Metropolitan Kirill about the film Matilda. Patriarch Kirill commented on “Matilda” for the first time, advising to avoid “fakes” that “hurt” people

October 12, 2017 in the hall of the Supreme Church Council of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' headed the next meeting of the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. Opening the meeting, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed the members of the Supreme Church Council with introductory remarks, reports Patriarchia.ru.

“When assessing the events of 1917 and their consequences, we must keep both pictures before our eyes. The explosion of the temple and its restoration are links in a single chain of our history of the twentieth century, and it can only be assessed holistically. Do not deny or whitewash under any circumstances obvious evil, - but recognize the facts, analyze them in order to avoid a repetition of revolutionary horrors. However, we today look at this evil from the perspective of overcoming it - we pray and gather in the restored temple. It is in the complex of this temple, which is also symbolic, that meetings of the World Russian People's Council are held, the main goal of which is the consolidation of our people. It was within these walls that our words and statements to the public about the need for reconciliation, including historical reconciliation, and the importance of solidarity were heard many times. It is reconciliation and solidarity that should be the refrain of our today public discussion- especially considering recent history,” continued the Primate of the Russian Church.

“Is it possible to objectively assess history? A controversial issue and subject of battles. History is a very convenient ground for ideological speculation and the creation of profitable myths, both national and anti-national. When working with history, it is so easy to get into a crafty interpretation, even in small things. But for honest man lies and deceit are unthinkable. How to be? Strive to be conscientious when working with facts. Avoid speculation. Especially speculation, which is not only fake, but also capable of hurting great amount people, as happened with a film that has not yet been released, but has already become notorious,” the Patriarch emphasized.

“The events of the 20th century are still a bleeding wound for many people. Royal passion-bearers, a host of new martyrs and confessors for the faith, hundreds of thousands of victims, destroyed spiritual heritage, the expulsion of the intellectual color of the nation beyond its borders... Unfortunately, these bitter pages of our past today often become the subject of speculation, including artistic level. The artist has the right to artistic invention. But fiction and lies are two different things. Fiction is a dramatic device and as such enhances the viewer’s interest in historical facts. Lying is not a dramatic device. Lies grossly distort historical reality and deliberately mislead people. It was lies that underlay the propaganda that plunged our people into revolutionary chaos, and then into the abyss of suffering. Is this why Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn’s call to the country “to live not by lies” sounded so piercingly and received such a lively response, and primarily among our artistic intelligentsia?” - asks the Patriarch.

He cited the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky: “History teaches nothing, but only punishes for ignorance of the lessons.” “What lessons of the 20th century do we need to learn ourselves so as not to step on the same rake?” - asks the Primate.

“I would like to hope that all our memories of the events of the recent past - including in the form of works of art - will promote, first of all, reconciliation, and not serve as a source of new discord and civil strife, and not become a reason for offending someone’s feelings and values. We all - believers and atheists, artists and non-artists, conservatives and liberals - are called to live in one country, in one society and take care of its integrity. Every Liturgy we pray for unity. We are also called to pray for civil unity, for the unity of the people, remembering the terrible temptations, discord and confrontations that shook Russia in the twentieth century,” Patriarch Kirill emphasized.

Let us remember that we previously handed over 100 thousand signatures to the Patriarch against the screening of the blasphemous film “Matilda”.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill expressed his opinion about the film "Matilda". IMPORTANT!!! October 12th, 2017

Be sure to watch this video!
Very important and timely words from our Patriarch!

October 12, 2017 in the hall of the Supreme Church Council of the Cathedral of Christ
Savior in Moscow, His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill chaired the next meeting
Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. Opening the meeting, the Primate of the Russian
The Orthodox Church addressed the members of the Supreme Church Council with an opening speech.

I greet all members of the Supreme Church Council.

Exactly one hundred years ago these days in our country there were revolutionary events. It was then that Russia rapidly
was heading towards the Bolshevik revolution - at that time it was already inevitable, in an atmosphere of general chaos, actual
anarchy and military crisis.

We are well aware of the consequences of the events of 1917. Even the temple in which we are now - its destruction,
the notorious newsreel of the explosion of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior is a vivid symbol of violent destruction, rebellion, explosion
foundations that October 1917 brought with it.

But the Cathedral of Christ the Savior exists today. It has been restored in all its splendor. And this restored temple -
a much more important symbol for us. A symbol of reconciliation, a symbol of correcting our tragic mistakes
predecessors.

When assessing the events of 1917 and their consequences, we must keep both pictures before our eyes. Explosion of the temple and
its restoration is the links of a single chain of our history of the twentieth century, and it can only be assessed holistically.
Under no circumstances should we deny or whitewash obvious evil, but recognize the facts and analyze them in
avoiding a repetition of revolutionary horrors.

However, we today look at this evil from the perspective of overcoming it - we pray and gather in
restored temple. It is in the complex of this temple, which is also symbolic, that meetings of the World Russian
people's council, the main goal of which is the consolidation of our people. It was within these walls that they sounded many times
our words, statements to the public about the need for reconciliation, including historical reconciliation, about the importance
solidarity. It is reconciliation and solidarity that should be the refrain of our social life today.
discussions - especially with an eye to recent history.

Is an objective assessment of history possible? A controversial issue and subject of battles. History is a very convenient ground for
ideological speculation, creation of profitable myths - both national and anti-national. When working with
It’s so easy for history to be misinterpreted, even in small things. But for an honest person lies and deceit
unthinkable. How to be? Strive to be conscientious when working with facts. Avoid speculation.
Especially speculation, which is not only fake, but also capable of injuring a huge number of people.
people, as happened with a film that had not yet been released, but had already become notorious.

The events of the twentieth century are still a bleeding wound for many people. Royal Passion-Bearers, Host
new martyrs and confessors for the faith, hundreds of thousands of victims, destroyed spiritual heritage, expulsion of the intellectual
the colors of the nation beyond its borders... Unfortunately, these bitter pages of our past today often become the subject of speculation, including on an artistic level. The artist has the right to artistic invention.
But fiction and lies are two different things. Fiction is dramatic
technique and as such enhances the viewer’s interest in historical facts. Lying is not a dramatic device.
Lies grossly distort historical reality and deliberately mislead people. It was lies that underlay the propaganda that plunged our people into revolutionary chaos, and then into the abyss of suffering. Isn't that why the converted
Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn’s call to the country to “live not by lies” sounded so piercing and received such a living
response, and primarily among our artistic intelligentsia?

“History teaches nothing, but only punishes for ignorance of the lessons” - these are the words of Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky.
What lessons of the 20th century do we need to learn ourselves so as not to step on the same rake?

I would like to hope that all our memories of the events of the recent past - including in the form of works
arts - will promote, first of all, reconciliation, and not serve as a source of new discord and civil
strife, do not become a reason to insult anyone’s feelings and values. We are all believers and atheists,
artists and non-artists, conservatives and liberals - are called to live in one country, in one
society and take care of its integrity.

Every Liturgy we pray for unity. We are also called to pray for civil unity, for unity
people, remembering the terrible temptations, the discord and confrontations that shook Russia in the twentieth century.

Thank you for attention.

Photo from patriarchia.ru

Patriarch Kirill at a meeting of the Supreme church council(VTsS) gave a short speech in which he spoke about his attitude towards the film “Matilda” by Alexei Uchitel and about the inevitability October revolution 1917.

“Exactly 100 years ago these days, revolutionary events took place in our country. It was then that Russia was rapidly moving towards the Bolshevik revolution - at that time it was already inevitable, in an atmosphere of general chaos, virtual anarchy and military crisis,” the head of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed the meeting participants. The All-Russian Central Council gathered in the hall of church councils in the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The Patriarch recalled that as a result of the Bolshevik revolution, this temple was blown up, but today it has been “restored in all its splendor.” “When assessing the events of 1917 and their consequences, we must keep both pictures before our eyes,” the Primate of the Church concluded. “The explosion of the temple and its restoration are links in a single chain of our history of the twentieth century, and it can only be assessed holistically.”

“Is it possible to objectively assess history? – he continued. – A controversial issue and the subject of battles. History is a very convenient ground for ideological speculation and the creation of profitable myths, both national and anti-national.” Among the latter, apparently, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church included the appearance of the film “Matilda,” in which State Duma deputy Natalya Poklonskaya and her like-minded people saw a distortion of the bright image of Nicholas II, recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a holy passion-bearer. The Patriarch urged to avoid “speculations that are not only fake, but also capable of hurting a huge number of people, as happened with a film that has not yet been released, but has already become notorious.”

“An artist has the right to artistic invention. But fiction and lies are two different things. Fiction is a dramatic device and, as such, enhances the viewer's interest in historical facts. Lying is not a dramatic device. Lies grossly distort historical reality and deliberately mislead people,” said the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He indirectly likened Alexei Uchitel, without calling him by name and without mentioning the title of the ill-fated film, to the propagandists of Bolshevism who plunged “our people into revolutionary chaos.”

“We would like to hope that all our memories of the events of the recent past, including in the form of works of art, will promote, first of all, reconciliation, and not serve as a source of new discord and civil strife, and not become a reason for offending anyone’s feelings and values. We all - believers and atheists, artists and non-artists, conservatives and liberals - are called to live in one country, in one society and take care of its integrity,” the religious leader concluded. Unfortunately, he did not specify how far the scope of such a conciliatory approach extends. The conclusions may be the most unexpected. For example, there are different assessments, including blasphemous ones, of the death of the family of the last Russian emperor. After all, if there had not been an execution, there would have been no holiness of the Tsar, just as the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior led to the current “magnificent” revival of the Church.

Patriarch Kirill, speaking at a meeting of the Supreme Church Council on the eve of the anniversary of the October Revolution, called on society and artists to objective assessment historical events and for the first time commented on “Matilda” by Alexei Uchitel, without naming the film, but placing it in the context of “fakes” that can hurt big number of people.

“History is a very convenient ground for ideological speculation, the creation of profitable myths - both national and anti-national. When working with history, it is so easy to get into a crafty interpretation, even in small things. But for an honest person, lies and deceit are unthinkable,” the patriarch said ( quote from Interfax).

In order to prevent speculation on the topic of history, in his opinion, conscientious work with the facts is necessary. According to Patriarch Kirill, speculation should be avoided, “especially speculation that is not only fake, but also capable of hurting a huge number of people, as happened with a film that has not yet been released, but has already become notorious.”

He pointed out the special sensitivity of society to assess the events of a hundred years ago and the personality of the latter Russian Emperor. "The events of the 20th century are still a bleeding wound for many people. Royal martyrs, a host of new martyrs and confessors for the faith, hundreds of thousands of victims, destroyed spiritual heritage, the expulsion of the intellectual color of the nation beyond its borders... Unfortunately, these bitter pages of our past today they often become the subject of speculation, including at the artistic level,” said Patriarch Kirill.

Recognizing that the author has the right to fiction, he at the same time pointed out that “fiction and lies are two different things.” Fiction, according to the patriarch’s definition, is a “dramatic device” that enhances the viewer’s interest in historical facts. “A lie is not a dramatic device. A lie grossly distorts historical reality and deliberately misleads people. It was lies that underlay the propaganda that plunged our people into revolutionary chaos, and then into the abyss of suffering,” the patriarch explained.

“Is this why Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn’s call to the country to “live not by lies” sounded so piercingly and received such a lively response, and primarily among our artistic intelligentsia?” - noted the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church.

On the eve of the anniversary of the revolution, he called on society to learn the lessons of history “so as not to step on the same rake.”

“We would like to hope that all our memories of the events of the recent past, including in the form of works of art, will promote, first of all, reconciliation, and not serve as a source of new discord and civil strife, and not become a reason for offending anyone’s feelings and values. We “everyone - believers and atheists, artists and non-artists, conservatives and liberals - are called to live in one country, in one society and take care of its integrity,” Patriarch Kirill emphasized.

The Patriarch did not condemn the radical actions of defenders of the memory of Nicholas II

The media pointed out that the patriarch did not speak out about the painting “Matilda” and did not evaluate the increasingly frequent radical actions of defenders of the memory of Nicholas II. Vedomosti noted that representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church commented “ambiguously” on the burning of cars and the throwing of Molotov cocktails at Alexei Uchitel’s studio, and the highest hierarchs did not talk about radical actions.

The newspaper explained this by saying that the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church contributed to the development of intolerance in society after the Pussy Riot case in 2012 - “it was then that the thesis about the protection of the faith and feelings of believers was born, which protection can take administrative (law) and forceful forms.”

As an example of an ambiguous comment, the opinion of the Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with Society and the Media, Vakhtang Kipshidze, was cited, who said that “Orthodox believers or calling themselves Orthodox activists do not have the right to threaten the life and health of people, including cinema viewers who go to the film "Matilda", but "have the right to disagree with the portrayal of the personality of the last Russian Tsar, canonized."

In the core of support for the Russian Orthodox Church, many fundamentalists have become among the parishioners, explained the director of the SOVA center, Alexander Verkhovsky. Higher hierarchy at the same time, it lost its monopoly on statements on behalf of the Church.

The voice of the radical Orthodox community on socio-political issues now prevails, noted Orthodox journalist Sergei Chapnin. “The Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t know what to do with this. If you pull it off, you can lose the support of parishioners. You have to make ambiguous statements,” he said.

Deacon Andrei Kuraev pointed out that the fear of the speakers of the Russian Orthodox Church not to coincide with the only correct position of the patriarch, which does not exist, prevents clarity in the statements.

The initiator of the attack on “Matilda,” State Duma deputy Natalya Poklonskaya, in early September handed over documents to the media and law enforcement agencies about allegedly “dubious schemes” for financing Uchitel’s films by offshore Cypriot companies. Teacher's lawyer Konstantin Dobrynin called these accusations were incorrect and asked the FSB to check whether the opponent of “Matilda” Poklonskaya supported extremists with the aim of changing the constitutional order.

On September 13, State Duma deputies Irina Rodnina and Oksana Pushkina sent requests to the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation to check for extremism the opponents of the film "Matilda" from the "Christian State" and "Forty Forty".

A person who enters the path of the priesthood agrees with a number of restrictions that will always be present in his life. About this in exclusive interview RT was told by the press secretary of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill, priest Alexander Volkov. In a conversation with a TV channel correspondent, he commented on the criticism of the film “Matilda”, emphasizing that the church should not evaluate cultural phenomena, however, in his opinion, the film can touch a nerve of many people.

- Thank you very much for your time. Let us immediately quote your words: “Mysterious and misterious story, in which there are no secrets, riddles or problems." This refers to President Vladimir Putin's last trip to Valaam. Why did she become such a sensation?

Everything that gets caught on camera, unfortunately, needs commentary and explanation. Although often some random frames and second-by-second movements of people do not deserve even minimal attention compared to those important things, for the sake of which such trips are also made.

The President came to Valaam with some circumstances of his own. Of course, part of his program was public, and part was closed, non-public. He, like any person, has the right to this. Moreover, he comes to Valaam every year. And, in addition to the open part, he has a personal program for his stay on Valaam. And anyone normal person may give him the right to privacy. This story with the red box was also part of what was outside the scope of publicity. There was an icon in this box, and this icon, as far as I understand, was then intended for the personal use of the president.

- We can’t find out what kind of icon this is?

You should not contact me for details, since this is not part of the patriarchal stay on Valaam. I repeat once again that we all must approach some components of the president’s non-public life sensitively and with understanding. It is clear that the degree of his publicity is off the charts. Sometimes any person needs to be alone and out of sight of television cameras. Let's respect his privacy.

- The President pays a lot of attention to Valaam. And others famous personalities visit Valaam?

Indeed, the president visits the Valaam monastery every year and stays here for several days. This is a correct, good tradition that has developed over last years. I would like to hope that this tradition will be continued. However, the head of state also visits many other monasteries and temples, and this is an integral part of his activities. It is very gratifying to see that there is no unnecessary embarrassment or awkwardness here. The topic related to the natural presence of Orthodoxy as a key religion in our country is very important.

Of course, many other pilgrims come to Valaam and simple people. The monastery is loved by many famous people. The monastery on Valaam does not seek public fame, and it is somehow awkward to name any names. The monastery is known for its hospitality, and many of our fellow citizens enjoy it.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill and Vladimir Putin in the Transfiguration Cathedral Valaam Monastery RIA Novosti © Mikhail Klimentyev

- I would like to talk about the list of professions that are incompatible with the ministry of a priest. Why was it necessary to create this list?

A need arose to codify and systematize everything that is contained in various canons and church regulations and describes the possibility or impossibility of doing something in parallel with the direct duties of a clergyman. For example, these are the professions of a doctor and a military man, which may be associated with killing people. Indeed, this kind of activity is incompatible with the ministry of a priest. This is also acting and many other similar activities.

This is currently under discussion. It’s not like some lists will be posted and nailed to some door. In the church over the past seven or eight years there has been a very active internal discussion on a very wide range of issues. There is such a body as the Inter-Council Presence, which includes the laity, the clergy of the entire Russian Church, from all countries. When they get together, they discuss theological, social, and media issues that are on the agenda in the church.

Now there are many topics to which we cannot give an exhaustive answer, for example, topics related to bioethics, the church’s attitude towards in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, and various issues related to abortion. There are a lot of things that the church needs to find answers to now. For this purpose, there is the Inter-Council Presence, which must formulate these answers. The intra-church issue related to professions was also considered at the Inter-Council Presence. I don’t know why this caused such a stir, but this is rather an internal question, to which a final answer will definitely be given.

- The main thing is that the discussion is ongoing, and there is no effect of closed doors.

It is very important that the church in this sense is open to dialogue and discussion. Not only for our own people - last week there was a meeting of the Presidium of the Inter-Council Presence, at which the Patriarch noted that the opinions of both church members, the expert community, and the wide range the public, because it is important for us to listen and hear what people say about the church, about what it should be.

Of course, the decision about what kind of church to be is made only by the entirety of the church, headed by the patriarch and bishops. But in order to make any decisions, you need to hear the opinions and judgments of different people.

- You served in the space forces. Can an astronaut become a priest?

An astronaut, of course, can become a priest if he wants to. So far there have been no such precedents. But maybe we’ll see a lot more new things. I served in the space forces by name, in reality I was just a private who did something regular, did not put on a spacesuit.

Any profession that brings something positive to human life, connected with science, with the development of human society, including astronautics, are completely blessed by the church, and other professions, with the exception of some obscene things. There are no things that are inherently bad for the church. Of course, the church calls sin sin, and this is its calling, but everything that is part of our society is blessed and welcomed by the church.

The institution of military chaplaincy has existed for quite a long time. Regarding the Russian Orthodox Church everything is developing very actively. Under the current leadership of the Ministry of Defense, good relations are developing. Priests have the right to serve their part in the Armed Forces.

Priest-chaplains do not have special conditions for serving in a military unit; the priest does the same as ordinary officers: wears camouflage, eats in the same canteen, and performs training. Like other officers, he carries out his functions. When necessary, he performs worship and communicates with soldiers. And this is the most important component of a priest’s service in the army: communication with military personnel, answering their questions, resolving their problems. It is difficult, lonely, and often difficult for a person to be in the army, especially at first. And here a priest for people who themselves profess Orthodoxy is a very important component in order for a person to be able to find a way out of difficult situations and, conversely, rejoice with others in what is happening.

- There is an opinion that the church has ambivalent assessments of the film “Matilda”. What is the position of the Patriarchate on this matter?

I will not try to formulate any official position, but will express my opinion. Any artist who does something that he considers right and necessary must be aware that any creativity is a responsibility. Before the viewer, before the one to whom he addresses this creativity.

Alexey Uchitel did not make a chamber film for some select audience, nor a movie for his own. He made a movie for wide release. This is his artistic response addressed to the population of our country.

And he, of course, needs to understand that the perception of his work can be very ambiguous. He needs to be prepared for this. Why are there negative sentiments now, before the film is released? I hope that the person understood what and, most importantly, who he was making the film about.

We need to be aware that our the last Emperor Nicholas II is not only a historical figure, but also a saint, glorified by the church, a person whose image and holiness are undoubted for millions of people. This person is dear to people not only historical figure, but also as a saint, close, dear to the heart of a particular person. And here, of course, you need to understand that with this film the director can touch a lot of people.

The reaction that exists is something quite natural. The film will obviously cause a mixed reaction and will not go unnoticed, including from a negative point of view.

Nobody forced Alexei Uchitel to make this film. He took it down and faced varied reactions. At the same time, I think there will be a positive reaction to the film. I am sure that there are also correct, good sides to him.

You ask: Should the church formally rebuke? It is important that the assessment of this film, like any other work of culture, does not come from the church, from the pulpit. It is necessary to categorically avoid that a priest, standing on the pulpit, says in a sermon: this work is good, but this is bad, you can’t go to see this film, but go burn down the cinemas there. This, of course, is impossible.

The Church cannot evaluate cultural phenomena from its sacred, sacred space of the temple. Whatever this film may be, it is still a cultural phenomenon that needs to be left within this cultural space and not tried to cultural space to be drawn into the church, and, conversely, not to try for the church to unnaturally enter into this cultural space.

But, of course, the church is an organism in which many people with diametrically opposed views live. People who are united only by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else does not correlate at all for some people, there is no similarity. In the main thing they are united, but everything else, including views on the film, can be different.

Emperor Nicholas II in a white uniform with epaulettes. Artist I.S. Galkin (1860-1915) globallookpress.com © Vladimir Boiko

Everyone needs to be patient when this film comes out so that there can be an objective assessment of it. Be determined to accept the assessment that follows, and be aware that the church is a heterogeneous organism. The hierarchy of the church cannot simply go and say: “You should like this, but not that.” Simple free people They can express their point of view, it is their right. If they unite themselves around Orthodoxy and say: we Orthodox believe that this film is not good enough or simply bad, then excuse me. So, accept their position.

Of course, in this sense, we always strive for balance and encourage people not to go beyond the bounds of decency. In this sense, of course, we need to warn people against excessive aggression. But this is such a painful topic. Moreover, the film was shot in the year of the centenary of the revolution, in next year will be the centenary anniversary of the shooting royal family, and these dates are very significant for many of our fellow citizens.

- Is it possible to draw an analogy with caricatures of the Islamic prophet Muhammad?

What the famous French newspaper allows itself to do is deliberately shock the public. They deliberately, being aware of this, incite wrong feelings in people. We must understand that they are also responsible for what they do. It’s amazing that they don’t understand this and shout about some kind of freedoms and rights.

There is a difference between consciously shocking people, the caricature genre, and high cinema, of which Alexey Uchitel is a part. This is the view of a specific director, specific artist for this or that historical aspect, and his attempt, with his methods, his tools, his film, to convey his message to the audience, and there - deliberate incitement of hatred.

I don't think it can come to that. There is no doubt that our Russian art much more adequately and consciously, and I am sure that whatever this film is, it is not a caricature and a deliberate distortion of the image of a holy man.

In contact with