Ukraine is going through a difficult period of redistribution in the church field, which is from time to time accompanied by violence, litigation rows, and political dubiousness.
As stated in an article posted by ZN.ua, on the one hand, part of the “OCU voices” considers both the redistribution itself and the use of force amid the dispute over the temples to be justified. On the other hand, the UOC-MP defends its rights to property and believers, accusing the OCU of schism and persecution.
The author of the text, journalist Kateryna Shtokina, analyzes the causes and consequences of the ongoing conflict, as well as its impact on government, society, and church as an institution.
The redistribution of church property and religious tension in Ukraine in general have reached the point where the situation is beyond government control. A new round of scandal — a fight on the territory of the monastery of the Holy Mother of God in Cherkasy, where camouflaged men “helped” expel parishioners of the UOC MP. As a result of the fight, two representatives of the UOC-MP were hospitalized with injuries. The OCU claims that what happened was an act of “self-defense.” But the voices sound a little uneven – after all, in Kyiv, both the spiritual and secular authorities are somewhat stunned by how the situation on the ground is getting out of control.
The fact that something is going wrong has been discussed in OCU circles for quite a while, but mostly quietly, in personal communication. For the first time, the organization “10 Theses for the OCU”, which consists of representatives of this church, spoke openly against the seizure of churches by force. The group adopted an appeal to its church leadership and general public, condemning any manifestations of violence during transition from the UOC MP to the OCU. The statement was made precisely against the background of the said incident in Cherkasy. However, the authors claim that the text had been penned earlier and does not directly relate to the events in Cherkasy.
The leadership of the church, quite expectedly, pretends that it has not heard its activists. However, real battles broke out between representatives of the OCU on the Internet.
Some of the “OCU voices” consider both the redistribution itself and the use of violence during the seizure of churches to be justified. In their rhetoric, the temples of the UOC MP are some kind of “inner Moscow” that should be destroyed. According to these speakers, there is certain “justice” in that: the violence that Russia uses against Ukraine frees the hands of Ukrainians, who now have the right to use violence against anything associated with Russia.
There is reason to suspect that this view is supported by the OCU leadership. They have their own reasons, and one can’t say it’s illogical. The “evolutionary” path of transition of people and parishes from the UOC MP to the OCU is very slow. And the path of “redistributing temples” may seem more promising: first gain the temple, and people will follow suit. In this regard, I cannot help but mention Patriarch Filaret. When asked why the church does not reach out to people with active preaching, the patriarch answered with his characteristic directness: why should we run after them? They should come themselves. They know where we are.
Not everyone at OCU shares this approach, as can be seen from the appeal of the “10 theses” group. First, it does not correspond to the spirit of Christian faith, for which God is not in the walls. Secondly, the redistribution of churches leads to dangerous political consequences: the communities of “faithful Russians” become more fanatical, but at the same time less visible – they go “underground”.
Their non-systematic nature makes them interesting and attractive from the point of view of spiritual search. Just yesterday they had privileges and considered them to be evidence of their “truth”. Nowadays, the record has changed – “the true faith is the one that is persecuted”, and the idea that “God is not in the walls, but in the souls” becomes their main missionary slogan.
After all, the current cycle of church violence may lead to the fact that uniting the churches into a single locality will be impossible in the foreseeable future. Which, in turn, completely coincides with the Kremlin’s hopes. “Who should we unite with? — ask rhetorically the propagandists of the UOC-MP. “With these thugs who beat our believers?” One could respond to that, bringing up the issues of the seeds of hatred that were generously sown by “witnesses of the schism”, anti-Ukrainian propaganda in churches, “fratricidal war” claims, and calls to evade mobilization and snub the calls to “protect this country “, and about the Crimean Metropolis – the list of responses can be really long. But these answers will not bring us an inch closer to reconciliation, to overcoming the division within Ukrainian society.
Church redistribution works in Russian interests. The preservation of the ecclesiastical structure of the UOC MP also works for them. A closed circle from which it is difficult to find a way out: the existence of structures of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine is scandalous, and it is impossible to eradicate these structures without violating the laws and principles of human rights. At the same time, the entire policy of these structures, aimed at dividing and weakening Ukrainian society, causes considerable irritation.
It is significant that pro-Moscow propagandists from the UOC MP have now turned “unification and reconciliation” into a bogus and scare believers with the “beastly grin of schismatics”. And at the same time they blackmail their opponents in the OCU. Do you want reconciliation? Hands off everything that is ours – temples, privileges, collaborators, and canonical unity with Moscow.
In general, everything leads to the idea that the “hawks” in the OCU are right – Carthage must be destroyed.
But the thing is that the UOC MP is no Carthage. It will be impossible to destroy it immediately for several reasons. First, Western partners will not allow this to happen. Even if they understand why Ukraine needs it, they have to reckon with their voters, who do not understand and do not support this – including because Russian propaganda works better in the West than Ukrainian narratives.
Second, whoever is waging war must always have some sort of “ceasefire” plan. That is, a set of concessions that they will demand from the enemy and to which they will themselves be able to agree in response to the enemy’s demands. We can have no doubt that the inviolability of the UOC MP will become a condition on the Moscow side. And that Ukraine will probably have to agree to this condition – including because, as already mentioned above, Western partners recognize it as acceptable.
In other words, church coexistence is a prospect that we cannot discount. Although now both sides are doing everything to make this coexistence as painful as possible.
The problem of violent confrontations for temples lies not only in the ecclesiastical plane. This whole story is about the colossal discrediting of everything and everyone who was and could remain an authority and guarantor of stability in the country and society.
The origin of the church conflict discredits the government, which should monitor compliance with the law and put out conflicts that are eroding local communities and people’s minds. Instead, anyone can act in the church field – local authorities, secular and church activists, and veterans, too. And they act in a variety of ways – some gather public servants to “vote for the transition of the temple”, some call for the help of their brothers-in-arms and storms the church fence, and some simply decide to terminate the contract on the lease of the land under the temple without any reason.
The problem is not that “you can’t do that with the church”, everything depends on the circumstances. But you can’t do that either with the law, or with the right, or with the authority of the government. If the UOC MP is a threat to the country, it should be outlawed and its activities – banned.
The authorities have various ways to stop the destructive activities of church organizations, it would be possible not even to adopt new odious laws. One thing that’s needed is political will and effective investigative bodies.
However, here too, everything goes not so smoothly. The SBU reports that they opened cases against approximately 60 clergymen of the UOC MP. However, there are few tangible results so far. Trials are taking place, but there is a lack of evidence – this was pointed out during the latest meeting of the UN Security Council. “Sanctions” imposed instead of court sentences do not prevent Muscovite bishops from living and working here. The Union of Orthodox Journalists (Vadim Novinsky’s propaganda channel) continues broadcasting, promoting Russian narratives in the Ukrainian media space, in particular, performed by their authors — citizens and residents of the Russian Federation. And the draft law “on the banning of the UOC-MP”, which was taken out of the back shelf only under enormous external pressure, has now been forwarded for assessment by the Venice Commission. The Verkhovna Rada says that they will probably not return to the draft law until the New Year. And secretly, some in the high offices hope that the Venice Commission will “kill” the draft law.
If the authorities did not have a specific plan or even political will to rid Ukraine of the Moscow Patriarchate, why feed the Moscow and Washington trolls with “persecution” and provoke riots around the “redistribution of temples”?
However, the authorities have one achievement, albeit a dubious one. If until now the church held a high position in the lists of authoritative institutions for Ukrainians, now it risks losing it. In principle, the war turned out to be a difficult challenge for the church (as well as for the whole society), but the Orthodox churches worsen their situation over the “redistribution row”. They could become a pillar of support for society, but they are ready to exchange it for the opportunity to avenge old rivals, gain more assets, or, conversely, to maintain their comfort zone and please their pride – no matter the cost. The colossal institutional egoism of both Orthodox churches prevents them from fulfilling their noble functions — helping their people to preserve mental balance, human dignity, and Christian virtues before the gates of hell, not to lose their orientation or at least to believe that light and love never lose their meaning.
The discrediting of any one church institution is the discrediting of the church in general. We are watching how two Orthodox churches are immediately destroying each other’s authority and our own at the same time. When they finally finish each other, where should we go?
Source: ZN.UA
