№ 17. Мнение Митрополита Филарета о подсудности дел о похищении церковного имущества

The decree given in the protocol. The case of the theft of church property is being tried by the ecclesiastical court. It's very vague, and a lot. Here before our eyes is a case of the theft of church property, which was judged not by a church court, but by a criminal court. But the decree looked at something and thought something: and he probably thought that clergy should not be sent to secular court unnecessarily. If the now proposed resolution takes place, won’t it sometimes be necessary to send the bishop to the criminal chamber if money disappears from the bishop’s house or sacristy, no one knows how? Or will a thief never treat a bishop as cleverly as he did with the Ascension priest in the present case? The task of the criminal court is to investigate the theft, punish the culprit, take away the stolen property from him and return it according to its belongings. The culprit in this case has not been found, and no suspicion has even been announced against anyone. The criminal case is over. Who should be punished? From whom should the stolen property be taken? But during the investigation, a poor view of the church was revealed. This is another matter. This is not about sacrilege, but about omission from office. The House reasoned moderately when it said: Why should I judge someone else's subordinate for lapse of office? Let his own superiors judge. And since the loss of money was a consequence of the loss of office, then let it consider whether it is necessary to exact money instead of another punishment, through which justice will suddenly be given to the guilty and the church. The court acts in this case with respect for the spiritual authorities: is it necessary to push away this respect? Do we need to deprive ourselves of the power we are given? “The headman is not subject to spiritual judgment.” – There is some truth here: but there is something unfair and dangerous. If the elder finds out that he is not subject to the spiritual court, will he begin to ask the spiritual authorities about church affairs? Will he take care of church reporting and candle money? One must also guess what the Governing Senate is thinking. If he had found that the Chamber had acted badly, he would not have written to the S. Synod, but would have corrected the mistake. It seems to me that these thoughts require consideration in order to conclude whether it is necessary to confirm the proposed solution. You might be interested in: