How a functionary from the Ministry of Culture fights common sense

One needs to call white as black and black as white confidently and categorically for it to be believed, as some officials and MPs demonstrate. They think they are fighting the "unpatriotic" Church. But in the first place – they are fighting common sense.

On November 21 the “Ukrinform” agency held a press-conference of two outspoken foes of the canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine MP Victor Yelensky and Head of the Department for Religions Andrey Yurash with an interesting name “Overall Results and Challenges of the State-Confessional Policy in Ukraine.” It is curious for the following reasons.

What is the most "state-confessional policy" in Ukraine (we will not pay attention to the rude semantics of the formulation itself)?

This was repeatedly worded by the president, the prime minister, the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, and many other powers that be. It is distilled down, in fact, only two theses:

a) the destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in its current canonical status, i.e. as "independent and autonomous in its management and organization" (clause 1 of the Charter of the UOC) and "united with the Local Orthodox Churches through the Russian Orthodox Church" (clause 3 of the Charter);

b) the creation of the Unified Local Church (ULC) as a necessary attribute of an independent Ukrainian state. The ULC should be comprised of all Ukrainian denominations, calling themselves Orthodox, including those that are anathematized by the Universal Orthodoxy.

If we follow common sense, Yurash and Yelensky should have sounded the "results and challenges" of this policy. But since common sense seems a challenge itself, neither results nor challenges have been announced. Let's try to do it instead of Messers Yurash and Yelensky then.

It is too early to sum up the outcomes of the above-mentioned policy, except, perhaps, interim ones being as follows:

a) the destruction of the UOC did not take place. On the contrary, quantitatively, over the years of the "state-confessional policy" towards the UOC, approximately half a thousand parishes have been set up;

b) the creation of the ULC has completely flopped. Constantinople and Jerusalem, as well as other Local Churches, officially declared the impossibility of creating the ULC in the non-canonical way as offered by the Ukrainian state.

There are a few more implications of such a policy. An increased degree of religious hostility in Ukrainian society, a significant increase in the number of inter-faith conflicts, outrage of people, unlawful seizures of the UOC temples and violent acts against believers.

If to speak of challenges, they are as follows:

a) the absolutely "unconscientious" UOC resists its annihilation (oh, what an insolence!) and succeeds in withstanding it;

b) the "agents of the Kremlin", as the hierarchs of the Local Orthodox Churches have already been tagged, stand in the way for Ukraine having the ULC.

This is how the press conference at the Ukrinform agency was supposed to take place from the sensible standpoint But the people who gave this press conference have been fiercely struggling with their raison d’être.

What did they say on November 21?

Now, do not laugh please.

– Violations of the UOC rights is an "artificial reality"

Can a sensible man believe that?!

Forty seized churches, priests evicted from their houses, believers denied access to their churches, threats of physical reprisals against the UOC clergy on behalf of various nationalist organizations, defamation of the canonical Church in the media. This is all "no problems in the religious sphere", in Yurash’s opinion.

– In the international arena, representatives of the UOC run "information-manipulative campaigns"

Yurash devoted a significant part of his speech to the statements of the official site of the UOC that the problem with observing religious freedoms in Ukraine was raised in the UN (at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva). We would like to stress thatactually for thisvery sake the press conference was arranged. Indeed, the level of the UN or any of its structures is a serious thing. And reports that Ukrainian authorities received criticism within the framework of this structure could not but irritate Yurash. After all, in fact, he personally is subject to it. Like any official who holds on to his position, the Director of the Department for Religious and Ethnic Affairs, rushed to organize an information campaign on whitewashing his image. Especially on the eve of the litigation with the UOC concerning the sabotage of registration of its statutes.

Yurash tried to explain that statements of the official site of the UOC did not correspond to reality and cited two headlines:

– UN recognizes the problem of observing religious freedoms in Ukraine;
– UN meeting in Geneva calls on the state of Ukraine to ensure the rights of UOC believers.

Why does the representative of the Ministry of Culture find this news "manipulative"? According to him, the statements of human rights organizations voiced or made public at the meeting do not matter and are not the "UN official position". And in the statements by Greece and Russia, which touched upon the religious theme, there were no specific references to the UOC.

Yurash’s justifications are designed for people who are not familiar with the Western legal culture and the procedure for discussing such issues within the UN framework.

They say, "no one gave the floor to human rights organizations," "only state delegations had the right to speak," and "human rights defenders could only disseminate their information."

There is an association – street ad distributors, who are trying to foist a glossy booklet. This is exactly how Yurash tried to present the status of human rights defenders’ speeches in the UN. It sounded as if serious men were sittingin session, speaking, while human rights activists were just "disseminating information".

Such a disregarding attitude towards NGOs testifies to the low legal culture of Yurash, as well as the lack of understanding of the role of human rights organizations in the discussion of human rights violations. The UN HRC not only believes that there is "nothing wrong with the information of human rights defenders," as Yurash put it, but he considers information of this kind to be mandatory and particularly valuable! Especially the information from within the country itself, which is under discussion. After all, the state will never criticize itself, that's why in Europe they always turn to information from non-governmental organizations.

In this context, human rights defenders are obligatory participants in the discussion and one of the sources that representatives of state delegations take into account in their speeches. And the fact that the information of human rights activists was voiced on such a platform is no longer just a matter of fact.

In addition, criticism of Ukraine by international human rights organizations is in itself a serious thing! Yurash tried to discredit the opinion of NGOs by mentioning the World Russian Council. Like, you see, who is protecting the UOC there. At the same time, he ignored the position of the ADF, an authoritative international organization, whose statements cannot be dismissed, as a flyer of a street promoter.

As for the reference to the UOC in the speeches of Greece and Russia, Yurash is also not telling the truth. He cannot be unaware (or maybe he really is) that before the official session in October, a preliminary meeting was held, at which state delegations got acquainted with the information about human rights violations in Ukraine. It is obvious that within the framework of this meeting, they met with representatives of the UOC and discussed this issue with them.

Without this, it's completely unclear why Greece suddenly started talking about religious freedoms in Ukraine. According to Yurash's logic, it turns out that Greece just mentioned the Ukraine case in passing. However, at this level, nothing is done accidentally, and every detail matters. Thus, the speech of Greece is, in particular, the reflection and result of the meeting with representatives of the UOC and international human rights activists! It does not matter that its name was not mentioned, because this was implied in the very context of the discussion and the sources that the state delegations used!

Finally, Yurash forgot a "small" detail, namely the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights! Isn’t it an official UN document? In it the UOC is mentioned clearly and unambiguously. And this report is one of the sources for the study by state delegations along with the information from human rights organizations and directly representatives of the UOC.

The official from the Ministry of Culture proves without a second thought that if the words "condemn" are not used in the statements, there are no problems and the statements of Greece and the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can be ignored. Again, in diplomacy everything is done for a reason. If Greece said about the need for "additional measures" in securing religious freedom, this already means a problem! The responsible civil servant would not have blamed the "general phrases", but thought about what was the reason for such a statement. If the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights gives information about violations of the UOC rights, this is a signal that this information was taken into account and trusted, and not simply pasted into the text to increase the number of symbols.

– Conflict situations arise through the fault of the UOC

Has the UOC grabbed at least one church by force yet? Have well-built young men intimidated anyone on behalf of the UOC yet? Have the UOC faithful attacked anyone, beaten or not allowed them into a church? What is the fault of the UOC? Is it its fault that its hierarchs are calling for peace in Ukraine? Or is it that during every liturgy (and not only the liturgy)they pray for it? Or maybe because UOC believers complain to the bodies of state administration and local self-government about violations of their rights? Or is it that they try to defend their rights in courts? Or report on the lawlessness in international organizations?

Is this contrary to Ukrainian law? Or does this legislation not apply to the UOC?

The "fault" is the following: "You are at fault that I am famished."

– "The UOC does not meet the "positive steps of the Department for establishing cooperation and dialogue"

What are these "positive steps"? The promotion of anti-church bills directed against the UOC, the justification of church raiding, the false accusations of the UOC of pro-Russian activity and so on. Well, how can this be not met? But the UOC dares!

– 40 churches seized during raider attacks by representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate and the UGCC are "peaceful expression of the citizens’ will"

Do simple things: go to Youtube, search for "seizure of churches in Ukraine" and watch this "peaceful will".



We wonder if the Ministry of Culture has forgotten how to surf Youtube? Or is there a problem with common sense?

– "Bill No. 4128 will help avoid conflict situations"

Bill No. 4128 will create a legislative basis for these conflict situations. This is recognized by all experts in Ukraine and other countries (including European ones), as well as in international organizations. Here are, for example, excerpts from the Conclusions of the Main Scientific and Expert Department of the Verkhovna Rada on this bill.



The full text of this conclusion is available here.

Mr. Yurash and Yelensky, of course, are familiar with negative comments on the draft law 4128, but they probably consider themselves smarter than everyone else. Or they are challenging common sense.

- Police in Kolomyia and Stary Gvozdets were pulling apart the conflicting parties

Only Uniate militants who took (!) an Orthodox church, beat (!) Orthodox believers, and threatened (!) Orthodox priests, were riotous in Kolomyia! The Orthodox did not conflict with anyone, they tried to defend their constitutional rights exclusively (!) by legal methods. And the police did not have to separate the parties.

All this can be seen here:



But the fact that the Orthodox still cannot pray in their church is a great “merit” of the local police. Is this not a helping hand to the Uniates?

- "The UOC uses hate speech, does not use" own names" and uses the word" schismatics""

As a "confirmation" of the supposedly hostile rhetoric of the UOC, Mr. Yurash cites a quote from the metropolitan of Zaporozhye and Melitopol Luke (Kovalenko): "Schismatics led by Mikhail Denisenko and Uniates led by Svyatoslav Shevchuk."

Well, where is the hostile rhetoric here?

For the information of Mr. Yurash and Yelensky, the geopolitical separation is called separatism, while the church separation is called a split or schism. And there's nothing you can do about it. He who broke away from the Church of Christ means a schismatic. This term the Orthodox Church has been using for almost two thousand years and is not going to change this tradition to please the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture.

Concerning the term "Uniates". Here is a screen from the official website of the UGCC.



As you can see, the UGCC absolutely calmly refers to itself as "union" and does not feel embarrassed at all. To see in this term the rhetoric of enmity could only be someone's sick imagination.

But whose hate speech is not just spouting, but literally falling under a criminal article is that of representatives of the UOC-KP and the UGCC.

Here is the quote of the UGCC chaplain Nikolai Medinsky during the confrontation around the Annunciation church in Kolomyia against the believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church: "This is a biomass! Natural biomass! Now we will not throw the beads of God and Ukrainian truth to the Moscow pigs at their feet. We do not take this one from you (the Annunciation temple - note of the UOJ), we take everything from you! We will throw you out of our land! And from the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra!"

Why did not Mr. Yurash announce all this at a press conference? After all, a government official must be unbiased.

- "The Kyiv Patriarchate has acknowledgement documents for worships in Small Sophia"

Please prove that with relevant documents, Mr. Yurash!

There is no documentation, but there is a response of the National Reserve "Kyiv Sofia" to the NGO "Public Advocacy".



– “The UOC Statutes are not in line with the legislation of Ukraine”

This is all about a scandal on sabotaging by the Ministry of Culture of the re-registration of statutes of the UOC parishes. But it turned out that these statutes contradict not the legislation of Ukraine, but the departmental instruction of the Ministry of Culture, which besides its being a bylaw and not an act of legislation, was until recently "classified" for official use, which is basically unacceptable! However, namely this instruction contradicts the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations”.

In this instruction, the Ministry of Culture tries to impose on the communities the same draft law 4128, which has not even become law yet and obliges the communities in their statutes to reflect the right of communities to change their jurisdiction without the consent of the diocesan bishop and governing bodies of the Church. That is, to agree to a direct violation of the church canons. This demand of the Ministry of Culture is a blatant violation of the above law.

Actually, the position of the Ministry of Culture on the re-registration of charters and on the bill 4128 contradicts the legislation and practices of European countries. The fact is that both Yurash and Yelensky are trying to convince the Verkhovna Rada and the entire Ukrainian public that in Europe the religious community can absolutely freely move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction with its church and church property at the request of the majority of its members. In this position, one big cheating and one big lie are hidden.

The falsehood is that in Europe membership in the religious community is very strictly regulated. On the one hand, the community and / or the diocesan bishop have the right to sort out the issue, i.e. to grant a specific person membership in the community or not. On the other hand, a member of the community has rather extensive obligations before the congregation, including pecuniary. For example, in Germany, the church tax paid by a member of a religious community through the state tax services is about 800 euros. And only fulfilling all these requirements for membership, a person has the right to vote at a community meeting. So, the very "self-identification", so persistently promoted by Mssrs Yurash and Yelensky, not only runs counter to the European practice and common sense, but in general, it's ridiculous!

Now about the big lie. European legislation clearly recognizes the priority of the diocesan bishop and the governing bodies of the Church over the rights of the community.

Here are just a few theses that characterize European legislation and practice in this matter:

• the bishop has the right to create and manage all the parishes of the diocese;
• the bishop has the right to suspend a member of the community from their membership;
• the bishop has the right to dispose of church property;
• the bishop approves all transactions with church real estate;
• the bishop approves the charter of the community, as well as changes and additions to it;
• the bishop can create and liquidate church communities;
• believers who wish to change canonical jurisdiction can realize their desire by the only way - to leave the religious community and create a new one;
• in the event of a change in canonical jurisdiction, all movable and immovable church property remains in the ownership of the diocese;
• the transfer to another jurisdiction together with property is possible only with the unanimous desire of all parishioners and with the consent of the ruling bishop (by the way, it is in this order that Catholic churches and Protestant kirches are transferred to Orthodox communities in European countries.) Reason: the complete absence of Catholic or Protestant parishioners at the backdrop of formal existence of the community).

That approach, in which the community itself would have priority over the rights of the ruling bishop on property issues, is pure heritage of the communist past. It was in the USSR that religious policy was based on the principle of the lawlessness of the governing bodies of the Church, the diocesan bishops and even the parish abbots. Priority in resolving both property and other issues was given to the church council, which consisted of laymen, who were often atheists in general and entered such councils on the instructions of the Communist Party and the state security bloc. This is the ideology that the initiators of anti-church bills and champions of re-registration of charters try to impose on the Ukrainian society. But we seem to have declared decommunization. Or Mssrs Yurash and Yelensky did not hear about it?

- "Conflicts occur inside the community of the UOC"

And as a result of these "intra-community" conflicts, the community is allegedly changing its confessional jurisdiction. Wait a minute! And whence then "priests" from the UOC-KP and the UGCC appear inside the communities of the UOC? Where from "inside the community of the UOC" appear the militants of the "Black Hundred" and "Right Sector"? Maybe, according to Yurash, they also form a part of the canonical structure of the UOC?


Sounds like an absurdity? In the opinion of Mssrs Yurash and Yelensky, everything is fine.

It is possible to comment for a long time on the theses, voiced by A. Yurash and V. Yelensky at the press conference "Results and Challenges of the State and Confessional Policy in Ukraine" on November 21, but we will return to the point where we started. About naming white as black and vice versa. Unfortunately for Ukrainian officials, this has become an everyday routine.

However, It is only in the Bible, in the book of the prophet Isaiah, it is said unequivocally: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, darkness is considered light, and light is darkness, bitter is considered sweet, and sweet is bitter!" (Isaiah 5, 20).

There is a very interesting interpretation of this passage, written by Saint Caesar of Aralat (Arles) in the 6th century, but as if for our times: "There are some people who take bribes and intentionally distort the fair course of the matter. The prophet speaks of them: Darkness is considered light, and light is darkness, bitter is considered sweet, and sweet is considered bitter. They listen to the testimony and judge unfairly. They receive earthly gifts, and lose the imperishable gifts. They make money, but lose eternal life."

By and large, enmity with common sense is an earthly and temporary affair. But the enmity with the Church of Christ...

Read also