Letter to Mr. Reyer on the attitude towards the leaders of the White movement - Archbishop. John of Shanghai:
You raise the question of the commemoration of the leaders of the great armies of the Civil War, as well as articles in the press that darken them.
You write that many considered the Emperor guilty of our failures, and therefore consider themselves to be in violation of the oath? Oath is an oath before the Cross and the Gospel, and its violation is a perjury. If indeed it was really done, it threatened with great poverty or was obviously immoral, then even if it broke it, it would not be possible to consider itself completely innocent, and should have sought the Church for an oath from an oath. But if the violated, for reasons of respect, is still partially guilty and must be cleansed of the grape, how guilty are those who succumbed to slander and deceit.
In fact, the commissariat commissioned by the Provisional Government did not find confirmation of the accusations against the Tsarist family and had to admit it. To whom more is given, from that more will be required, and therefore, who otvetstvennnie occupied most of the time, I am more guilty of failure to fulfill my duty.
Therefore, the relation to them, as to all the statesmen of Russia, should be the one expressed by Pushkin with the words of the record-writer: "Praise for glory, for good, and for grief, for the dark day, the Savior humbly implore ...", not at all of them Not justifying, but not screaming for them, for what happened is our common disgrace, the disgrace of Russia and its future.
Extracted from the journal "Bee", published by the Foundation of the name of St. John (Maksimovich), June 1990 No. 6, Moscow