orthodoxrights.org

The chancellor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, metropolitan Antoniy gave interview to ‘Correspondent’ magazine

The wave of violent conflicts between the faithful of different patriarchates over parishes has aggravated the long-standing problem of the Ukrainian church. Most of the citizens consider themselves orthodox Christians. But which church do they identify themselves with? There are three ‘orthodoxy variations’ in Ukraine, says Elena Siroid in the issue 9 of ‘Correspondent’ magazine dated March 11, 2016.

One of them is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate (UOC) founded in 1990 as part of the Moscow Patriarchate having autonomy in administrative matters. It is the unique canonical church, i.e. officially recognized by the world orthodox community.

The second one is the Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC KP) established in 1992 and the third one is the Ukrainian Autocephalous (independent) Orthodox Church (UAOC), appeared in 1919.

The two latter emerged during crisis years obviously with the aim of distancing themselves from the Moscow Patriarchate as much as possible. Now as Ukraine is undergoing a crisis period again, will the autocephaly issue be reconsidered?

A‘Correspondent’ journalist interviewed the chancellor of the UOC, metropolitan Antoniy (Pakanich) about these and other issues.

Will the Ecumenical Council discuss the question of granting autocephalous status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church during its session in June 2016?

The agenda of the All-Orthodox Council was mainly drawn up in 1970s. As you see the preparation process is very long. And the main principle on which it rests is that only questions concerning all orthodox churches must be discussed. This is why this particular question of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church status is not included in the project documents of the Council (already in free access). However, the situation of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy is nowadays closely followed by all orthodox churches. The fact is that aggressive actions of some Ukrainian confessions (unrecognized by the world orthodoxy) oriented towards us are unacceptable from the point of view of the church approach. We can hold a review of the letters that we get from the heads of local churches and Bishops’ Councils where they express their opinions about the actual situation of our Church. For example, recently the Bishops’ Council of Serbia sent a letter to the president of Ukraine Petro Porochenko, where they express their concern about the attempts to dissolve the unique canonical Church in Ukraine. Therefore, the problem of the Ukrainian orthodoxy will be touched on anyway during the meeting of the All-Orthodoxy Council.

When you say unacceptable attitude, do you mean the seizures of Moscow Patriarchate churches that are so often reported? How many similar cases have already been recorded?

31 churches were seized during the years 2014-15 and other in 12 administrative units are threatened. The seizures were armed and organized. And what worries us the most is the inaction of the authorities. In some cases, they even take the part of seizers. We are modern people and understand what religious freedom is and we are for raising legal awareness in society. Each of us has the right to choose which church to attend – if any at all. However, everything happening in the context of religion must definitely comply with legislative rules.

Do you mean that a parish has the right to freely change its confession?

Since recently, 8 parishes have consciously shifted to Kyiv Patriarchate within the juridical field. There was no debate over the inverse process either, when some Kyiv Patriarchate churches voluntarily shifted to us. According to Ukrainian Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations, parishes have the right to do it.

Nevertheless, illegal seizure of the church by means of lies and force cannot be qualified as free choice. According to the law, a free shift occurs when such a decision is taken by the members of parish councils and not by village residents as there are not only orthodox among them but also followers of other Christian confessions and even non-believers. When a church is taken over by the UOC KP contrary to the will of UOC believers even if they are only ten, such an event may not be qualified as a free shift. In fact, certain politicians are dissatisfied with the actual Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations, and so draft law No. 4128 was introduced to Verkhovna Rada on February 23. Without going into details and emphasizing the non-compliance with the international legal practice, it is important to stress that these amendments are an attempt to legalize the forced seizures of our churches. It goes without saying that all these actions may only lead to confrontation and aggravate the interfaith conflicts.

Have you applied to court?

We file cases after each conflict situation if we consider that our believers’ rights were violated. We have won many cases so far but local authorities do not execute the decisions. The most high-profile lawsuit in this context is the one on the seizure of the church in Pticha village of Rovenskaya region. We won lawsuits of many levels but the local authority managed to have the church and the property arrested. So the execution of the court decision is blocked.

How can you explain such an attitude? As a parishioner, I myself saw people leave the church during the liturgy when Patriarch Kirill’s name was mentioned.

I would, nonetheless, say that many of our parishioners quite the opposite, follow the liturgy very attentively to be sure that nothing is omitted from the worshipping tradition, developed and approved by devout prayers of our predecessors. What is not connected to the church life must stay out of the church. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to cope with sometimes untruthful information flow, concerning the relationship of our churches in general and his sanctity the Patriarch in particular. Much of the negative information, usually without real grounds, is dispersed via mass media.

Has anyone so far produced authentic evidence of weapon stocks in parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church or of a priest refusing to perform a funeral service for a soldier fallen in anti-terrorist operations?

There are many allegations of this kind which, however, turn out to be slanders when looked into. So when we prove to a TV channel or a newspaper that a certain case is not true, when we produce evidence of this, only some of them issue official denials in a corner in small print.

This is why it is necessary to show common sense and tolerance and even rest cold-blooded to a certain degree while perceiving the negative information about our church published nowadays. This information is intended to sow discord within our parishioners.

I suppose that many parishioners are just unhappy with the word ‘Moscow’ used with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. For example, in his recent sermon, Patriarch Kirill said that the Moscow Patriarchate is the ‘mother church’ of Kiev, when from the historical point of view, this mother is half a millennium younger than her daughter (the episcopal cathedra of Moscow was established together with the adoption of patriarchy in 1589; there was no metropolitan and episcope in the history of Moscow). How does the Ukrainian church take statements of this kind?

In church jargon the notion ‘mother church’ is used with two different connotations. The orthodox may consider as mother church the church where they were baptized. I assume it was in this sense that Patriarch Bartholomeus referred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople as ‘mother church’ of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Because it was from Constantinople that Prince Vladimir adopted Christianity in ninth century. From this perspective, the Church of Kiev became the mother of all churches on the territory of the modern Russia and not only.

However, the term ‘mother church’ has another strictly canonical connotation. The mother church of each structure is the autocephalous church on which it depends and through which it connects to the world orthodoxy. Up until 1686 the Kiev Archdiocese was a part of the autocephalous Church of Constantinople. Later it shifted under the law of the Moscow Patriarchate. There may exist different interpretations of the historic aspect of that decision but nonetheless it rests valid. Although some patriarchs of Constantinople had criticized this decision, it was never officially denied.

The articles of the modern Ukrainian church stipulate that our church shall keep contact with all other local orthodox churches via the Russian Orthodox church. It is in this sense that the Russian Orthodox Church is called the mother church of the modern Ukrainian church. We have a canonical union with the Moscow Patriarchate and at the same time enjoy the rights of autonomy.

It happens that priests take a certain political position, doesn’t it? For instance, the former Kiev resident Andrey Tkachev who blamed Maidan… What attitude does the church take towards them?

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has repeatedly stated in its documents (decisions of the synod and the council of archpriests) that the ambon is not to be used as a platform for the propaganda of any political views. The Church must keep out of politics.

In 2007 when there were attempts to use the church as a means to influence people and direct them towards certain political convictions, the Synod adopted a decision against politicization of the church. This is unacceptable for the church. And this is not about a certain political orientation, it concerns all political doctrines without exception.

The main task of any priest is to pacify souls. There is much aggression around. People are ready to kill each other but not to reconcile. In these terms the priest, who receive a special grace from God through ordination, must make very effort to reduce this hate. We are for national unity. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church proclaims not only in words but also in deeds that we support the integrity of Ukraine. Still we are very careful with each our word as we realize that if priests also get involved in this controversy, we will not be able to live together any more. In this sense, when we see any priest do otherwise, we suggest him the right approach.

Questions of putting an end to the schism within Ukrainian church have been raised since its very emergence. It seems now it has become even more unfeasible?

Each orthodox of Ukraine clearly understands that it is unnatural when people of one faith are split up. The schism in fact doesn’t occur in religious terms. This is why we have always been advocating for a single orthodox church in Ukraine. However, as this is a problem of the church, the solution of it must be performed strictly in line with church criteria, i.e. canons. There is no point in relaying on political reasonability or personal preferences. I want to stess once again that the church is out of politics. Our destination is the salvation of human souls. That is why we are not concerned by the moment but – eternity. Unfortunately, the behaviour of some confessions, of so-called Kyiv Patriarchate in particular, hampers our reunion. A first step towards the dialogue would be made by at least getting rid of aggressive rhetoric and actions towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

And yet, first of all, we are religious people and we pray God to help us overcome all these. We need the God to bless us but we must not forget to make our own human efforts too. I strongly hope that there will be a unified orthodox church in Ukraine, established on canonical principles while I am still alive.

How do you regard the meeting of Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis? Considering the thousand years of the dogmatic controversy between the Orthodox and Catholics, many orthodox believers see it as almost a ‘betrayal’.

I myself was a member of that delegation. My opinion is that there is nothing bad in the fact that the heads of the Roman Catholic and the biggest Orthodox Churches said to the world and to politicians, which are very influential, that it is time to stop. In fact, we are now at a point, crossing which we risk to provoke a world catastrophe, a war that could wipe out the whole humanity.

I want to assure those orthodox people who, being suspicious about the Roman Catholic Church itself, took this meeting with a certain degree of apprehension: religious truths were not touched at all. All of us, and especially episcopes at ordination swear the oath to be loyal to dogmatic truths given to us for our salvation. There is no point for apprehension either in the declaration signed by Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis or in their meeting. The main item on the agenda was the discussion of strained relations between the West and East. Both parties having nuclear weapons, a clash might cause irreversible consequences. All arguments must be settled within a dialogue and mutual accord. Only thus we can grant a perspective of life and evolution of human civilization.