the initiative for the seizure came from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee). Having not received an answer from the latter, the Patriarch on February 15 (28), 1922, addressed the believers with an Appeal, which later became widely known, in which he condemned the intervention of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in the affairs of the Church, comparing it to sacrilege

<…>We found it possible to allow parish councils and communities to donate precious church decorations and items that have no liturgical use to the needs of the hungry, which we informed the Orthodox population on February 6 (19). d. a special appeal, which was authorized by the Government for printing and distribution among the population.

The campaign to confiscate church valuables in the first half of 1922 alone caused more than 1,400 cases of bloody clashes. There were 231 trials related to these events; 732 people, mostly clergy and monks, were in the dock.

On May 7, 1922, the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal, on charges of opposing the seizure of church property, which was classified as counter-revolutionary activity, convicted 49 people, including sentencing 11 people to death (nine priests and three laymen). Of these, priests Kh. A. Nadezhdin, V. I. Sokolov, A. N. Zaozersky, hieromonk M. Telegin and layman S. F. Tikhomirov were shot.

In Petrograd, 87 people were arrested in connection with resistance to the seizure of valuables from some churches. Their trial took place from June 10 to July 5, 1922. The Petrograd Revolutionary Tribunal sentenced 10 defendants to death, six of whom had their death penalty commuted to imprisonment. Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky), Archimandrite Sergius (Shein), lawyer I.M. Kovsharov and Professor Yu.P. Novitsky were shot.

On May 12, 1922, the Novgorod Revolutionary Tribunal passed a verdict in the case of unrest in connection with the seizure of valuables in Staraya Russa. Priests V.I. Orlov, V.A. Pylaev and N.M. Smyslov were sentenced to death. The remaining 15 defendants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

After the trial of a group of clergy, which took place in Tsaritsyn on June 9, 1922, the vicar of the Don diocese, Nikolai (Orlov), was convicted and executed.

In Smolensk, a visiting session of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Tribunal of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee from August 1 to August 24, 1922 considered the case of the “Smolensk Churchmen”, in which 47 people were involved. Of these, Zalessky, Pivovarov, Myasoedov and Demidov were sentenced to death, and 10 more believers involved in the case were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

The revolutionary tribunal of the Chuvash Autonomous Region in May 1922 conducted a trial against the dean archpriest A. A. Solovyov and a group of believers. Dean A. A. Solovyov and an active participant in the resistance to the seizure N. Ya. Galakhov were sentenced to death.

The second trial of the clergy of Moscow and the Moscow province, the so-called “trial of the second group of clergy,” took place from November 27 to December 31, 1922. The tribunal considered the cases of 105 accused. Among the accused were priests, professors, teachers, students, workers, peasants, etc. The most active participants in resistance to the confiscation of valuables were sentenced to death. However, due to the amnesty announced on the anniversary of the revolution, the execution was replaced by imprisonment.

In 1923, in the VI department (“church”) of the secret political department of the GPU, 301 investigative cases were in progress, 375 people were arrested and 146 people were expelled administratively, including abroad. By the end of 1924, about half of the entire Russian episcopate—66 bishops—had been in prisons and camps. According to the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, the total number of repressed church leaders in 1921-1923. amounted to 10 thousand people, while every fifth person was shot - about 2 thousand in total.

• 

  Vandalism

  Vandalism

• 



Folders with signatures of workers demanding the closure of the Church of the Epiphany on B. Dorogomilovskaya Street. Moscow, 1936

Folders with signatures of workers demanding the closure of the Church of the Epiphany on B. Dorogomilovskaya Street. Moscow, 1936

• 

• 

Some aspects of the confiscation of church valuables in Kuban in 1922.

In accordance with the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of February 25, 1922 (No. 9357) and the Kuban-Cheroblin Executive Committee of March 2, 1922 (No. 98), the Kuban-Black Sea Regional Commission was formed to confiscate church valuables in favor of the starving. On March 6, 1922, the commission began its work.

However, before turning to the facts of the commission’s activities and the functions assigned to it by the Soviet government, I would like to dwell on a number of issues related to the events preceding and accompanying the confiscation of church valuables in the USSR and in particular in the Kuban.
The fact is that, in addition to helping the starving, the seizure pursued other goals that had nothing to do with this help. It is known that in the face of famine, Patriarch Tikhon, back in the fall of 1921, addressed an appeal to the believers of the Russian Orthodox Church, and, with the assistance of the clergy, a significant sum of money was collected in a short time. But the ruling party was looking in the depths of the Orthodox Church not for allies, but for enemies, trying to identify the so-called “Black Hundred clergy,” which had to be dealt with once and for all.

In the Bulletin of the Russian Christian Movement" (Paris, 1970, No. 97) N.A. Struve published a secret letter from V.I. Lenin dated March 19, 1922 on the confiscation of church valuables. The letter was addressed to “Comrade Molotov for members of the Politburo.” It said: “...for us, this particular moment is not only an exceptionally favorable, but generally the only moment when we can, with a 99 out of 100 chance of complete success, completely defeat the enemy and secure for ourselves what we need.” positions for many decades. It is now and only now, when people are being eaten in hungry places and hundreds, if not thousands, of corpses are lying on the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy, not stopping at the suppression of any resistance...

At all costs, we need to carry out the confiscation of church valuables in the most decisive and fastest way, by which we can secure for ourselves a fund of several hundred million gold rubles (we must remember the gigantic wealth of some monasteries and laurels). Without this, no government work in general, no economic construction in particular, and no defense of one’s position in Genoa in particular is completely unthinkable. We must take control of this fund of several hundred million gold rubles (and maybe several billion) at all costs. And this can only be done successfully now. All considerations point to the fact that we will not be able to do this later, because no moment other than desperate famine will give us such a mood among the broad peasant masses that would either provide us with the sympathy of these masses, or at least provide us with neutralization of these masses in the sense that victory in the fight against the confiscation of valuables will remain, unconditionally and completely, on our side...

Therefore, I come to the absolute conclusion that we must now give the most decisive and merciless battle to the Black Hundred clergy [emphasis mine
– A.B.] and suppress his resistance with such cruelty that they will not forget it for several decades...

...At the party congress, arrange a secret meeting of all or almost all delegates on this issue together with the main workers of the GPU, NKYu and the Revolutionary Tribunal. At this meeting, make a secret decision of the congress that the confiscation of valuables, especially the richest laurels, monasteries and churches, must be carried out with merciless determination, of course, stopping at nothing and in the shortest possible time. The more representatives of the reactionary bourgeoisie and the reactionary clergy we manage to shoot on this occasion, the better.”

Thus, in addition to helping the starving, the expropriation of church values ​​also had another goal - reprisal against the “Black Hundred clergy.” According to the priest Mikhail Polsky, during the confiscation of 1922, clergy of various ranks were shot and tortured: in the Kuban - 69, in the Black Sea province - 37 people.

Now let’s turn directly to the topic of confiscation of church valuables. During March 1922, separate commissions were created in the departments of the Kuban-Black Sea region, which were subordinate to the regional commission. So, for example, on March 22, 1922, in accordance with the resolution of the Kuban-Black Sea Regional Commission for the confiscation of church valuables in favor of the hungry dated March 6, 1922 (protocol No. 1), a commission was formed for the confiscation of church valuables at the Krasnodar department of administration.

To produce inventories of church property, the following were appointed: the head of the departmental financial department, the chairman of the bureau of justice and the chairman of the famine relief committee.

The Krasnodar departmental commission included: a representative from the executive committee of the Krasnodar department (surname not specified), chairman of the famine relief committee Onipko, from the Bureau of Justice Borisov, from the regional financial department Shelkochev, from the committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Pushkov.

At a meeting of the regional commission on March 7, 1922 (Minutes No. 2), a resolution was adopted on the procedure for making inventories of church property and confiscating it for the benefit of the starving. The resolution was prepared by the head of the justice department, Bazarov.

According to the resolution, the commissions were asked to immediately, “by speaking at meetings and rallies, explain to the population the essence and purpose of the upcoming use of church values ​​and invite the local clergy, for their part, to explain to believers about the need to use church values ​​to sow the fields and save the starving population of the Republic.”

In addition, the commissions were required to:
“- as soon as possible, begin compiling an inventory of all church property that belonged to one or another religious group or organization;
- for each temple, house of worship, monastery, chapel, mosque, synagogue, etc., a separate inventory must be compiled in three copies, two of which are submitted to the regional commission, and the third is kept in the local commission;
- each item must be included in the inventory separately, indicating the material from which it is made; only homogeneous items consisting of the same material can be included in the inventory in total;
- when compiling such inventories, the presence of clergy of a given religion and a representative of a given parish council is mandatory;
- until the Regional Commission reviews the inventories, individual commissions in departments and chairmen of mutual assistance committees in populated areas do not have the right to take any action regarding the seizure of valuables;
- the right to determine which church values ​​are subject to confiscation belongs only to the Regional Commission."

In March 1922, a meeting of deans of the Kuban and Black Sea dioceses was held under the chairmanship of Bishop John, Bishop of Kuban and Krasnodar. The meeting was attended by: the comrade of the chairman, the dean of the church in Krasnodar, Archpriest Fr. Alexander Ivanov and secretary - dean of the 27th district of the Kuban diocese, priest Fr. Timofey Bondarenko.
At the meeting it was decided: due to the fact that “the famine that has befallen many places in our homeland has assumed terrifying proportions, and thousands of our brothers are dying of hunger every day in terrible agony”:

"1. Take the most active part in the implementation of the said decree, inducing communities of believers to donate church valuables, leaving in churches only the necessary ones for church and liturgical purposes;
2. The minimum necessary for church and liturgical purposes is:
- for a single-altar church: one ark, one large and two small Gospels, two altar crosses, two bowls, two paten, two spoons, three plates and two ladles;
- for a two-altar church: two arks, two large and two small Gospels, four altar crosses, two bowls, two paten, two spoons, four plates and two ladles;
- for a three-altar church: three arks, three large and three small Gospels, six altar crosses, three bowls, three paten, three spoons, four plates and two ladles.
- in addition to this, leave for each priest a monstrance, a cross and a censer for communion with the sick and correction of needs.
3. Robes from icons can be removed only if their removal does not distort or disfigure the icon;
4. When the regional commission considers the inventory of the property of each church to determine the items subject to seizure, the following must be present: from the clergy - a representative of the Kuban diocesan administration and from the laity a representative appointed by the same administration on the rights of its co-opted members;
5. The number of members of the commission for the actual seizure of valuables on the ground should include, in addition to all members, the clergy and representatives from parishes represented by parish councils;
6. To ask the regional commission to take measures to ensure that the representatives participating from the executive committees carefully and tactfully carry out the confiscation of church valuables in order to avoid offending the religious feelings of believers...;
7. Seized things, as consecrated things, which, according to the canons of the church, can only be touched by the hand of a clergyman, must be accompanied up to the All-Russian Committee of Pomgol by a clergyman...;
8. The clergy of the diocese shall be charged with the sacred duty of explaining to believers both the purpose of the confiscation of church valuables and the extreme necessity of this sacrifice in the name of saving human lives...”

At a meeting of the regional commission on March 18, 1922, it was decided to admit representatives of the Diocesan Administration and lay people to the commission with advisory rights
vote; allow the clergyman to actually confiscate church valuables, pack them and accompany them to the regional commission; it was recognized as necessary to leave the required number of objects, without which religious rites cannot be performed, and also to refrain from such actions that would devalue or disfigure a church object, and if it is of great value, take measures to replace it with a less valuable object; At a meeting of the commission on March 22, 1922, it was decided to recognize the following items as essential for the interests of the cult and necessary for the performance of religious rites:

1. For a single-altar church - one ark, one large and two small Gospels, two altar crosses, two bowls, one paten, two spoons, two plates and two ladles;
2. For two or more altar churches: two arks, 2 large and 4 small Gospels, two altar crosses, two bowls, two paten, two spoons, three plates and three ladles.
3. Moreover, a monstrance, a cross and a censer are necessary for every priest.

In accordance with the resolutions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Kuban-Black Sea Regional Commission, in March 1922, an instruction was drawn up “On the procedure for the confiscation of church valuables for the benefit of the hungry” with the following content:
1. Separate commissions for the confiscation of church valuables in individual cities and villages, and the chairmen of mutual assistance committees in all other settlements of the region, on the basis of inventories and other data available to them, establish the next procedure for confiscation of valuables depending on the available in one or another temple of valuables, and first of all, values ​​​​are subject to confiscation from the richest temples, monasteries, synagogues, chapels, etc.
2. Having established the procedure for the immediate work, the commissions and chairmen of mutual aid committees appoint a day and hour for the work to be carried out in a given building and call the clergy of a given temple, chapel, synagogue, etc., and representatives of the laity from the parish council in the amount of three to the appointed hour up to five persons with all the documents and inventories they have (and, of course, the old, pre-1917, church inventory or inventory book must be presented, according to which the availability of church treasures is checked.
3. Upon arrival of the clergy and representatives of the laity at the site, the commissions and chairmen of mutual aid committees begin to remove from church property all precious objects made of gold, silver and stones, the removal of which cannot significantly affect the interests of the cult itself.
4. The following items are recognized as essential for the interests of the cult and necessary for the performance of religious rituals:
- for a single-altar church - one ark, one large and two small Gospels, two altar crosses, two bowls, one paten, two spoons, two plates and two ladles;
- for two or more altar churches: two arks, 2 large and 4 small Gospels, two altar crosses, two bowls, two paten, two spoons, three plates and three ladles.
- in addition, the monstrance, the cross and the censer are necessary for every priest.
Only items made of gold, silver and stones are subject to confiscation from church property; other metals (copper, fragé) are not subject to confiscation.
5. The church objects specified in paragraph 4 of this instruction, if they are available only in the quantity specified in the same paragraph 4, are not subject to seizure, even if they were made of gold, silver and stones; only if there are the same items made of less valuable metals, the first are removed, and the second (less valuable) remain.
6. Replacing precious items with the same items made from less valuable metals is mandatory, as long as the latter are available.
7. Robes from icons, if they are of great value and can be separated from the icons, are subject to removal, if their removal will not disfigure the icons and if it (the robe) can be replaced with something else (material).
8. If any doubts arise when confiscating church objects or objections from the laity that this object is essential and necessary for worship, it is necessary to request clarification from the regional commission, and the controversial object should be temporarily left in the temple, synagogue, chapel, etc.
9. A detailed inventory is drawn up of all precious items removed from church property.
10. When compiling an inventory of seized valuable items, all seized items consisting of gold, silver and precious stones are accurately described and placed by a representative of the cult under the supervision of the commission and chairmen of mutual assistance committees in special boxes and are also noted here in the inventory available at the temple and are entered into a special protocol, signed by both members of the commission and representatives of the laity and clergy.
Note: If any item listed in the inventory book is not available, a special protocol is drawn up and submitted to the regional department of justice for investigation and bringing the perpetrators to justice.
11. Representatives of the laity have the right to include in the protocol all their comments and objections regarding the transfer to the benefit of the hungry of items, without which the performance of worship is impossible, and their replacement with others of less value.
12. All church property seized on the basis of this instruction by the chairmen of mutual assistance committees is sent to separate commissions, and the latter hand it over to the financial departments for sending it, in accordance with the instructions of January 21, 1922, to local commissions for accounting, seizure and concentration of valuables , to regional financial departments.
Note: 1. No sale of values ​​is carried out locally; 2. The clergy, if expressed a desire, together with representatives of the authorities, accompany the confiscated church valuables from the villages to the departments and further to the region at their own expense.
13. During seizures, one should in no way allow feelings of anger and contempt for the religious feelings of believers to manifest themselves in the actions of government agents and should avoid any attitude towards clergy and believers that is inappropriate for the workers’ authorities.
14. Separate commissions for the seizure of church treasures send all inventories of church property upon completion of the work on the seizure of jewelry to the regional commission and, in addition, weekly submit a detailed list of valuables seized from local churches, chapels, synagogues, etc., indicating names of the latter.
On March 25, 1922, the Krasnoe Znamya newspaper published an archpastoral appeal and minutes of a meeting of deans of the Kuban and Black Sea diocese on support for actions to confiscate valuables, which was considered an act of “donation.” The publication was intended to prepare public opinion for the upcoming requisitions in churches.

Due to the fact that on the eve of the campaign of confiscation of church valuables in churches and monasteries, thefts of church property became more frequent, at the end of March secret circulars from Moscow were sent to local commissions with instructions to “establish the strictest monitoring of the investigations into cases of thefts that have become more frequent recently from monasteries and churches” and demands: to bring the custodians of church property to criminal and civil liability “even in cases where the direct thieves have not been detected...”.

At the beginning of April 1922, a campaign began to confiscate church valuables. On April 5, 1922, the chairman of the Krasnodar departmental commission, Onipko, reported to the regional commission that “the accounting of the church property of the Krasnodar department was not carried out due to the abnormal receipt of inventories of church property from settlements, of which only 5 have been received so far.”

On April 18, 1922, in Krasnodar, Pre-Kubpolitdel, a code message arrived from Moscow, which said: “the desire of the clergy to accompany the values ​​of Moscow needs to be organized so that representatives of the loyal clergy go, who could be used in Moscow. Hostile priests are not needed."

On April 19, 1922, the plenipotentiary representative of the Archbishop of Kuban reported to the Kubcheroblast Executive Committee about the robbery of the Intercession and Greek churches in Krasnodar, as well as churches in the villages of Andreevskaya and Afipskaya.

This ended the preparatory stage of confiscation of church valuables, and on April 26 the confiscation began. Valuables were seized from the Yekaterinodar Cathedral (including from the property of the house churches of the former diocesan women's and commercial schools stored there) and from the synagogue. In the Catherine Cathedral, the commission worked twice more after that - on April 28 and May 12. On May 2 and 5, the property of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral was confiscated; May 6 – Dmitrievskaya and Intercession churches; May 8 Nikolaevskaya, Troitskaya, Ilyinskaya and Skorbyashchenskaya (at the city hospital); May 10 All Saints (at the city cemetery); On May 11, the commission visited the Mikhailo-Arkhangelsk courtyard of the Krasnogorsk monastery (at the corner of Gogolevskaya and Plastunovskaya (Yankovsky) streets, from which nine silver vestments from small icons and two lamps were seized; as well as the St. George courtyard of the Balaklava monastery (at the corner of Severnaya and Sedina streets) , where two silver plates and a “crowbar” (spoons, forks, etc.) were confiscated, instead of which a bowl and paten were left.

At a meeting of the regional commission on May 22, 1922, it was decided to remove church valuables from the crypts of the Catherine and Alexander Nevsky Cathedrals, as well as from the Sorrowful (In the Name of the Icon of the Mother of God Joy of All Who Sorrow) and Cemetery (In the Name of All Saints). At the same time, the regional commission categorically invited the departmental commissions to immediately complete the seizure of valuables, and urgently hand over everything confiscated to the regional financial department. In the same resolution, departmental commissions were required to explain the reasons for failure to complete the confiscation of valuables within the prescribed period of May 20.

At the same time, seizures also took place in other settlements of Krasnodar and other departments of the Kuban-Black Sea region. Let us give several examples of seizures from churches in the Krasnodar department.

On May 5, the valuables seized from the St. Michael the Archangel Church were delivered to the regional financial department. Kirpilskaya Ekaterinodar department, namely: silver altar cross (92 gold), plate (12 gold), spoon (11 gold), censer (75;
gold), ladle 17; gold), decorations from the Great Gospel (1 pound 91; gold), total 4 pounds 12 gold.

On May 8, those confiscated from the one-altar church of St. Baku: one silver paten (26 gold 56 shares), two crosses (1 pound 25 gold 48 shares), two plates (18 gold), one spoon (6 gold 36 shares), one bowl (58 gold . 84 shares) “and two gospels, of which one is large, one is small with silver overlays. Due to the fact that the gospel is not of value, they were returned back to comrade. Lobchenko upon removing silver plates from them, the weight of which was expressed at 1 pound 54 gold. 24 shares, and a total of 3 f. 93 gold 58 dollars.” .

On May 16, items confiscated from the Savvinovskaya and Assumption churches were delivered. Korenovskaya: one silver bowl (1 pound 2 gold), two paten (93 gold), two stars (42 gold), four plates (72 gold), one spoon (15 gold), three crosses (4 pounds 27 gold), three stands for crosses (4 pounds), a total of 11 pounds 59 gold. “During the reception, by comparing each item with the list specified in relation to the executive committee, one cross and two stands for crosses turned out to be excessively donated. The indicated values ​​are accepted and included in the account of transferable assets under Art. No. 324".

On May 17, the valuables seized from the Assumption and Ascension churches were delivered. Ladoga: one silver bowl (1 pound 68 gold), one ladle (35 gold), two plates (39 gold), one spoon (10 gold), two broken censers (1 pound 35 gold), silver lids and a corner from the Gospels and vestments from icons for a total of 6 pounds 56 ash.
From the hut churches. At the same time, Alexandrovsky was delivered: two silver bowls (2 pounds 32 gold), two paten (87 gold), two stars (41 gold), two spoons (24 gold), four plates (44 gold). ), two crosses, including 1 cross with enamel (2 pounds 84 gold), one Ark (2 pounds 75 gold), one tabernacle (65 gold), one censer (87 gold), silver lids, corners , nuts and other scraps from the Gospels (4 pounds 64 gold), a silver cigarette case (43 gold), one small silver cross (2 gold), one paten (2 gold), one star (18 gold), 1 spoon (8 gold), cup (1 pound 1 gold), lid from the Gospel (20 gold). In addition to the above values, they are accepted as voluntarily donated by the church clergy. Bolgova one silver pectoral cross without chain weighing 6 gold. And one silver cigarette case, donated by someone unknown, weighing 43 gold. In total, silver weighing 28 pounds 32 gold was accepted. The said valuables were credited on May 17 to the account of “transferable valuables” under Art. No. 29.

On May 22, valuables seized from the Nativity of the Virgin Mary Church were delivered. Starokorsunskaya: one cup of low-grade silver (1 pound 47 gold), four silver crosses, including one low-grade (2 pounds 92 gold), two silver paten, including one low-grade (86 gold), one silver star (20 gold), two silver spoons, including one of low quality (18 gold), two silver plates (35 gold), one silver censer (1 pound 18 gold), one silver gospel cover, five overlays for it and four low-grade rims, a total of 90 gold. In total, silver weighing 9 pounds, 22 spools, 72 shares was accepted, which was recorded in the account of transferable assets under Art. No. 436.

On May 29, valuables were delivered from the churches of St. Platnirovskaya: silver bowl (89 gold), lids from the Gospel (2 pounds 55 gold). A total of 3 pounds 48 spools were accepted and credited to the transferable assets account under Art. No. 373.

In general, the confiscation continued from April to July 1922, despite the fact that the regional commission demanded that the confiscation be completed as early as the 20th of May, threatening the local commissions with “trial by a revolutionary tribunal.”

The following were confiscated from Catherine's Cathedral: 12 silver bowls, 4 tabernacles, 10 patens, 9 stars, 10 crosses, 2 spears, 7 ladles, 15 plates, a stand for the cross, 14 robes from icons, a monstrance, a censer, robes from small icons, stands from the Gospels and others for only more than 7 pounds.

From the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral - 29 silver vestments, 3 crosses, 2 bowls, 2 patens, 12 lamps, 2 stars, monstrance and tabernacle, 3 censers, 2 frames from the Gospel, as well as “crowbar” (spoons, glasses, etc.) in exchange for the left silver robe from the icon” - more than 6 poods.

Among the things seized from the cathedral was a wooden cross, partially covered with enamel, from the end of the 18th century, which was included in the category of “untouchable” by the cathedral administration. Due to its enormous historical value, it was transferred on June 8, 1922 to the regional board for museums, protection of monuments of art and antiquity, folk life and nature. Two ancient Gospels, two bowls and an icon of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker were also transferred to the museum from the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral.

Similar lists were compiled for all other temples, the weight of each item was taken into account with the utmost accuracy. In the Church of the Resurrection on Fortress Square, under the refectory of which rested the ashes of the city’s founder, Zakhary Chepega, in addition to the cup, cross, lamps and vestments from the icons, two silver medals and a breastplate weighing 9 spools, as well as two gold orders weighing 6 spools were confiscated.

During the period of confiscation of church valuables, the churches of Kuban lost many relics and treasures that had been collected over many decades. Among them: “Royal gifts” of Catherine the Great, the fortune of the elderly Mokiy Gulik, who donated to the military cathedral the icons of the Most Holy Theotokos and John the Warrior, “depicted on granite and poured in gold,” as well as numerous donations from the local population, accustomed donate various valuables to temples.

It should be noted that the process of confiscation of church valuables was quite difficult in Kuban. Believers resisted the seizure as best they could. In the city of Yeisk, things came to a mass uprising of the population, which among historians was called the “Yeisk uprising” or “Yeisk riots.” The authorities organized a trial of the participants in these riots in March-April 1923 in Krasnodar.

Events developed as follows. In May 1922, a commission to confiscate church valuables appeared in the Archangel Michael Cathedral, where church valuables collected by several generations of Yerevan residents were kept. Bishop Eusebius of Yeisk ordered the alarm to be sounded. Hearing the ringing of church bells, hundreds of city residents gathered on Cathedral Square to protect the shrines. The commission was expelled from the temple. The situation became so serious that the authorities decided to withdraw troops from the barracks. With their help, those gathered in the square were dispersed. According to rumors, there were victims on both sides. Who was the person who organized the mass protest of Yeych residents against the actions of the Soviet government to confiscate church valuables? This was Bishop Eusebius of Yeisk.

Evgeniy Petrovich Rozhdestvensky (Eusebius) was born on December 22, 1886 in the Tambov province, into the family of a priest. In 1907 he graduated from Tambov Theological Seminary; in 1911 from the Kazan Theological Academy, receiving a candidate of theology degree. In the same year he was ordained to the rank of hieromonk, and in 1919 to the rank of archimandrite of the Moscow St. Danilov Monastery. On March 15, 1920, Patriarch Tikhon Eusebius was consecrated bishop of the Yaransky vicar of the Vyatka province. At the end of 1921 he joined the Yeisk department.

According to contemporaries, Eusebius was a man of few words, strict in matters of church discipline, and opposed to a careless attitude towards divine services. He sought to preserve all the holy dogmas and canons of the Russian Orthodox Church. That is why he was an irreconcilable opponent of the so-called “renovationists”, supporters of the “Living Church” movement, supported by the Cheka/OGPU, which largely determined his entire future fate.

In December 1922, Eusebius and 19 of the most active participants in the uprising were arrested and taken to Krasnodar to the Cheka prison. On March 27, 1923, they appeared before the Revolutionary Tribunal on charges of organizing sabotage against the seizure of church valuables and “counter-revolutionary actions.” The “show” trial lasted 23 days. Court hearings were held in entertainment venues and attracted a lot of people, especially on Saturday evenings. The Krasnoe Znamya newspaper, which widely covered the trial, did not skimp on mocking labels towards the accused, and the speeches in court as a representative of the public prosecution by the chairman of the local society “Bezbozhnik”, a certain Belousov, sometimes took on a scandalous character: the “militant atheist” insulted not only the feelings of believers, but also the law. The opinions of the public were divided: as the newspaper reported, ladies, some of the workers, NEP representatives and clergy sympathized with the bishop, while the “party mass” condemned his actions. The chairman of the “militant atheists” demanded the death penalty for Eusebius. The court, having found all the accused guilty and guided by a “revolutionary conscience,” sentenced Bishop Eusebius (Rozhdestvensky) to imprisonment “in strict isolation” for seven years. The rest were sentenced to shorter terms. After his release, Eusebius becomes Archbishop of Chita and Transbaikal, and then Archbishop of Yekaterinburg. In 1937, he was shot as an “unrepentant enemy of the people.” Currently, the Russian Orthodox Church is considering the issue of counting Bishop Eusebius among the Russian new martyrs.

On July 22, 1922, the regional commission announced the end of the confiscation of valuables in the Kuban region. Only from Krasnodar the regional financial department received: silver - 23 poods 16 pounds 57 spools 48 shares, gold - 16 spools 27 shares.

In general, for the region (according to incomplete data), the regional financial department received: 136 poods of silver. 1 lb. 40 gold, gold 4 pounds. 63 gold 55 shares, silver money: bank money for 41 rubles, change money for 67 rubles. 83 kopecks, copper coins worth 20 rubles. 69 kopecks The text of the document contains a note: “The confiscation of valuables in the region has been completed. The adoption of values ​​in the obfo continues. There are unacceptable values ​​in the obfo, the weight of which is unknown; no valuables arrived from the most remote points of the region.”

Thus, the Soviet government, having confiscated church valuables to exchange them abroad for bread, in quantities exceeding the needs of the starving, basically kept them at home. According to the calculations of modern researchers, the “operation” to confiscate church valuables gave the Soviet government 8 thousand 400 tons of silver in 1922, while no more than 0.6% of the proceeds were used for the needs of the hungry.

Nevertheless, the resulting values ​​played an important role in carrying out the monetary reform of 1924 (Soviet gold chervonets were minted from gold seized from the church). In general, the stabilization of the Russian economy during that period was largely due to funds seized from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Notes:

1. State institution of the Krasnodar Territory “State Archives of the Krasnodar Territory” (hereinafter referred to as GAKK). F. R-102. Op. 1. D. 287. L. 1, 3;
2. Ekaterinodar-Krasnodar. Two centuries of the city in dates, events, memories... Materials for the Chronicle. Krasnodar, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Ekaterinodar-Krasnodar... Materials for the Chronicle). P. 473;
3. Voronezh diocesan bulletin. Voronezh. 1992. No. 8. P. 21-22;
4. Orthodox Voice of Kuban, February 2004, No. 2 (159) (based on materials from the book by Mikhail Polsky New Russian Martyrs. Vol. 2. Jordanville, 1957);
5. GACC. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 27. L. 1;
6. GACC. Right there. F. R-102. Op. 1. D. 287. L. 1;
7. GACC. Right there. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 27. L. 1;
8. GACC. Right there. F. R-102. Op. 1. D. 287. L. 2;
9. GACC. Right there. L. 3;
10. GACC. Ibid;
11. GACC. Right there. L. 17;
12. GACC. Right there. L. 14;
13. GACC. Right there. L. 18;
14. GACC. Right there. L. 36;
15. Ekaterinodar-Krasnodar... Materials for the Chronicle. P. 474;
16. Ibid.;
17. GACC. F. R-102. Op. 1. D. 287. L. 44;
18. GACC. Right there. L. 59;
19. GACC. Right there. L. 60;
20. Ekaterinodar-Krasnodar... Materials for the Chronicle. P. 475.
21. GACC. F. R-102. Op. 1. D. 287. L. 153;
22. GACC. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 44. L. 7;
23. GACC. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 34. L. 6;
24. GACC. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 51. L. 9;
25. GACC. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 39. L. 21-21-rev.;
26. GACC. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 35. L. 9;
27. GACC. F. R-202. Op. 1. D. 41. L. 14;
28. GACC. F. R-102. Op. 1. D. 287. L. 157, 170; D. 284. L. 54-rev.;
29. Ekaterinodar-Krasnodar... Materials for the Chronicle. P. 477;
30. Ibid. P. 477;
31. Ibid. P. 477;
32. Ivanov A.F. Defender of church values. //History of Yeisk in persons and events. Magazine archive. 2009. Handbook No. 5 (46); gas. Red flag. 25 Apr 1923. No. 89 (896).
33. Ekaterinodar-Krasnodar... Materials for the Chronicle. P. 477;
34. F. R-102. Op. 1. D. 287. L. 176-177 (in the given data there is a discrepancy between the information by departments and the final data, which may have occurred due to the fact that the valuables continued to arrive from the departments of the region even after the official end of their confiscation, as a result of which the numbers were constantly changing).
35. Rusak V. Feast of Satan. Jordanville, 1991. Cited. in Ekaterinodar-Krasnodar... Materials for the Chronicle. P. 474.

Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the confiscation of church valuables: from the search for compromise to confrontation

A special place in the history of relations between the authorities and the church is occupied by the “execution” year of 1922, associated with the resumption of the course of the RCP (b) towards the destruction of the church. The period began with the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the confiscation of church valuables dated February 23, 1922. The decree marked a departure from the line of a possible compromise between the church and the authorities and opened a campaign of confiscation of church valuables that was unprecedented in scope. The campaign was timed to coincide with the famine that gripped Russia in 1921. The years of the Civil War and “war communism”, devastation and endless confiscations, depleted both the country’s grain reserves and the personal reserves of the farmers. The insignificant size of new harvests was a consequence of the outflow of part of the peasantry at that time to the army and the city, as well as ruin by exorbitant taxes. The NEP mechanisms created by the authorities have not yet produced the expected results. To all the troubles in the summer of 1921, drought in the Volga region was added. As a result, the grain-growing country was struck by an unprecedented famine that threatened to develop into a national catastrophe. The Great Famine affected not only the Volga region, but also the Urals, Siberia, southern Russia and part of Ukraine. The scale of the famine was shocking. Foreign countries offered a “helping hand” to Russia. Anatole France donated his Nobel Prize to the starving people. American Administrative Assistance (ARA) allocated 25 thousand wagons of food. Christian duty called upon the church to come to the aid of the victims of the great shock. The Pope donated 1 million lire to the starving people. This was not the first famine in Russian history, although it was one of the worst. Russia has experienced huge crop failures before, the consequences of which had a particularly hard impact on the country's peasant population. Famine in the peasant consciousness was associated with a severe shock, one of the most tragic events. Over the centuries, mechanisms were developed that guaranteed peasant survival in the event of famine. The main one among them was the community with its peculiarities of economic, social organization and, most importantly, a system of mutual support 1. A powerful factor in helping the hungry in Russia were also the old zemstvo traditions, the activities of various societies and rescue committees, which raised the entire Russian society to fight hunger . A manifestation of such traditions in 1921 was the public Committee for Famine Relief, around which the broadest sections of the population rallied. However, the Bolsheviks subjected zemstvo traditions not only to political condemnation, but also to direct destruction. The committee was soon dissolved by the authorities, and its members were persecuted. On July 18, 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee created a structure designed to solve the problem of combating hunger at the state level - the Central Commission for Assistance to the Famineous under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Central Committee Pomgol), chaired by M.I. Kalinin, which existed until September 1922. 2. Now that the authorities concentrated the work of helping the hungry in their own hands, leaving no opportunity for public organizations to participate in it, destroying the established order for centuries, the Russian Orthodox Church took upon itself the task of uniting society in the face of the threat of a national catastrophe. The active participation of the church in the fight against hunger has been traditional. But this tradition was later destroyed. The Church began to look for ways to save the hungry in the summer of 1921. Patriarch Tikhon addressed the Russian flock, the peoples of the world, and the heads of Christian churches abroad with a mournful and passionate message, every word of which cried out for mercy: “...The greatest disaster has struck Russia. The pastures and fields of its entire regions, which were previously the breadbasket of the country and surprised other nations with their abundance, were burned by the sun. Dwellings were depopulated and villages turned into cemeteries of the unburied dead. Those who are still able, flee from this kingdom of horror and death without looking back, leaving their homes everywhere and earth. The horrors are innumerable... In the name and for the sake of Christ, the Holy Church calls you through my lips to the feat of brotherly selfless love. Rush to the aid of those in need with hands full of gifts of mercy, with a heart full of love and desire to save a dying brother... Help! Help the country that has always helped others! Help the country that fed many and is now dying of hunger..." 3. In the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and a number of parishes in Moscow, Patriarch Tikhon held services and called on believers to donate. At the same time, the patriarch addressed the authorities with a letter dated August 22, 1921, in which he declared the church’s readiness to voluntarily help the hungry and organize the collection of monetary, material and food donations. Tikhon's proposal was a broad famine relief program. To organize the comprehensive systematic collection and distribution of donations, a Church Committee was formed consisting of clergy and laity, the work of which the Patriarch took under his personal leadership. In the provinces, a network of church organizations was created for the same purpose. The Patriarch put forward several conditions necessary for the unhindered development of this activity: granting the Committee the right to collect donations through sermons, publishing proclamations, organizing religious and moral readings, etc. , purchase food in Russia and receive donations from abroad, set up canteens, food warehouses and distribution points, open medical aid stations; the right of the Committee to organize periodic meetings of authorized representatives; not to confiscate the monetary and material property of the Committee; lack of accountability of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate 4. Patriarch Tikhon's appeals caused a mixed reaction in society and among the authorities. The people, who themselves do not always have even the most necessary things, immediately responded to the calls of the church and in all churches in Russia, in August 1921, the collection of voluntary donations began. The clergy, in turn, began to create diocesan committees to help the hungry. The great test, cooperation in the fight against hunger, could become the basis for a possible compromise in the relationship between the church and the authorities, if the authorities needed this compromise. And although at an emergency meeting of the Presidium of the Pomgol Central Committee the creation of the Church Committee was recognized as expedient 5, a dialogue between the church and the authorities did not work out. V.I. Lenin, L.D. Trotsky, I.V. Stalin, G.E. Zinoviev, P.A. Krasikov, E.M. Yaroslavsky and some other prominent party members sharply opposed the participation of the church in helping the hungry. Patriarch Tikhon’s attempts to introduce the church’s activities in this direction into a legal framework and to approve the “Regulations on the Church Committee” encountered a blank Kremlin wall, which was not immediately broken through. The formal basis for the refusal to approve the regulation was the prohibition of charitable activities by all religious organizations by the instruction of the People's Commissariat of Justice of August 30, 1918. There was no response to the repeated appeal of Patriarch Tikhon, addressed directly to M.I. Kalinin on August 31, 1921. The delay in answering the patriarch was due to persistent struggle at the top over the question of the participation of the church in helping the starving population of Russia. Supporters of church assistance were A.I. Rykov, L.B. Kamenev and especially M.I. Kalinin, as Chairman of the Central Committee of Pomgol. They will continue to defend this position in the future. In the meantime, M.I. Kalinin tried in vain to break the resistance of hardliners. He succeeded only temporarily. Only the sharp deterioration of the situation in the country by the end of autumn and beginning of winter of 1921, when the number of starving people reached 23 million and was predicted to increase to 50 million, probably influenced opponents of church aid. On December 8, 1921, after much hesitation, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution giving the Church Committee official permission to raise funds for the hungry 6. After allowing the church to make donations, authorities attempted to restrict the church's charitable activities by strictly regulating them. There followed a long development of instructions on the grounds on which to allow this activity. Finally, on February 1, 1922, the corresponding regulations on the Church Committee and on the participation of the church in helping the hungry were approved, and a few days later, instructions establishing the procedure for collecting donations, their directions and reporting forms. All actions of the clergy to collect donations were carried out only with the knowledge of the Soviet authorities. The rights of the patriarch were strictly limited: he could appeal for help to the hungry to citizens of Russia and foreign countries, to diocesan bishops about organizing donations, replenish the Supreme Church Administration with new members who would be in charge of collecting donations, send his representative to develop a distribution plan collected funds. Local orders for the collection of donations could be made by diocesan and district bishops. Collections were made in churches during Sunday or holiday services on a plate by members of parish councils, before which the patriarch's proclamations were read out or appropriate sermons were delivered. Other methods of collecting donations were also allowed: visiting parishioners door to door, organizing lectures, etc. The collected amounts were entered into statements and handed over to the church warden for safekeeping. The statements also recorded the donors' wishes regarding the direction of the collected funds. After a month, all donations were transferred to the dean, and he, with a general summary, was transferred to the diocesan bishop, who, in turn, along with the final statement, sent the funds to the local commissions of Pomgol. The commissions distributed donations with the participation of Parish Councils. All donations received by the patriarch from Russia or abroad were sent by him to the Central Committee of Pomgol. Control over the activities of the Orthodox clergy in providing assistance to the hungry was carried out by the Central Committee of Pomgol and the bodies of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate in the center and the Provincial Commissions in the localities. Donations to the church could also consist of church jewelry, the collection of which was carried out in accordance with special instructions 7. Regulatory documents adopted by the central government limited the initiative of the church and the actions of the Church Committee. A hostile attitude towards the activities of the clergy was also observed on the part of local authorities. Thus, the diocesan committee to help the famine-stricken in Samara lasted a little over a week, managing to collect 1,250 rubles. His activities in collecting funds to help the starving were recognized as “counter-revolutionary”, all members led by Bishop Pavel were arrested and convicted 8. Two requests from the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M.I. Kalinin (February 1 and March 27, 1922) to the Samara Gubernia Executive Committee on this case, with reference to permission for religious organizations to help famine relief, remained unanswered. Thus, the local authorities ignored not only the proposals of the churchmen, but also the actions of the highest state structure 9. Contrary to the authorities’ desires to limit or completely prohibit the church from helping the hungry, by February 1922, it had collected more than 8 million 926 thousand rubles, not counting jewelry, gold coins and food helping the hungry 10. So, all attempts by the church to find options for a compromise with the state in the joint fight against hunger were met with resistance from the authorities, based on the principles of the relationship between the proletarian state and the church proclaimed in 1918. Gradually, the church's initiatives were rejected, it lost one position after another. The next step was the closure of the Church Committee and the transfer of all collected valuables to the Pomgol Central Committee. Thus, the basis of voluntary cooperation with the state in the fight against hunger, created by the church, was destroyed. The authorities did not need an ally church, but an enemy church. Then, obviously, the idea was born to use hunger as an excuse to destroy the church. It is difficult to agree with those researchers who still believe that the confiscation of church valuables was intended as one of the ways to solve the problem of hunger. Playing on the people's misfortune, one could accuse the church of concealing funds that could save thousands of lives, arouse anger towards the church and lead to the need to expropriate its values ​​for public needs. In this sense, hunger was the best reason. Realizing that the people will not allow churches to be robbed and that bloodshed will not be avoided, it will be possible to blame the church for the bloodshed and use this to destroy it. Therefore, the shots in Shuya will sound as a signal for the start of a new “class battle”. Only in this way does the meaning of the prohibitions of the church itself from participating in the fight against hunger become clear. The development of the issue of confiscation of church valuables was carried out along two lines - along the party and along the Soviet lines, the friction between which on the church issue was not yet so clearly manifested, although it was already apparent at the preparatory stage. At this time, the VIII (from 1922 - V) department of the People's Commissariat of Justice was in charge of the “religious issue” in the country. His tasks included managing relations between the state and confessions: coordinating the work of central and local authorities, preparing regulations regulating the activities of religious organizations, as well as combating violations of legislation on cults. The department's instructions and explanations regulated the procedure for resolving practical issues related to the implementation of the decree on the separation of church from state and school from church. Locally, under the provincial executive committees, there were departments or subdepartments for implementing the decree, and in some provinces there were commissariats for church affairs. Despite the attempts of the NKVD and the GPU to concentrate the “religious issue” in their hands, the V Department of the People’s Commissariat of Justice remained leading in matters of implementing church policy, although it increasingly moved away, turning into an expert advisory body. The Presidium and the Secretariat of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee 11 also dealt with religious issues. The issue of anti-religious propaganda was concentrated in the party bodies; it was supervised by a commission under the Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) (Agitpropotdel). The Central Committee of the RCP(b) of course led not only the ideological side of the matter. But the beginning of the period under study was characterized by a balance between these bodies in the degree of influence on the formation of the state course in relation to the church. The campaign to confiscate church valuables was the watershed that marked the beginning of the decisive influence of the party and the GPU-OGPU on the church policy of the Soviet state. The functions between the two branches of government in the matter of confiscation of church property were not strictly demarcated at first. L.D. Trotsky undertook to “simplify” and subordinate the “religious question” to the party-chekist control, and he was entrusted with the overall leadership of the preparation of the campaign. Back on November 11, 1921, L.D. Trotsky was appointed “responsible for unifying and accelerating work on the search for foreign exchange reserves, regardless of their origin,” and later - Special Representative of the Council of People’s Commissars for accounting and concentration of values. G.D. Bazilevich became the Deputy Special Commissioner. L.D. Trotsky was entrusted with a significant scale of work: banks, warehouses, storage facilities, then closed monasteries and churches, then museums, palaces, estates. The work of first “concentrating” and then confiscating the values ​​of the church acquired an organizational basis and the character of a powerful campaign, largely thanks to the efforts of L.D. Trotsky. He constantly encouraged the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) to “accelerate” the confiscation of valuables. So, on January 12, 1922, L.D. Trotsky telegraphed V.I. Lenin about speeding up the removal of valuables from monasteries and asked to appoint a politically trained and authoritative comrade to this area of ​​work 12. The preparation of a resolution of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the procedure for the removal and accounting of church valuables was entrusted to the "central troika" - one of the bodies operating under the leadership of L.D. Trotsky, consisting of representatives of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (P.P. Lebedev), the People's Commissariat of Justice (P.A. Krasikov) and the Agitprop Department of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) (L.S. Sosnovsky ). On December 27, 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a decree “On valuables located in churches and monasteries,” and literally 5 days later, on January 2, 1922, at a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, a resolution was adopted “On the liquidation of church property” and a decree was issued on the confiscation of museum property. property. All the “colossal” values ​​of churches and monasteries were distributed into three parts according to their historical, artistic and material significance: property that has historical and artistic significance and is subject to the management of the Department for Museum Affairs and the Protection of Monuments of Art and Antiquity of the People's Commissariat of Education (Glavmuseum) headed by N.I. Trotskaya; property, material assets subject to allocation to Gokhran; household property. The decree provided for mandatory participation in the campaign of removal of representatives of the Main Museum. At the provincial level, monitoring of the campaign was entrusted to the local government bodies of the Soviets 13. At the same time, a mechanism for transferring valuables to Gokhran was developed to the smallest detail. January 14, 1922 a telegram was sent to local commissions, and on January 23, 1922, the instructions intended for them to implement the matter of confiscation of valuables were approved. To record, confiscate and send valuables to Gokhran, regardless of what repositories they were stored in (museums, warehouses of the Cheka and Gubernia Financial Departments, closed monasteries, etc.), the provinces created Commissions for the accounting and concentration of valuables under the Gubernia Executive Committees, chaired by the Head of the Gubernia Financial Department, consisting of Head of the Provincial Financial Department, Pre-Gubchek, Provincial Military Commissariat. The Commission was entrusted with the management and supervision of the “immediate delivery” and timely transportation of valuables to Gokhran. A special procedure was provided for the confiscation of valuables of closed monasteries: the valuables were confiscated by the Commission in agreement with the Departments of the Gubernia Soviets, with the obligatory presence of representatives of the Gubyust, the Gubernaya Museum and the Central Expert Commission of the Main Museum at the time of delivery of the valuables to the Gokhran. The instructions carefully described the process of packaging and drawing up inventories. Gold and silver were counted individually, indicating the exact weight of each item. Valuables were sent only by mail, passenger or freight trains, apparently so as not to attract special attention. To protect valuables, the Commission was given the right to contact the Chief of the Garrison to select cadets or the most reliable Red Army soldiers. An urgent telegram in code was given to Gokhran to G.D. Bazilevich about the moment of loading the valuables, indicating the number of the train, carriage and time of departure. Upon arrival in Moscow, the senior immediately had to telephone Gokhran about the arrival of the cargo. The procedure stipulated that special wagons with valuables were not subject to any inspection by any authorities. Thus, the interests of the cult were respected by the initially adopted documents, albeit in a truncated form - the church retained objects of an everyday nature. Such a half-hearted solution was a reflection of the point of view of opponents of the strict option of confiscation of valuables. L.D. Trotsky, a supporter of the extreme position, who sought to seize all the gold of the church, was not going to stop at such a decision, so he forced the preparation of the decree, hurried the members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee: “It seems to me necessary to immediately prepare a resolution of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the procedure for the seizure and accounting of church valuables , on the procedure for their concentration and on the establishment of a special state account with a special purpose for the needs of the hungry (bread, seeds, tools, etc.) (mail telegram dated February 9, 1922) 14. The provisions that formed the basis of the decree were considered by the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee at meeting on February 16, 1922. In addition to the decree on the confiscation of museum property, it was proposed that local Soviets, within a month, “withdraw from church property transferred for the use of groups of believers of all religions according to inventories and contracts all precious objects made of gold, silver and stones, the seizure of which is not may significantly affect the interests of the cult itself, and transfer it to the bodies of the People's Commissariat of Finance with a special purpose to the fund of the Central Commission for Famine Relief" 15. In each province, a Commission was created consisting of representatives of the Gubernia Executive Committee, the Gubernia Pomgol and the Gubernia Financial Department, chaired by one of the members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee for the purpose of systematically carrying out the seizure , accurate accounting and transfer of values. The property of the churches was to be registered in a special fund and used exclusively for the needs of the hungry. The Central Committee Pomgol should have periodically published information about all valuables and their expenditure in the press 16. During the discussion of the decree, the struggle between supporters of different approaches to the campaign was carried out on individual points, and attempts were still made to reach a compromise. This is evidenced by the clause of the decree on the possibility of replacing, in exceptional cases, valuables with an equal weight of gold or silver in other products or bars 17. However, the final version of the decree lost the clause adopted at the meeting on February 16, 1922. It was about handing over all (!) precious items. Following this, the church lost another important position - the decree excluded the participation of the clergy in the seizure. Only the mandatory involvement of groups of believers was provided for, in whose use were church treasures. 18 Thus, in the adopted version, the decree on the confiscation of church valuables dated February 23, 1922 practically excluded the church from participating in the organization of the delivery of valuables, and prohibited the replacement of precious objects with “liturgical use.” "equal amounts of gold and silver. The voluntary nature of the donation of church property was replaced by forced, violent - confiscation. Following the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Central Committee Pomgol and the People's Commissariat of Justice, instructions were being developed on the procedure for confiscating church valuables dated February 23, 1922 (published on February 28, 1922). The provincial commissions for the confiscation of church valuables, established by decree, were to request from all local Soviets certified copies of inventories and agreements with groups of believers for whose use the churches were transferred. Based on these inventories, the order of confiscation was established, with the main focus being on the richest churches, monasteries, synagogues, etc., the values ​​of which were to be exported first, without waiting for the receipt of all inventories in the province. After this, a day and hour for the work was set, 3-5 representatives from among the believers were called in with all the documents and inventories, necessarily old ones - before 1917. In the districts, local Executive Committees were involved in the work of the Commissions, represented by representatives of financial departments and pomgols. The creation of a special apparatus for carrying out the seizure campaign was not envisaged, but the apparatus of the Provincial Committees or Ukoms was used, as well as commissions for the concentration of valuables, where they existed 19. When compiling an inventory of seized items, all items made of gold, silver and precious stones were accurately described and packaged in accordance with instructions dated January 23, 1922, while in the presence of commission members and representatives of believers, they were noted in church inventories and entered into a special protocol signed by them. If any item was not found, a special report was drawn up and handed over to the investigative authorities. Believers had the right to enter into the protocol their comments and objections regarding the confiscation of items, without which the performance of worship was impossible, and their replacement with others of less value. All seized property was sent to the Uyezd or Provincial Financial Departments to be sent to Gokhran. No local sale of valuables was allowed. Local commissions were required to submit once a month to the Pomgol Central Committee information about seized items and monthly detailed reports for publication in newspapers. The provincial commissions were obliged to publish monthly lists of valuables taken from local churches and monasteries. 20 Later, the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection tried to indicate its participation in the campaign to confiscate church valuables. People's Commissar A.D. Tsuryupa issued a circular dated March 27, 1922, which determined the procedure for the participation of RKI bodies in the seizure and introduced a clause on the method of packaging valuables. But the Bureau of the Central Commission for the Confiscation of Church Values, by a resolution dated April 10, 1922, proposed that the RKI cancel the circular on the basis that the procedure for confiscation was determined directly by the Central Committee of the RCP (b), where the bodies of the RKI were not indicated 21. The Central Committee of the RCP (b) suppressed any attempts to interfere in the campaign to confiscate church valuables from anyone, much less control it. Following the release of the decree, a powerful propaganda campaign unfolded. The directive of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) to all Gubernia Committees dated February 23, 1922 defined its main task: to bring the emerging movement of a significant working and peasant mass in support of the seizure to the national level, “so that in the first place there would not be a single factory, not a single plant that did not accept decisions on this issue" 22. The Central Committee of the RCP (b) demanded that the leaders of the starving provinces of the Volga region urgently send a delegation of peasants and workers to Moscow, who could, on behalf of the starving people, put forward a demand for the surrender of "excess" valuables 23. At the same time, the newspapers continued to intensify situation, the horrors of famine were described. The press was called upon to turn public opinion against the church, with the obvious goal of presenting it as almost responsible for the suffering of millions of starving people. Thus, a double blow was being prepared - not only to confiscate from the church all the valuables collected and stored for centuries, but also to blame it for the famine, for the inability of the authorities to cope with the disaster. Patriarch Tikhon's reaction to the adoption of the decree was obvious. Back on February 19, 1922, at the time of preparation of the decree, Patriarch Tikhon addressed an appeal in which he proposed a solution that would ensure the collection of funds necessary for the famine and the preservation of church objects necessary for the practice of worship, which represent values ​​of general cultural significance: hand over jewelry “in the amount of things that have no liturgical use" 24. Since ancient times, the Church has owned jewelry used in liturgical practice. Chalices - cups for communion of Orthodox Christians, fonts - vessels for baptism, crosses - were made from gold and silver. The common chalices, intended for the communion of all parishioners of the temple, and the fonts had quite an impressive weight. The most revered icons have always been in gold, silver or gilded vestments - metal coverings that leave only the face of the saint and his hands visible. Rizas were decorated with pearls, diamonds processed in a special way (so-called roses), sapphires and other precious stones. Expensive frames were framed by gospels and psalms intended for worship. Silver was traditionally used for reliquaries in which holy relics were kept. The Patriarch insisted on preserving such precious things for the church, without which worship would be impossible. At the same time, the church was ready to meet the demands of the authorities and hand over that part of the jewelry that was not intended for worship. It could be various kinds of church utensils, decorations, pendants, etc. So, Patriarch Tikhon allowed partial withdrawal, denoting the line up to which compromises were still possible, but beyond which the church could no longer go, otherwise church canons would be violated. This option of concessions on the part of the church was approved by the Central Committee of Pomgol. However, during these days the typographical imprint of the decree was already being prepared and the issue of church gold was a foregone conclusion. And the position of the patriarch, which provided for the possibility of partial surrender of church property to save the hungry, was used against him. Having allowed the publication of Patriarch Tikhon's message of February 19, 1922, the authorities took advantage of this to organize sharp attacks on church leaders on the pages of government newspapers, accusing them of unwillingness to help the starving. The actions of the authorities caused extreme bewilderment of Patriarch Tikhon, behind whom it was not so difficult to discern the understanding of His Holiness about the true tragedy of the situation. Having rejected the insult, in a letter to M.I. Kalinin dated February 25, 1922, the patriarch called on the authorities to abandon such an unexpected decision, fraught with unpredictable consequences 25. But Tikhon’s attempts to prevent the inevitable conflict were perceived as the desire of the “Black Hundred clergy” to protect church property. Then Patriarch Tikhon made public his message of February 28, 1922, condemning the decree as an “act of sacrilege”: “From the point of view of the Church, such an act is an act of sacrilege... We allowed, due to extremely grave circumstances, the possibility of donating church objects that were not consecrated and having no liturgical use. We call upon the faithful children of the Church even now to make such donations, only wanting these donations to be the response of a loving heart to the needs of one’s neighbor, if only they really provide real help to our suffering brothers. But we cannot approve withdrawals from churches , even through voluntary donation, of sacred objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by It as sacrilege..." 26. Thus, by the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of February 23, 1922, the authorities not only rejected all attempts of the church to come to the aid of the starving, not only deprived her of her material foundation, but also turned everything against the church. It was clear that the determined position of the authorities did not bring peace to the Church. The decision to forcibly take values ​​contained the preconditions for a conflict between believers and the state. The Patriarch understood that war was being declared. The authorities were fully consistent with their atheistic essence. The position of Patriarch Tikhon in relation to the decree was shared by the majority of Orthodox believers. At the beginning of March 1922, a meeting of Moscow deans was held, headed by Archbishop Nikandr (Fenomenov) of Krutitsky, at which the appeal of Patriarch Tikhon was heard and approved. Archbishop Nikandr invited the deans to hold parish councils, familiarizing them with the patriarch’s appeal and explaining the inadmissibility of the seizure. Everywhere, parish councils began to make decisions against the confiscation of valuables, and the laity organized themselves into squads to protect churches. In resolving the issue of church gold, the possibility of a compromise in the relationship between the Bolshevik government and the church was destroyed by the abrupt retreat of the authorities from cooperation with the church in helping the hungry, the culmination of which was the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the confiscation of church valuables in the use of groups of believers, dated February 23, 1922. The struggle over the adoption of the decree ended with the victory of supporters of a hard line in relations with the church and the forcible confiscation of valuables from it. M.I. Kalinin was pushed aside. The true goals of the decree - the fight against the church - were veiled; the campaign of confiscation of valuables was portrayed as an attempt to help the starving. But the champion of extreme solutions, L.D. Trotsky, was dissatisfied. He needed undivided power over the situation, the strictest control of the party elite over all bodies involved in organizing and conducting the campaign. Later, he would accuse the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of not agreeing with the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) and personally with it on the final text of the decree, that the decree was issued regardless of the progress of the preparation of the campaign, that the All-Russian Central Executive Committee had done everything to disrupt the campaign and would evaluate the decree as a “blank shot, who warned the priests about the need to prepare for resistance" 27. And indeed, the archives did not reveal any traces of coordination of the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee with the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). L.D. Trotsky longed for more decisive measures. And soon - from early to mid-March 1922 - the party moved on to a large-scale campaign of confiscation of church valuables and he got the opportunity to actually realize his plan. Notes 1. Kondrashin V.V. Hunger in the peasant mentality // Mentality and agrarian development of Russia (XIX-XX centuries). Proceedings of the international conference. M., 1996. P.115-118. 2. Collection of laws and orders of the Workers' and Peasants' Government. M., 1921. N 55. Art. 342. P.445; N 70. Art. 562. P.680-681. The Central Committee of Pomgol was liquidated by the resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of September 7, 1922 - RCKHIDNI. F.17. Op.3. D.311. 3. Acts of His Holiness Tikhon... P.178; Russian Orthodox Church in Soviet times (1917-1991). Materials and documents on the history of relations between the state and the Church / Compiled by G. Shtrikker. Book 1. M., 1995. P.146-147. 4. GARF. F.1065. Op.1. D.16. L.42-42ob. 5. Ibid. L.41. 6. Ibid. L.46. 7. Central Election Commission of the FSB. D.N-1780. T.3. L.137 vol., 138 vol. 8. GARF. F.1235. Op.44. D.73. L.48-49; Vasilyeva O.Yu., Knyshevsky P.N. Red conquistadors. M., 1994. P.157-158. 9. Alekseev V.A. Illusions and dogmas: [Relationships between the Soviet state and religion]. M., 1991. P.196-197. 10. Vasilyeva O.Yu., Knyshevsky P.N. Op. op. P.157. 11. For more details, see: Odintsov M.I. State and Church in Russia. XX century. M., 1994. 12. RCKHIDNI. F.5. Op.2. D.296. L.1. 13. Collection of laws... 1922. N 19. Dept. 1. Art. 215. pp. 296-297. 14. Vasilyeva O.Yu, Knyshevsky P.N. Op. op. P.161. 15. Collection of laws... 1922. N 19. Art. 217. P. 297-298. 16. GARF. F.1235. Op.39. D.86. L.446. 17. Ibid. 18. Collection of laws... 1922. N 19. Art. 217.P.297-298; News of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. 1922. February 26. 19. GARF. F.A-353. Op.3. D.730. L.24; F.1235. Op.140. D.59. L.7; Revolution and the Church. M., 1922. N1-3. P.57-58. 20. Ibid. 21. GARF. F.1235. Op.2. D.45. L.58. 22. RCKHIDNI. F.5. Op.2. D.48. L.77. 23. Ibid. L.76. 24. Acts of His Holiness Tikhon... P.187; APRF. F.3.Op.1. D.244. L.30-31; GARF. F.A-353. Op.5. D.254. L.4. 25. GARF. F.1235. Op.97. D.54a. L.38-39. 26. Acts of His Holiness Tikhon... P.190. 27. RCKHIDNI. F.5. Op.2. D.48. L.19. http://history.machaon.ru/all/number_01/pervajmo/1/part2/decret/index.html

Plan
Introduction
1 History of events
2 Convicted in the case of confiscation of church valuables
Bibliography

Introduction

Confiscation of church valuables in Russia in 1922 - actions of the Soviet government to requisition church valuables in 1922 in connection with mass famine in the Volga region and other regions. As part of the campaign in favor of the state, objects made of precious metals and stones in use by the Orthodox Church were confiscated, which caused resistance from representatives of the clergy and some parishioners. The campaign was accompanied by repressions against clergy. The shooting of parishioners in Shuya, during which four people were killed, caused great resonance.

Poster for aid to starving regions of the RSFSR “The spider of hunger is strangling the Russian peasantry.” The most starving regions are marked in black (Lower Urals-Volga region, Crimea, southern Ukraine). Allegorical streams emanating from various religious institutions (Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim) strike the body of the “hunger spider”

1. History of events

On February 23, 1922 (NS) the All-Russian Central Executive Committee published a decree in which it decided to local Soviets

The decree prescribed “the revision of contracts and the actual seizure of precious things according to inventories with the obligatory participation of representatives of groups of believers for whose use the specified property was transferred.”

Immediately after the decree was issued, Patriarch Tikhon addressed the believers with an Appeal dated February 15 (28), 1922:

<…>We found it possible to allow parish councils and communities to donate precious church decorations and items that have no liturgical use to the needs of the hungry, which we notified the Orthodox population on February 6 (19) of this year. a special appeal, which was authorized by the Government for printing and distribution among the population.

But after this, after sharp attacks in government newspapers in relation to the spiritual leaders of the Church, on February 10 (23), the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, in order to provide assistance to the hungry, decided to remove from churches all precious church things, including sacred vessels and other liturgical church objects . From the point of view of the Church, such an act is an act of sacrilege... We cannot approve the removal from churches, even through voluntary donation, of sacred objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by It as sacrilege - laymen by excommunication from Her, clergy - defrocking (Apostolic Canon 73, Double Ecumenical Council, Canon 10).

The authorities deliberately used the issue of church values ​​in order to launch a powerful anti-church campaign (see the opening of relics in Russia). In March, excesses related to the confiscation of valuables occurred in a number of places; the events in Shuya had a particularly great resonance. In connection with them, on March 19, 1922, the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin wrote a secret letter. The letter qualified the events in Shuya as just one manifestation of a general plan of resistance to the decree of Soviet power on the part of “the most influential group of the Black Hundred clergy.”

On March 22, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), based on a letter from L. D. Trotsky, adopted an action plan for repressions against the clergy. It included the arrest of the Synod, a show trial in the Shuya case, and also indicated - “ Proceed with confiscation throughout the country, without at all dealing with churches that do not have any significant values ».

In March, interrogations of Patriarch Tikhon began: he was summoned to the GPU, where he was given a signature to read an official notice that the government “demands from citizen Bellavin, as the responsible leader of the entire hierarchy, a definite and public definition of his attitude towards the counter-revolutionary conspiracy, headed by hierarchy subordinate to him.”

On May 5, 1922, the Patriarch was summoned to court for a trial in the case of the Moscow clergy. The court issued a private ruling to bring Mr. Bellavin to criminal liability. After this, the Patriarch was under arrest in the Donskoy Monastery, in complete isolation from the outside world. Judging by numerous publications in the Soviet press in the spring of 1923 of letters from citizens demanding severe punishment of the “cannibal” Tikhon, the authorities were preparing for reprisals against the Patriarch. Tikhon was released only after a statement that he “repented of his offenses against the state system.”

On May 7, 1922, the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal, on charges of opposing the seizure of church valuables, which was classified as counter-revolutionary activity, convicted 49 people, including sentencing 11 people to death (9 priests and 3 laymen). Of these, priests Kh. A. Nadezhdin, V. I. Sokolov, A. N. Zaozersky, hieromonk M. Telegin and layman S. F. Tikhomirov were shot.

In Petrograd, 87 people were arrested in connection with resistance to the seizure of valuables from some churches. Their trial took place from June 10 to July 5, 1922. The Petrograd Revolutionary Tribunal sentenced 10 defendants to death, six of whom had the death penalty commuted to imprisonment. Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky), Archimandrite Sergius (Shein), lawyer I.M. Kovsharov and Professor Yu.P. Novitsky were shot.

On May 12, 1922, the Novgorod Revolutionary Tribunal passed a verdict in the case of unrest in connection with the seizure of valuables in Staraya Russa. Priests V.I. Orlov, V.A. Pylaev and N.M. Smyslov were sentenced to death. The remaining 15 defendants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

From August 22 to August 30, 1922, the Don Regional Revolutionary Tribunal conducted a case on charges of Rostov Bishop Arseny (Smolenets Alexander), 7 priests and 25 parishioners who participated in the unrest on March 11, 1922 at the Cathedral of Rostov-on-Don, when members of the commission upon seizure they were beaten. The tribunal sentenced Arseny to death, but thanks to the amnesty announced on the anniversary of the October Revolution, he replaced the capital punishment with imprisonment for ten years.

After the trial of a group of clergy, which took place in Tsaritsyn on June 9, 1922, the vicar of the Don diocese of Nizhne-Chirsky, Nikolai (Orlov), was convicted and executed.

In Smolensk, the Visiting Session of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Tribunal of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee from August 1 to 24, 1922 considered the case of the “Smolensk Churchmen”, in which 47 people were involved. Of these, Zalessky, Pivovarov, Myasoedov and Demidov were sentenced to death, and another 10 believers involved in the case were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

The Revolutionary Tribunal of the Chuvash Autonomous Region in May 1922 conducted a trial against the dean archpriest A. A. Solovyov and a group of believers. Dean A. A. Solovyov and an active participant in the resistance to the seizure N. Ya. Galakhov were sentenced to death.

The second trial of the clergy of Moscow and the Moscow province, the so-called “trial of the second group of clergy,” took place from November 27 to December 31, 1922. The tribunal considered the cases of 105 accused. Among the accused were priests, professors, teachers, students, workers, peasants, etc. The most active participants in resistance to the confiscation of valuables were sentenced to death. However, due to the amnesty announced on the anniversary of the revolution, the execution was replaced by imprisonment.

Trials of the clergy took place in 1922-1923. all around Russia. The literature indicates that 250 court cases were considered in connection with resistance to the seizure of church property. By mid-1922 alone, 231 trials had already taken place, with 732 people in the dock. In 1923, in the VI department (“church”) of the secret political department of the GPU, 301 investigative cases were in progress, 375 people were arrested and 146 people were expelled administratively, including abroad. By the end of 1924, about half of the entire Russian episcopate - 66 bishops - had been in prisons and camps. According to the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, the total number of repressed church leaders in 1921-1923. amounted to 10 thousand people, while every fifth person was shot - about 2 thousand in total.

2. Convicted in the case of confiscation of church valuables

· Benemansky, Alexey Konstantinovich

Bibliography:

1. Acts of Patriarch Tikhon and the Tragedy of the Russian Church of the 20th century // Issue 18

4. Letter from L. D. Trotsky to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with proposals for repressions against the clergy, adopted by the Politburo with the amendment of V. M. Molotov on March 22, 1922.

5. Krivova N. A. Power and the Church in 1922-1925.