On spiritual independence and the NSDC decision

In his video message dated December 1, 2022, President of Ukraine V. Zelenskyy announced that the National Security and Defense Council had taken a number of measures against the UOC, in particular, initiated a bill “on the impossibility of activities in Ukraine of religious organizations affiliated with centers of influence in the Russian Federation.”

The President explained the need for these measures in the following way: “We will ensure full independence for our state. In particular, spiritual independence. We will never allow anyone to build an empire inside the Ukrainian soul.”

The next day, V. Zelensky said that the measures to gain "spiritual independence" were actively supported by the Ukrainian society and that Ukraine would not stop halfway in this direction.

Before proceeding to consideration of practical issues, there are a few philosophical remarks to be made.

Philosophical (philosophy – love of wisdom) digression

What is "spiritual independence"? Does the state have legal instruments or criteria for classifying one or another "spirituality" as dependent or independent? Obviously not. It is necessary to recognize an indisputable fact: the state is not competent in matters of spirituality and cannot determine where this spiritual independence begins and where it ends. Moreover, an Orthodox Christian cannot be “spiritually independent” at all, since the Church is the Body of Christ and all Christians are interconnected as members of this One Body. “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” (1 Corinthians 12:26-27). Therefore, whether someone wants it or not, but all Orthodox Christians – Ukrainians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Russians and all others – are all spiritually dependent on each other.

However, it is unlikely that V. Zelenskyy had this dependence in mind. Most likely, he implied that Ukraine should be free from some near-church ideologems, which (among other things) are used by Russian officials to justify their invasion of Ukraine. It is precisely this understanding prompted by his words “We will never let anyone build an empire inside the Ukrainian soul.”

Indeed, over its two thousand year history, the Church of Christ has acquired a whole range of near-ecclesiastical dogmas that are not directly related to the Gospel. One of these teachings is the idea that just as there is the Kingdom of God in Heaven, so there should be some kind of a single state, empire, headed by an Orthodox emperor on earth. This doctrine arose and came into its own in the Byzantine Empire, it was developed and supported by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, and in a certain sense is maintained even now. From Constantinople, to which certain forces in Ukraine are now declaring allegiance, this doctrine migrated to Russia and was supplemented by the idea of Moscow as the “Third Rome”. Although it must be admitted that the Russian Church has never accepted it at the official level.

Therefore, it would be more correct to speak not about spiritual, but about ideological independence. Why is it important? Because we can see a semantic substitution when one concept is replaced by another, and as a result, a completely understandable struggle with the Russian imperial ideology turns into a struggle with the Church of Christ.

In the end, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not preach the “Russian world” or the “Orthodox empire”, nor does it justify aggression against our country. If law enforcement agencies identify individual cases of such actions among the UOC (just like in any other organizations), they have the right to bring the perpetrators to justice within the law.

But the UOC is categorically against the fact that under the pretext of fighting against the above-mentioned manifestations, the UOC should be massacred, and the citizens of Ukraine should be deprived of their constitutional right to believe as they see fit and to belong to the Church they consider true.

Decision of the National Security and Defense Council of December 1, 2022

Now let's move on to the practical side of the issue. The decision of the National Security and Defense Council of December 1, 2022 consists of 6 points, which essence is as follows:

Firstly, a draft law on “the impossibility of activities in Ukraine of religious organizations affiliated with centers of influence” in the Russian Federation should be submitted for consideration by the Verkhovna Rada.

Quite an understandable requirement, if not for one but. How are the authorities going to determine who is affiliated with such centers and who is not, what are the criteria? If the proof of affiliation is the chant with the words “Mother Rus' is awakening”, performed in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra by several women, then this will mean that the authorities want to crack down on the UOC under any strained pretext. If the authorities check the Statute of the UOC, then the Church simply will not be subject to this law despite the fact that the rhetoric of some of those in power cast doubt on namely such an approach.

Secondly, within two months, a check should be made of the legal terms on the basis of which the UOC uses the property of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, and to what extent these conditions are observed. Here, too, everything depends on “political will”. If it is necessary to draw a conclusion about the discrepancy and, on this basis, expel the UOC from the Lavra, this will be done. If everything is carried out within the framework of the law and all actions are formalized in accordance with the requirements of procedural legislation, then with the greatest probability both the legality of the use of the property of the Lavra by the UOC and the fact that the use of this property is carried out in compliance with all legal conditions will be easily proved.

Thirdly, a clear power vertical of state bodies in the religious sphere should be built. All local bodies in charge of religious matters should be subordinate to the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, and this State Service itself is subordinate to the Cabinet of Ministers. This decision was already made on 6 December. This is a preparation of the state machime for the fact that decisions in the sphere of religion made by the Cabinet of Ministers will be immediately implemented on the ground, without taking into account the opinion of local authorities. Drawing a topical analogy, we can say that the "electricity" for religious organizations throughout the country will be turned on and off at once with one switch.

Fourthly, the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience should ensure “the conduct of a religious examination of the Statute in terms of the management of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for any church-canonical connection with the Moscow Patriarchate and, if necessary, take the measures provided for by law.”

Here again the question arises – by what criteria will the presence or absence of a church-canonical connection / communion be determined? Moreover, who exactly will conduct this examination?

Given the dismissal of Olena Bohdan, it can be assumed that the new head will be a person who will definitely find a connection between the UOC and the ROC. Anyway, how can this be done?

Is the belonging of the UOC and the ROC to Orthodoxy a canonical connection or not? Even among non-biased religious scholars (who probably do not exist in Ukraine at all) there is no common opinion about what a canonical communion is, where it begins and where it ends. As regards state officials, they are even more incompetent in such matters. They can only analyze the statutory documents on formal grounds, the participation of the bishops of the ROC in the governing bodies of the UOC (or vice versa), or confirm the absence of such facts. However, officials cannot determine what is canonical and what is not by definition. This means that this paragraph also contains a loophole for bureaucratic arbitrariness, a possibility to make this or that decision out of considerations of political will, rather than the real state of affairs.

Fifthly, law enforcement agencies should "activate measures to identify and counter the subversive activities of Russian special services in the religious environment of Ukraine." That is, searches and checks should be continued with renewed vigor. The UOC, in principle, has nothing against it, again, if not for one but. All these events must be carried out strictly within the law and not be accompanied by baseless accusations or even hints, which are then replicated in the media to denigrate the UOC. This is not to mention the cases when, on the eve of searches, compromising evidence is planted in the premises of the UOC by unknown (or perhaps well-known) persons.

Sixthly, personal sanctions should be introduced against a number of individuals, while the SBU and the National Bank should ensure the implementation of these sanctions. The list published a little later includes: Archdeacon of the UOC, MP Vadim Novinsky; abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Metropolitan Pavel (Lebed), as well as 8 bishops of the UOC, mainly those who were in the Crimea and other occupied territories of Ukraine.

We are somehow already used to the fact that the NSDC imposes sanctions against citizens of Ukraine, which per se is very doubtful from a legal point of view. If these persons are guilty of violating Ukrainian legislation, criminal cases should be opened against them, and the court should pass a fair sentence based on legally collected evidence. There is nothing of this, and therefore we can only state that the constitutional right of every citizen to a fair trial is violated.

Methods of pressure on the UOC

Searches in monasteries, churches and diocesan administrations are not carried out as part of criminal cases, but as some sort of counterintelligence activities. This means that the procedural rules for conducting searches are not respected. There are no attesting witnesses, no lawyers, no protocol of searches, and so on. Anything can be found in these conditions.

A striking example is the news about a video with "child pornography", which was allegedly spotted on the laptop of the diocesan administration of the Chernivtsi-Bukovyna diocese. According to the head of the diocese, Metropolitan Meletiy, these computers were inaccessible for 4 hours to the employees of the diocese, being in the hands of the people who conducted the searches and who eventually “discovered” pornography, preparations for a conspiracy, and so on in the same vein.

This should also include the scandal with the "leaked" photographs in the shorts of the secretary of the diocese, Archimandrite (now bishop) Nikita (Storozhuk) and one of the altar servers. It is not difficult to undress someone at gunpoint, get him to face the wall, and then take a picture of him. However, it can be said with a high degree of probability that nothing of the kind would have happened if the searches had been carried out in compliance with the procedural legislation.

During the searches, compromising materials planted by previously unknown people are found. This was the case in the Korets Monastery and other places, when leaflets with a photograph of Patriarch Kirill and a compiled text were discovered there.

Leaflets with sermons of Patriarch Kirill. Photo: SBU

Metropolitan Meletiy, Metropolitan Theodosiy of Cherkasy, rector of the church in Glinsk, Fr. Vasily Nachev reported that the stuff, which had been discovered during the searches, was planted. But even if the SBU investigates these cases (of which there is no certainty) and confirms the fact of forgery, the narrative about the “Russian world” in the UOC has already been ventilated in the media space.

In the reports published upon the completion of counterintelligence activities, one can easily notice the discrepancy between the photo and the text. For example, “The SBU also found warehouses with wholesale batches of pro-Kremlin literature, which praises the aggressor country and calls to support the occupiers.” What do we see in the photo?

Searches in the Chernivtsi-Bukovyna diocese. Photo: SBU

These are: "Children's Bible", "Primer for Public Schools", "Catechism in Pictures", "Pastoral Conversations with Children", "Prayer Rule". Where is the support for Russian aggression here?

That is, the publications that have nothing to do with the war against Ukraine are cited as “evidence” of serious criminal offenses. Seriously?

Conclusions

All this suggests the planned nature of actions, when the result is already known in advance, and the "fact" is only “customized”.

It is also impossible not to notice that the black PR campaign of the UOC began after the meeting of the Holy Synod on November 23, 2022, from which, according to some media reports, the authorities expected decisions to unite or at least rapproch with the OCU. None of this occurred.

Metropolitan Meletiy says that pressure on the Chernivtsi diocese is pressure on His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry personally in order to force him to join the OCU, because the Primate of the UOC used to be the head of the Chernivtsi diocese for many years. Consequently, all the compromising evidence that was allegedly found there casts a shadow on the UOC Primate personally. Bishop Meletiy also said he was hinted that if he agreed to unite with the OCU, then "this whole circus would stop."

Therefore, we can assume that we are dealing with attempt No. 2 to drive everyone into the OCU. Attempt No. 1 was made during the time of P. Poroshenko and was not crowned with success. The vast majority of the clergy and believers remained faithful to the UOC. It seems that attempt No. 2 will have the same result.

What can be done in today's situation?

First, to rally around His Beatitude Onuphry and our diocesan bishops; not to succumb to provocations or believe unsubstantiated accusations. So far, the UOC is acting exactly in that way. For example, the same Archimandrite Nikita (Storozhuk), who was put against the wall in an unsightly appearance and was virally accused of sodomy in the media, was ordained Bishop of Ivano-Frankivsk on December 4, 2022. This means that neither the believers nor the hierarchy believed the accusations and did not follow the lead of the enemies of the Church.

Secondly, it is necessary to act strictly in the legal field and compell all actors to do the same. It is necessary to report procedural violations where they occur. One needs to defend their case by all legal means: write complaints, file lawsuits, record and document everything, demand a refutation of baseless accusations through the court.

Thirdly, on the basis of the collected evidence base, one should appeal to international human rights organizations, draw the attention of the international community to violations of the rights of Ukrainian citizens to freedom of conscience and religion. Since Ukraine has declared its adherence to European human rights standards, it is necessary to ensure that these standards be actually honored.

But most importantly, under any most difficult circumstances, one should forever bear in mind the words of the Lord “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (Matthew 28:20).