Opinion on which crimes in relation to fugitive priests should be considered criminal

In order to resolve the question proposed by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs: what kind of crimes in relation to fugitive priests should be considered criminal, and therefore send them to trial according to the requirements of the diocesan authorities, for reasons of church rules and state laws with the real need to protect church security and the order of government from harmful impunity, the following is considered fair and necessary: 1) In the case of fugitive priests, criminal offenses requiring the mandatory deportation of the perpetrators to trial (should) be considered crimes under the name of atrocities, named in the decree of the Governing Senate of 1725, May 3, in which, after the most serious public and private crimes, church rebellion, retreat into schism, and theft discovered by capture and red-handed are mentioned. 2) If after the escaped priest there is nothing in the church that was entrusted to him, and therefore he will be subject to responsibility for the theft or embezzlement of church property: in this case it is also necessary that the escaped priest be sent for investigation and trial, both due to the importance of the crime, and in order to provide due justice to the offended church and the parish that contains it. 3) If the priest escapes while he is under investigation or trial, or penance for any crime: justice and good governance require in this case that he be expelled to complete the investigation, trial and penance; since the highest manifesto of 1787, April 21, paragraph 54, ordered that any crime against obedience to the authorities and authorities of localities and persons must be punished to the fullest extent of the laws, while those in power and superiors must monitor the preservation of order and proper obedience, under the fear that any relaxation in that, as entailing a disorder in subordination by service, will be imputed to the superiors a real omission. To allow that a new crime, that is, escape, could be spared from trial and punishment for a priest accused of a crime would be contrary to all concepts of justice, and harmful to subordination and good morals; This would be a kind of hope in the impunity of crimes. 4) Finally, the Holy Synod, as a place entrusted with the protection of the inviolability of sacred rules and church deanery, cannot fail to recognize the very escape of a priest from his place and position to the schismatics as a grave crime, requiring immediate justice according to the following respects: a) 15 Rule of Saints, the Apostle shall subject a presbyter, or a deacon, or a cleric who willfully left his place and does not return at the request of the bishop, to be deposed. The same thing is confirmed: the Council of Antioch - rule 3, the Council of Sardicia - 20 and the Seventh Ecumenical Council - 10. b) since, on the basis of the Spiritual Regulations (clause 5 has been added), the priest, in the oath pronounced before being appointed to this dignity, among other things, undertakes to convict schismatics with the word of God and the saints of the Father of Scripture with the spirit of meekness and lead to conversion and union with the church, about those who do not correct themselves and remain stubborn in their stubbornness, especially about debauchees and others who are diverting from the union of the church where they should be, in writing and verbally, to represent: then a priest who runs from the church to the schismatics is a clear violator of the same oath in which he owes allegiance to His Imperial Majesty; and therefore, as much as it is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the church and state oath, both for the sake of the highest holiness of the name of God, which one swears, and for the security of all social ties, it is equally necessary to ensure that such an oathbreaker is not sheltered from justice by any indulgence. This perjury of the fugitive priests is further increased by the fact that, joining the schismatics, they give them the opposite (as can be seen from the sample presented to the Holy Synod by the bishops of Penza 1 oath, in which the teachings and rituals of the Orthodox Church are called heretical evil, and even some civil customs adopted by the government are cursed 2. Irinei (Nesterovich), later Archbishop of Irkutsk, who died in retirement in the Tolga Monastery, May 18, 1864. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 99; document No. 5. Printed in the Collection of resolutions regarding the schism, which took place under the authority of the Holy Synod. Book II. St. Petersburg 1860, pp. 200–203.