Legal Consequences of Deprivation of Holy Orders: Discussion of Draft Reform in Legislative Chambers of Russian Empire (1907-1911)
The legislative activity of the State Duma and the State Council of the Russian Empire aimed at mitigating the legal consequences of deprivation of dignity and exclusion from the clergy is considered. It is indicated that by the beginning of the 20th century the norms establishing the connection bet...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | RU |
| Publicado: |
Tsentr nauchnykh i obrazovatelnykh proektov
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/3a4505a947614c548d38fa6ee2f99ac8 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The legislative activity of the State Duma and the State Council of the Russian Empire aimed at mitigating the legal consequences of deprivation of dignity and exclusion from the clergy is considered. It is indicated that by the beginning of the 20th century the norms establishing the connection between civil and canonical status of the individual began to be perceived as not meeting the standards of the modern state. It is reported that by 1907, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has drafted proposals on liberalization of the legislation in respect of former priests. The article traces the motion of the draft law on governmental bodies. Special attention is given to the debate around key aspects of the proposed reform that took place at the meetings of both sectoral and special committees and general meetings of legislative chambers. The main arguments of supporters of the liberal and conservative approaches to solving problems are presented. It is concluded that according to the results of consideration of the bill a moderately conservative position prevailed, suggesting partial mitigation of the effects of deprivation of dignity. It is emphasized that since then, the restrictions were supposed to act only in the area where a former cleric passed his ministry, not on the whole territory of the Empire, in addition, their terms were significantly reduced. However, as the author points out, the reform was blocked by Nikolay II, who vetoed the bill. It is shown that the possibility for changes arose again only after the February revolution of 1917. |
|---|