Under the guise of unity: What does the OCU call us to?

The "Holy Synod" of the OCU. Photo: UOJ

On July 14, 2024, the "Holy Synod" of the OCU issued an appeal urging all Orthodox Christians of Ukraine to "unite around the Kyiv throne".

In their message, the "synodals" wrote that the OCU is "ready for dialogue" with those who remain "under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate", and blamed the existing religious problems in our country on the "enemy", who does everything to ensure that there are "divisions" among the faithful of Ukraine. But is this really the case? And what does the OCU truly offer us?

Who is to Blame for Dividing Ukraine?

In the first sentence of the Synod's address, it says, "Recognizing the influence and significance of the Orthodox Church for our people, the enemy has done and continues to do everything to maintain church divisions, to keep at least part of our brothers and sisters under its religious domination, in the yoke of the ungodly doctrine of the 'Russian world.'"

In reality, the "synodals" of the OCU are, as always, being deceitful. It is not the enemy (in the image of the ROC, as we understand from the subsequent text) that divides the people of Ukraine by religious affiliation, but directly the representatives of Dumenko. How? By seizing churches, beating believers, and constantly insulting and humiliating the UOC. The adherents of the OCU refer to our Church exclusively as the "Moscow" Church. Isn't that divisive?

Even in this "address of the Holy Synod", another portion of filth is poured on the UOC believers, who are called supporters of "religious paganism" and followers of the "ungodly doctrine of the Russian world". Moreover, the claims of the Dumenko followers are not only unfounded but should also be classified as incitement to religious hatred.

The OCU writes that "having collectively condemned this doctrine as contrary to the Gospel and Orthodoxy, which has heretical roots and bears evil, deadly fruits, our Local Church repeatedly calls all Orthodox Ukrainians to unite around the Kyiv throne."

Firstly, we have already noted that there was no actual "collective condemnation" of the doctrine of the "Russian world".

Secondly, calling for unity around the Kyiv throne can be done not only by those who have all the canonical rights for this but also by those who, by their own example, show the desire to unite others. As we have said before, the OCU is incapable of this. It is evident that violence and aggression do not contribute to even hypothetical unity. On the contrary, they create an atmosphere of hostility and hatred, which not only contradicts fundamental Christian values but also points to the true culprit of division.

Empty Churches of the OCU: What's Moscow Got to Do with It?

"We are open to dialogue and communication with those who still remain under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, and we wish to help them overcome the false fear of the power of bloody Moscow," assert the "synodals" of Dumenko's structure.

We know firsthand about the "dialogue and communication" from the adepts of the OCU. For them, both are only possible with a crowbar and a grinder in hand.

On the other hand, do the Dumenko followers really believe that the bishops, priests, and believers of the UOC remain in the Church of Christ only out of "fear of Moscow"? Perhaps. But then how to explain the fact that ordinary people, who call themselves Orthodox and vote for the "transition" of a religious community from the UOC to the OCU, do not attend the churches taken from the canonical Church afterward? Do they also have a "fear of Moscow" or maybe their reluctance to deal with Dumenko's structure has other reasons? For example, spiritual emptiness, excessive politicization, "symphony" with the authorities... And for the same reasons, UOC believers do not want to join the OCU. Moscow has nothing to do with it.

Moreover, some still leave. Why? In search of a "real" and "open" Church for dialogue. For example, the author of this article is personally acquainted with several priests who moved to the OCU to escape the tyranny of their ruling bishop in the UOC. They were confident that in Dumenko's church, they would be guaranteed "dialogue" and "openness" from the "episcopate" and that there would be no "iniquity" against them. However, the reality they face in the OCU is far from as rosy as it seems before transitioning there. Because behind the beautiful words about unity and freedom lie many problems that are far from the ideals of dialogue and mutual understanding declared by the OCU.

About "Dialogue" in the OCU: A Case Study of One Diocese

As practice shows, Dumenko's structure is rife with lawlessness from the bishops, and priests are deprived of real rights, often finding their situation worse than it was in the UOC. An example of this is the case in the Cherkasy Eparchy, where the "bishop" of the OCU expelled cleric Maksym Lykholat from the parish without giving any reasons. This situation caused a wave of outrage among believers and "clergy", as confirmed by numerous comments and reactions on Facebook.

Quotes showing the reaction of OCU supporters to the anti-canonical lawlessness in the Cherkasy Eparchy vividly illustrate the atmosphere within this structure (we will quote only a few statements from users):

• "It's absolutely no surprise that this happened; it's not the first case, it's already a system."
• "It's very sad that this is happening in our Church... There are just a few educated and decent people here."
• "Marshal Zhukov used to say: 'Women will give birth to more.' And what about us? Bishops will ordain more priests? Isn't that where burnout and throwing the priest out of the churchyard come from?"
• "I'm not surprised at all. Just as I, as a choir director and professional musician, was 'asked' to leave the cathedral without explanation after 6 years of faithful, honest, selfless service. It drove me into depression, but I survived... Then I had many more discoveries and shocks. But I can state. If someone was removed/expelled, etc., by the bishop of the Cherkasy Diocese, they are on the right path!"
  "Nowadays, being out of state or banned (in the OCU) is a sign of quality."
• "There is nothing to expect. The OCU is already the ROC 2.0. Only the blind or completely out of their minds do not see this."
• "At one time, if I'm not mistaken, Patriarch Filaret still somehow kept his 'wards' in check. Now, everyone does what they want... Who to turn to, who can tame a specific bishop? Epifaniy? Does he need it? He is likewise. If people raised their heads, then there would be a case. But..."
• "It's a pity that this is happening in a church that is only beginning to revive. There were high hopes that it would be better than the ROC."
• "Believers should speak out about this; it should not be hushed. Social networks also have power. I often come across messages from Yevstratiy Zoria, where questions are asked, even very unpleasant ones."
• "I am blocked by him (Yevstratiy Zoria – Ed.). This is about 'dialogue' and 'openness.'"
  These and other statements clearly indicate that there are serious internal problems within the OCU that require serious attention. Therefore, before calling for "unity", Dumenko's representatives need to learn not to "devour" each other, at least. Especially since cases similar to the one in Cherkasy are not isolated and reflect the internal life of the OCU.

Ethics in the Understanding of Dumenko's "Episcopate"

One comment of particular interest stated that "for the sake of maximum fairness, in other dioceses, even where the metropolitan is considered an intellectual, they use law enforcement to access phones and personal correspondence, making them the subject of discussion at the diocesan assembly."

From a moral, legal, and any standpoint, the facts described in the quote raise serious questions. Indeed, if a "bishop" uses law enforcement to control his "clergy," what kind of "church" is this? Not to mention that using law enforcement to gain access to personal phones and correspondence constitutes a gross violation of privacy rights, and employing such methods contradicts elementary ethical norms. It's agreeable that such a flagrant violation of everything the Gospel teaches makes it difficult to consider Dumenko's structure as a Church. There are also other examples – from bribing officials and schemes involving land plots to trading in "humanitarian aid" and immoral behavior.

Ultimately, we see that the OCU attempts to demonstrate unity within its structure, to which the UOC is also called, but behind this demonstration lies sheer arbitrariness where everyone is out for themselves. The behavior of many "hierarchs" in this structure resembles spiders in a jar whose main task is survival. What kind of "unity" can there possibly be?

Moreover, the OCU again tries to portray Ukraine's problem as the "Russian world", suggesting that defeating the "Russian world" will lead to a better life for everyone. Meanwhile, real problems such as corruption, lawlessness among officials, economic and societal collapse, are being silenced.

Furthermore, while accusing the "enemy" of dividing Ukraine, the OCU itself plays a significant role in many processes that divide Ukrainians.

Without exaggeration, it can be said that often, observing the behavior of Dumenko's supporters, one realizes they are not dealing with Christians. Therefore, the next time the OCU's "synod" wants to accuse someone of religious paganism and division in Ukrainian society, they should start with themselves.

To our priests who feel attracted to the "open door" of the OCU, we want to say that behind it lies only violence, arbitrariness, and hypocrisy. There is no room for dialogue in this structure.

Read also