Защита ученого монашества

As was briefly noted above, in 1915 Archimandrite Hilarion had to come to the defense of learned monasticism, to which the Duma clergy, in the famous “Note” published in the same year, laid the main blame for the shortcomings of the theological school. The “Note of the Duma Clergy” stated that “one can point to hundreds of cases when a monk, almost fresh from his student days, at the age of 25–26 is appointed superintendent of a school or inspector of a seminary” 228 . Although the tendency to preferentially appoint monks to senior positions took place in religious educational institutions, firstly, this tendency seems quite natural, and secondly, the hyperbole of the “note” (“hundreds of cases”) reveals the frequent hostility of the white clergy towards monasticism, which was fully manifested later in the Renovationist schism. Archimandrite Hilarion considered it his duty to expose the false statement and cited statistical data on the administrative composition of seminaries and religious schools, according to which by 1915 there were only 50 monks in official positions in seminaries and schools, which amounted to less than 10% of the total number of administrative employees of the mentioned institutions. And, for example, among the inspectors of seminaries there were 7 monks, 7 priests and 45 secular persons 229. The noted hostility was one of the symptoms of the spiritual illness of Russian society and could not but worry Father Hilarion, who was always sensitive to such ailments of his compatriots, most of whom were members of the Church so beloved and valued by him. Quote by: V. V-v [Vinogradov V. P.]. From the chronicle of church and public life // Christian: Journal of church and public life, science and literature. – Sergiev Posad. 1915. No. 9. P. 189. A.I. [Archimandrite Hilarion]. A small note to the “note of the Duma clergy” // Ibid. P. 385.